Final Minutes

February 24, 2000
Laramie County Community College
Cheyenne, Wyoming

Agenda and Minutes

Mike Besson, Governance Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. The agenda was modified to delay the Land Ownership Entity workshop report to a later meeting when Paul Matson, subcommittee chair, could attend.

Mike Besson and the entire Governance Committee (GC) recognized Larry Todd for his hard work with the Cooperative Agreement and wished him good luck with his new position in Washington D.C. Larry introduced Mark Schaefer and Maryanne Bach and indicated that he would remain indirectly involved with the GC from his new post. Mark and Maryanne will be two of the Department of Interior representatives to the GC. Mike Besson noted that Dayle Williamson agreed to take over Larry Todd's position as Finance Committee chair. General introductions were made.

The draft minutes of the January Goverance Committee (GC) meeting were reviewed. Wording changes were suggested and the minutes were approved as changed by consensus.

EIS Alternatives Analysis

Curt Brown distributed information related to alternatives currently under evaluation by the Platte River EIS Team (see attachment). Curt reminded the group of the presentation and discussion at the last GC meeting regarding the models being used in the EIS. Curt explained that the EIS Team needs a range of reasonable alternatives to analyze in the EIS. The EIS alternatives will be based on many of the same concepts as the Cooperative Agreement, for example an incentive-based program. Curt noted that the Team is still working on the different elements found in the alternatives.

The first alternative discussed was the "No Action" alternative. Curt noted that the Endangered Species Act would still be in effect but Biological Opinions would be written for individual projects and the individual projects would be held accountable for mitigation. In response to a question during the presentation, Margot Zallen noted that under the No Action alternative, individual projects would be required to mitigate against the 417,000 acre-feet target flow shortages and 29,000 acres of habitat, not the 130,000-150,000 acre-feet and 10,000 acres of the first increment of the proposed Program.

Curt next presented information regarding analyses of the proposed Program. Curt noted that the EIS Team is considering three options to provide the remaining 7,500 acres of habitat. These options were block, segment, and scatter plans. The three options are primarily used to capture the different potential third party impacts but are also used to look at the cost and biological effectiveness of the proposed Program.

Curt presented information related to five other alternatives being considered by the Team. Each of the action alternatives assume the state depletion plans are in place and that there is some sort of cooperative program. The different action alternatives varied from emphasizing more land/habitat to emphasizing more water. Curt noted that the Team is still analyzing and considering weather modification and forest management as elements for the various alternatives. Water produced through these practices would not be able to be protected but would be used to increase natural flows.

Meeting participants asked Curt several questions and for clarification of some points. Curt provided more information and clarified the Sediment Augmentation Plan included in one of the alternatives. Curt said that the Sediment Augmentation Plan looks at clearing a large section of river near the upper end of the project to provide a source of sediment throughout the study area at a cost of $1.0 million. Short duration pulse flows would be used to manage the cleared areas and to free sediment. The duration of sediment supply was not known. Another topic discussed was the reliance on stored water in the various alternatives, Curt noted that it is unknown at this time if this is possible. Brian Barels asked if the analysis will look at individual project impact or just proposed Program impacts. Curt responded that the analysis is based more on the assumptions of each project and that the assumptions will be described in the EIS. This will give some indication of individual project responsibility for proposed Program impacts.

Larry Todd gave a brief update on the EIS schedule (included in the attachment containing Curt Brown's information). Larry noted that the EIS Team anticipates completing and distributing the Formulation Status Report in late April to mid-May. The later completion date will allow the States time to meet with legislators and other Cooperative Agreement participants to meet with their constituents. The draft EIS is planned for July, final EIS in November, and Record of Decision signed in January. To meet this schedule the Team needs the proposed Program, including the Water Action Plan, and State Depletion Plans, and all other information by May 15.

Extending Cooperative Agreement

Larry Todd opened the discussion by noting that the Cooperative Agreement allows for a six-month extension if necessary to complete NEPA and ESA review. He reminded the group of the EIS schedule that he had just presented and noted that the Draft EIS is not anticipated before July and the Record of Decision in January. This would closely correspond with a six-month extension. Mike Besson and others noted that it might not be possible for the states and Water Action Plan Committee to have the necessary information to the EIS Team by May 15. If this happens it may be better to extend the Cooperative Agreement further than six-months under the current administration and not wait until after the election.

Mary Jane Graham expressed concern regarding what happens to Central's FERC license if an official Program is not signed before January 1 and the Cooperative Agreement ends on December 31, 2000, with the six-month extension. Mary Jane explained that the FERC license has provisions in it that automatically go into effect and change the EA and other obligations if there is not a Program or Cooperative Agreement in effect. Mike Besson and other state representatives also noted that they will need time to take any proposed Program and EIS to their representatives for review and approval before the governors would sign. This along with state budget session limitation may cause timing conflicts with a starting date for any Program and meeting the EIS schedule will not solve all problems. It was noted that the draft EIS is planned for July 2000 and this might give states and others enough time to review and get buy-in from constituents.

