Agenda and Minutes

Mike Besson, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Mike and the entire GC thanked Don Ament and the Condon family for hosting the previous night's barbecue. Maryanne Bach introduced Mary Doyle, Assistant Secretary of Water and Science for the Department of Interior. Mary gave a brief history of her background and noted that the Cooperative Agreement is a model for other multi-jurisdictional efforts. Other opening business included Jon Altenhofen reminding people of the Tamarack tour and distributing a map to the site. Mike Besson and the entire GC also recognized the past efforts of Jim Lutey, Joe Webster, and Patty Beneke. Mike noted that the discussion related to ESA Nexus would be moved up on the agenda and would occur immediately after approval of the minutes.

The draft minutes from the March Governance Committee (GC) meeting were reviewed. No changes were suggested and the minutes were approved by consensus.

ESA No Action Alternative

Bob McCue, FWS, gave a report outlining the No Action Alternative included in the EIS. This alternative results if there is no Program and is intended for use as a comparative tool. See attachment provided by Bob for the synopsis of his presentation.

After Bob McCue's report Mike Besson asked what the benchmarks for individual consultations would be. Bob responded that the initial 417,000 acre-feet and 29,000 acres would be the benchmarks. Margot Zallen stressed that as long as there is a Program, the 417,000 acre-feet is off the table for the Program but not for the no action alternative. Roger Patterson and others asked if the EIS will contain both a No Action alternative as well as a description of current conditions. Curt Brown noted that No Action as well as other alternatives (e.g., proposed Program) would be displayed and that the current conditions will be described but will not be used as a baseline. The No Action is considered the result if no Program is implemented.

There was some discussion related to timing and workload considerations in conducting individual consultations. If there is a Program, it is to serve as the RPA. It was noted that with a Program there would be a general "boiler plate" for simplifying the paper work process. Brian Barels asked if federal agencies in the Platte basin would need a future depletion plan. Some in attendance felt that the state plans would cover these depletions and others felt the state plans were not necessarily covering all federal depletions. There was also some concern regarding federal actions resulting in deminimis depletions and the need to include these in a depletion plan. There was also concern raised that the federal nexus appears to be expanding into areas not traditionally included.

Land Advisory Committee

Dale Strickland went over the progress made in developing a Land Advisory Committee charter since the March GC meeting. Dale explained that the small subgroup established at the March meeting is currently reviewing a straw-dog charter drafted by the Executive Director's office and comments are due May 10. Dale noted that the subgroup had met for breakfast to discuss what process will be used in developing the charter. The subgroup will use an iterative process in which the Executive Director's office makes changes to drafts and re-distributes the revised draft to the subgroup for further review. Paul Matson will represent the Land Committee on the subgroup and the draft charter will be presented at the June 12 Land Committee meeting and June 29 GC meeting. Points brought up during discussion have included the need to involve the existing Land Committee as much as possible, establish a proper selection process for members (agency and local representatives), and determine the general function of the committee (advisory).

R3-1 Document

Mark Butler described the discussions related to the R3-1 Document held at the Technical Committee on April 24 and 25. Mark explained that the R3-1 Document looks at data and analysis needed to ascertain the biological response to the mitigation measures currently outlined in the proposed Program (i.e., 130-150 KAF and 10,000 acres) and is not for compliance. The document does not say what the data needs are for the second increment or what data should be collected if other mitigation measures are undertaken.

Concern was raised that the document precludes other information sources and relies too heavily on the Joint Study. Mark noted that the document uses Joint Study information as the starting point, but does not solely rely upon it for analysis. If mitigation measures other than those in the proposed Program are implemented, the FWS will want to know how the species respond to those measures. The Program may decide to do more than what is outlined in the R3-1 Document for consideration by the FWS. Mike Besson asked if the R3-1 Document will be peer reviewed under milestone R4-1. Mark and Dale responded that the TC is still reviewing the document and discussions related to peer review will occur at the May TC meeting.

Deb Freeman asked how the R3-1 Document interfaces with the R1-1 baseline document. Mark explained that the R1-1 document will outline what is known and what is not known related to each species and its habitat. Paul Tebbel noted that the R3-1 Document outlines what the FWS needs to know and what they will be using to evaluate the biological response to the Program. This, and development of protocols, will help fully develop the baseline document. Dale also noted that the R3-1 Document will lead to a 'minimum' protocol list and will have budgetary implications.