Margot Zallen noted that if needed, the parties to the FERC relicensing, including the Department of Interior, might ask the FERC for an extension on the District's license article related to the Program implementation date. Margot also explained a possible scenario in which the Secretary of the Interior could sign the agreement to implement the Program (if deemed acceptable to DOI) in early January, contingent on all Governors signing the agreement by a date certain. This would give the states time to obtain any necessary legislative approval. Margot agreed to draft a timeline for EIS and Program activities (see attachment). The Executive Director's contract will also be negotiated for an extension beyond July 1, 2000. The GC agreed that since more time was needed for NEPA and ESA, as explained by Larry Todd, the Cooperative Agreement would be extended for six months and to discuss any further extensions, if needed, in May when more information is available.

Proposed Program Budget

Larry Todd and Dale Strickland explained the process that the Finance Committee (FC) used to determine budget ceilings for land, water, monitoring and research, and administration for the proposed Program. Dale explained that to remain within the proposed $75 million budget in the Cooperative Agreement, and considering obligated expenditures, there is approximately $46 million to spend on proposed Program activities. The committees have been asked to determine what can be accomplished given their respective budget ceilings.

Dale Strickland briefly explained the processes that the different committees are using to address this task. Dale reported that the Technical Committee (TC) would look at removing some protocols/activities where there was doubt about their need in the original budget estimate. The TC will also remove protocols that are likely to be implemented by some other entity (e.g., Nebraska Game and Parks). At their meeting on March 2, the TC will be using a spreadsheet to rank the various protocols and determine what can be accomplished within the budget ceiling. The Habitat Protection Planning Subcommittee that estimated that original land component budget agreed at their last meeting that there is not currently a basis for making budget revisions. Since that meeting, the USFWS has provided information regarding the acquisition of lands similar to those expected in the Program and arrived at an estimate approximately $3 million lower than the original estimate. This information, along with other information available on land acquisition costs, will be used to make adjustments in such items as taxes and to lower the overall land component budget further. Dale reported that the Water Action Plan Committee did not have time at their last meeting to address the water component budget. Dale and John Lawson will draft a set of options for providing water within budget ceilings for committee review. Dale noted that he would be make adjustments in the administrative budget estimate and would report what could be accomplished within the budget ceiling.

Dale indicated he is attempting to reconstruct the basis for the $75 million estimate during negotiations. Hopefully, this will help explain what items were and what items that were not included in the budget estimate. It was noted that the initial estimate may have missed some items and that now a better estimate could be made; however, items were still likely to be missed in a revised budget estimate. Several participants noted that the states have committed to spending a certain amount as documented in the Cooperative Agreement and to ask for more will require justifications on what can be done with the current budget and where more is needed. Colorado asked if other items in the Cooperative Agreement, such as First Increment water objectives, were negotiable. An in-depth budget discussion will occur at the next GC meeting. Dale asked that GC members involved in the Cooperative Agreement negotiations provide him with their recollection of the basis for the $75 million.

Pallid Sturgeon

Dr. Ed Peters, University of Nebraska, gave a slide presentation on the history, biology, and his recent research of pallid sturgeon (see attachment). Dr. Peters reported that two larval pallid sturgeon were found in 1999 in the Missouri River and that this was the first documented natural reproduction in many years. The late date of the discovery (in August) also expanded the spawning time for pallid sturgeon. Dr. Peters explained the recent pallid sturgeon releases and telemetry studies in the lower Platte River and presented some of the information from the studies. Dr. Peters reported that his research is attempting to better describe the physical and chemical conditions of the pallid sturgeon's habitat in the river. Future research efforts were also discussed and include more telemetry studies, intensive sampling of the lower Platte River, and comparison of habitat between hatchery and wild fish. Future research is also planned to look at comparing pallid sturgeon habitat use to habitat use by shovelnose sturgeon, sturgeon chub, and flathead chub; identify relationships between sturgeon habitat use and river discharge; and continued larval fish studies. After Dr. Peters presentation there was a brief question and answer period.

Subcommittee Reports

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, Water Management Committee (WMC) Chair, provided the report. The WMC continues to work on tracking and accounting issues. The WMC plans to use existing state tracking and accounting systems as the basis for the proposed Program's system. John noted that the WMC is working on a system for tracking and accounting for projects in the Water Action Plan and other potential projects resulting from the proposed Program. If needed, the EIS Team will have to contact the States directly regarding potential operation of other alternatives considered in the EIS. John indicated that one representative from each state was asked to see that text is prepared describing each states system for inclusion in the Water Action Plan. Another topic discussed at the WMC meeting was the development of a web site that can be used to link all online information related to reservoir levels, flow rates, etc. for the Platte Basin. Mike Drain volunteered to investigate development of the web site. The WMC also discussed remaining budget requirements during the Cooperative Agreement. Jon Altenhofen noted that the WMC also discussed what the process would likely be for input and acceptance of Nebraska's, Wyoming's, and Colorado's North Platte River future depletion plans. The GC agreed that when sufficient progress had been made, the process would be similar to that followed for Colorado's South Platte Future Depletion Plan. Action items included requesting documents from states to aid in drafting a tracking and accounting system for the Program and inviting the Environmental Account manager to participate in WMC meetings.

Water Action Plan Committee

John Lawson reported that the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) met on February 23, 2000. The WAPC spent most of their meeting discussing comments received by Boyle Engineering on the draft Water Action memo. The first comment discussed was Nebraska's need to reserve 50% of the yields from several of their projects to offset future depletions. Boyle's memo used Dan Luecke's assumption that Nebraska would reserve 30% to offset new depletions. With the change in percentages the total amount of reductions to target flows identified in the memo went from 70.6 KAF to 54.1 KAF. John noted that the goal of the WAPC was to identify 60-80 KAF and that they are not there yet. John also noted that Dan Luecke has stated that the environmentalist will not be satisfied with only 60 KAF because some project may not be implemented. The Action Plan will need to identify enough water to satisfy Program goals so amendments to the EIS are not needed in the future. John said that the WAPC does not have a Water Action Plan, they only have a memo drafted by Boyle. The Water Action Plan will not only be a list of projects but will also contain information on third party impacts, process, and other information.

The EIS Team presented preliminary yield results and information on the cumulative modeling of the projects identified in Boyle's memo along with the three state projects - Tamarack, Pathfinder Modification, and the Environmental Account. When modeled together, the three state projects and the projects in Boyle's memo received a total "score" of approximately 134 KAF. John reported that the modeling showed that the score of the three state projects was 80 KAF. Thus, the score from projects in Boyle's memo were reduced from approximately 70.6 KAF to 54 KAF. The EIS Team will be providing a written narrative of the assumptions, methods, and results of their modeling.

John reported that the WAPC asked Boyle to assist in developing an outline for the Water Action Plan. He indicated that the WAPC would proceed with drafting the Water Action Plan and still expects to provide the GC an Action Plan by May 15. John noted that there is some concern regarding Boyle Engineering's existing budget and that they may need a budget augmentation if more work is requested of them. There was discussion regarding when Boyle would need any new projects and the level of detail needed for the Water Action Plan that would be presented to the GC on May 15. It was noted that Boyle would likely need the list of projects by the March meeting. Caution was given that projects will likely change as the process moves from the current reconnaissance level to the feasibility level to the implementation level.

After John's report on the WAPC meeting, he reported on what he had heard regarding the meeting held by the three states to discuss water issues. John noted that Nebraska had identified another 2 KAF that they could provide through "net controllable conserved water", Colorado may be able to show an increased yield from Tamarack when their analysis is by the end of March, and all three states agreed that the Water Action Plan needs to include 10 KAF from forest management. The states recognized that the water produced by forest management would not be protected but could result in more natural flows into reservoirs if enough additional water is produced. Nebraska also discussed the possibility of revisiting their decision to reserve 50% of the yield from certain projects if they can get a better handle on their new depletions offset obligations by mid-May.

Land Committee

Rhodell Jameson, Land Committee (LC) Co-Chair, provided the report. Rhodell reported on the success of the Land Ownership Entity workshop and noted that Marty Zeller would be holding a short workshop the night before the March 23 GC meeting to discuss and get input on various types of entities that could be used to hold land. Mary Jane Graham would be providing a short addendum to the White Paper that succinctly describes the consensus decisions made at the workshop. This will be done instead of Mary Jane working with CDR to produce a revised white paper. Information from Mary Jane's addendum and CDR's report may be used to develop a Land Committee recommendation on the structure of the land component of the proposed Program. It was made clear that the GC wanted a draft charter for the "Land Advisory Committee" of the proposed Program. The GC will decide how to proceed with developing a charter once the Land Committee's recommendations are received.

Rhodell reported on the "Crane-Watcher Host Program" effort in Buffalo County (see attachment). The program brings together local landowners/producers as host families for crane watchers coming into the community. It is hoped that through the program crane watchers can get a better understanding and appreciation of the efforts and people whose livelihood depends on agriculture.