Paul Currier asked what will happen if the Program does something not currently considered in the R3-1 Document through adaptive management. Mark Butler responded it was not known at this time but that FWS does not want to preclude new developments and will be interested in evaluating the new information. It was suggested that the document incorporate more direct language related to these types of adaptive management implications early in the document. This would allow consideration of new measures and the ability of the Program to adapt to the habitat available.

Milestone Schedule

Dale distributed a large chart outlining current progress for all milestones. He noted that progress is being made and milestones should be completed by December 31, 2000. Most products have been given to the EIS Team with the exception of the Water Action Plan and future depletion plans for Nebraska, Wyoming, and Colorado's North Platte Basin. Dale also noted that the GC needs to start considering how they will review and develop first increment milestones currently drafted by the FWS. The draft milestones will be re-circulated for review. Reviews will be due May 31 to Dale and he will forward them to the FWS with copies to GC members.

The GC discussed the need to form a drafting committee to actually pull together all documents and write the Program. The EIS Team would benefit from a draft Program as well as the states during public meetings. Margot Zallen suggested the GC form a drafting committee to review and revise the proposed Program documents and identify issues needing resolution. The GC formed a drafting committee, which includes Wendy Weiss, Deb Freeman, Mike Besson, Mike Purcell, Mary Jane Graham, and Margot Zallen. Nebraska noted that they may assign another individual to the committee and Paul Currier asked that he be kept informed as an environmental representative.

Alternative Status Report Schedule

Maryanne Bach discussed the concerns raised at the last GC meeting regarding the distribution of the Alternative Status Report (ASR) and Water Action Plan (WAP) at about the same time. Maryanne noted that she and Ralph Morgenweck discussed possible remedies with representatives from each state. It was decided that the DOI will give an oral presentation to the GC at the May meeting and will delay distribution of the written document until after June 15th. This will allow the states to conduct public meetings for WAP discussion during the first two weeks of June with knowledge of what is contained in the ASR. The ASR will be posted electronically on the Internet in mid-June and comments will be taken until distribution of the Draft EIS. It was noted that the necessary time needed to print the Draft EIS would shorten the ASR comment period. Curt Brown noted that the purpose of the ASR was to give the GC an early look at the information on the alternatives in the Draft EIS. Some at the meeting requested a printed copy to review before the report went to the public, but Curt responded that was not possible because of legal constraints under NEPA.

Future Depletion Plans

Dayle Williamson reported that Nebraska representatives continue to meet and work on Nebraska's future depletion plan. Jim Cook noted that they will provide a draft document to the EIS Team that will be in sufficient detail for EIS analysis by May 15. The draft will show where the state currently is in developing the plan, but a final plan will not be possible until completion of the Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) in 2001. Concern was raised regarding implications if there are significant changes between the draft analyzed in the EIS and the final plan.

Mike Besson reported that Wyoming's future depletion plan is nearing completion. The process is complicated by the Nebraska v. Wyoming lawsuit and Wyoming's lawyers will not permit release of some details. The plan presents hypothetical scenarios and numbers for use by the EIS Team in analyzing the process. A written report will be provided by May 15, but like Nebraska's, it may change slightly upon finalization.

Colorado reported that their North Platte Basin draft depletion plan remains as presented in January. Colorado continues to develop accounting and reporting into the plan.

John Lawson reported that the Water Management Committee is prepared to review the depletion plans when directed to by the GC. Review of these plans will follow the same process as review of Colorado's South Platte Future Depletion Plan.

Subcommittee Reports

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, Water Management Committee (WMC) Chair, provided the report. John reported that the tracking and accounting information provided by the WMC has been incorporated into the latest draft Water Action Plan. If changes are made to the tracking and account, it should be done as part of the Action Plan. John noted that the WMC discussed progress on milestones and most of that discussion was covered earlier. John explained the WMC plans regarding milestone W13-3 "Peer review of depletion impact analysis and water monitoring measures." John said that the WMC plans these reviews as administrative reviews similar to what was done for Colorado's South Platte Future Depletion Plan. He noted that there remains uncertainty regarding what should be reviewed regarding "water monitoring measures". The WMC discussed what possible functions and role a Water Committee would have once a Program is in place. The WMC will provide ideas to the GC for consideration. The WMC asked Curt Brown to present information related to the South Platte model at the May meeting.