Dale Strickland briefly updated the GC on the Habitat Management Methods technical meeting held February 16-17. The meeting brought together species/habitat experts, landowners, and local habitat managers to discuss the best management practices to be used during the Program.

Technical Committee

In Paul Tebbel's absence, Dale Strickland gave the Technical Committee (TC) report using an outline provided by Paul. Dale reported that the TC discussed the need for peer review of Joint Study documents. It was noted that a great deal of information for the Cooperative Agreement and proposed Program is taken from these documents and that they have not been peer reviewed and were not developed through a consensus process. TC decided not to peer review the documents at this time.

Dale reported that the TC continues to work on a monitoring and research demonstration project for the Cottonwood Ranch Property. The TC feels that it is important to begin monitoring and research efforts and the best means to accomplish this is through a demonstration project. The TC will likely ask for action at the next FC meeting. The TC's proposal to have the Executive Director's budget augmented so that his office can assist in drafting monitoring protocols was accepted by the FC. If the GC approves, the TC and Executive Director will begin work immediately on drafting the river geomorphology monitoring protocol so that it can be incorporated into the Cottonwood Ranch Property demonstration project.

Other items from the last TC meeting included a presentation from Jeff Marcus on the Least Tern and Piping Plover Protection Program currently ongoing in the lower Platte River region. The program focuses on public education and coordination of efforts to protect the birds nesting at sandpits. The TC will also discuss prioritizing monitoring and research efforts to see what can be accomplished under the budget ceiling determined by the FC. A similar effort will need to be done after the FWS distributes their R3-1 Document. The TC is also discussing the need to start taking aerial photographs for use during the Program.

Outreach Committee

Jeff Buettner, Outreach Committee (OC) Chair, provided the report. Jeff updated the GC on an ad to be placed in several Nebraska newspapers. The ad reminds the public of places to go for information and answers to questions related to the Cooperative Agreement. Jeff also mentioned that the OC is continuing to work on a brochure explaining the Environmental Account.

Finance Committee

Larry Todd, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, provided a report of the committee's conference call held February 22. Larry distributed a worksheet outlining contribution and disbursement transactions and as well as the GC's monthly status report (see attachments). Larry briefly went over the handouts and noted that the FC accepted the amount of $44,026.50 for February invoices. Larry also noted that the FC accepted the TC proposal to augment the Executive Director's budget by $64,400 to assisting the TC in drafting monitoring protocols.

Larry reported that the FC discussed the proposed Program budget during their meeting and that this was covered earlier today. Other items discussed during the conference call meeting included accepting the minor modification in Mary Jane Graham's scope of work and the acceptance of Dayle Williamson as new FC Chair. Colorado appointed Howard Propst as the State's official representative to the FC. Dale Strickland and Larry Schulz noted that they had met with individuals from the Nebraska Community Foundation and that the agreement with the foundation seemed to be working satisfactorily.

Milestone Reports

Wyoming - Mike Besson indicated that Wyoming continues to work on their Future Depletion Plan.

Colorado - Don Ament circulated a report describing Colorado's population growth (see attachment).

Nebraska - Dayle Williamson reported that Nebraska continues to work on their Future Depletion Plan.

Department of Interior - Ralph Morgenweck reported that the FWS is continuing work on Milestone R3-1. Curt Brown commented that the discussion of alternatives earlier in the meeting would be the milestone report from the EIS Team.

Open Comment Period

Margot Zallen asked Nebraska and Wyoming for a projected date for their respective future depletion plans. Representatives from both states were hopeful for May 15. Representatives from both states were hopeful that revised drafts of their plans could be provided by May 15.

John Shadle explained that the Cottonwood Ranch Property purchased by NPPD for purposes of their FERC license and as the first property of the proposed Program was to be approximately 2,650 acres. The actual size of the Ranch as purchased is approximately 2,770 acres. The FERC has asked NPPD to provide a figure (Exhibit G) that outlines the property boundary as well as the boundary to be considered as their licensing boundary. John asked for GC approval to amend the Cottonwood Ranch Development Plan and NPPD's license so that they do not include the 51-acre portion of the property north of Interstate 80 in the FERC license boundary (see attachment). GC approved by consensus.

Future Governance Committee Meetings

March 22 - Water Action Plan, Ramada Inn, Kearney, Nebraska

March 23 - Regular GC meeting, Ramada Inn, Kearney, Nebraska

April 26 - Water Action Plan, Sterling, Colorado

April 27 - Regular GC meeting, Sterling, Colorado

May 24 - Water Action Plan, Wyoming, site to be determined.

May 25 - Regular GC meeting, Wyoming, site to be determined.

June 28 - Water Action Plan, North Platte, Nebraska

June 29 - Regular GC meeting, North Platte, Nebraska

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:40 p.m.