Water Action Plan Committee

John Lawson reported that the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) met on April 26, 2000. John reported that the WAPC is currently reviewing revision No. 3 of the draft Water Action Plan. John noted that the process for adding new projects as well as moving projects from reconnaissance level to implementation level, tracking and accounting measures, and the state principles are included in this revision. The current Action Plan contains projects with an estimated yield of 56,300 AF and does not take into consideration cumulative impacts of the projects and that this will be handled through the EIS. During the meeting Nebraska identified additional potential projects for inclusion in the report that brings the total amount to 62,600 acre-feet. Nebraska is considering a change in the amount of water being reserved for future depletions. With this addition, and considering 80,000 acre-feet from the three state projects, the total water available is about 140,000 acre-feet. There was some discussion regarding project costs and certainty. John noted that any method to recognize projects with varying degrees of certainty should be handled through the state meetings.

John outlined the schedule for delivering the Water Action Plan to the GC and ultimately to the EIS Team. Revision No. 4 will be delivered to the WAPC by Federal Express on May 8. A conference call with the WAPC will be held on May 16 at 9:00 AM MDT. The WAPC plans to present the draft Action Plan at the May 25 meeting and then it will be available for the state public meetings in June. After public meetings a final Water Action Plan will be provided in July.

Mike Besson noted that a significant amount of time was spent at the WAPC meeting discussing Forest Management. There was strong opposition voiced at the WAPC meeting from the environmental representatives for inclusion of forest management in the Water Action Plan. It was agreed to remove forest management as an alternative, but that the Water Action Plan would include language related to future depletions and concern regarding the baseline. The FWS will coordinate discussions with the Forest Service. There was concern raised during the GC meeting that the Forest Service is not managing the forest as agreed to in existing management plans. John noted that Ralph Morgenweck would be discussing forest management and its relation to ESA and the proposed Program with the Forest Service.

Nebraska and Wyoming expressed concern that the draft Water Action Plan review schedule is very tight and that their water users may have significant comments during the June meetings.

State Meeting

Kent Holsinger provided the report. Kent noted that many of the same topics discussed by John Lawson during the WAPC report were discussed at the State Meeting including process, editorial comments to Water Action Plan, the issue of recognizing certainty in projects, and how federal projects are covered in depletion plans. The GC spent some time discussing various aspects of federal depletions and the example of forest management was given. Many federal projects are intended to be covered by the Program including BOR and Corps projects. There was some concern that items such as national wildlife refuges were not currently in the Program and that this may be more of an issue than previously thought.

Land Committee

Rhodell Jameson, Land Committee Co-Chair, reported on progress related to the Third Party Impacts report being prepared. Lisa McDonald of Hazen and Sawyer met with a professor from the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, who has expressed concerns about the report. Many of the concerns related to format and can be easily addressed. One concern was the use of a frozen baseline for the 20-year period. With a frozen baseline, items such as development and potential development are not considered in assessed values. It was noted that this issue was discussed before the study was conducted and that the decision was made to project the existing condition into the future as a baseline. It was also pointed out that if Lisa needs to run the analysis with a different baseline, a budget revision/extension might be required. Rhodell noted that there are also some concerns related to differences in numbers as they related to agriculture in the report; therefore, further discussion is needed. Both parties feel the concerns can be worked out. Vernon Nelson, Land Committee Co-Chair, reported on the Land Ownership Entity and White Paper Supplement provided by Mary Jane Graham. Comments on the Supplement are due to Dale Strickland by May 12, 2000. The subcommittee will meet in late May to discuss the Supplement and draft a recommendation for the May 25 GC meeting. A presentation on the Land Ownership Entity issue will be included at the June 12 LC meeting. Dale noted that the Habitat Protection Plan Task Force will be meeting in June to start fleshing out the approved outline. The Land Committee anticipates presenting the "land component" at the June GC meeting.

Technical Committee

Paul Tebbel provided the Technical Committee (TC) report. The TC met April 24 and 25 with the main discussion topic being the R3-1 Document. Paul described how the document fits together with the other monitoring and research milestones, and noted that the document is a good general framework that can allow for adaptive management. Paul explained the TC review schedule for the document. The FWS has agreed to respond to all comments and this may delay presentation of the R3-1 Document to the GC until the August meeting. The GC asked how peer review fits into R3-1 and Paul responded that the TC needs to complete its review before recommending peer review and method of peer review. Dale noted that it might be possible to review the entire monitoring and research component and not just portions such as the R3-1 document.

Paul noted that the TC discussed preparing a pre-proposal to conduct aerial photography of the central Platte for presentation at the next FC meeting. The TC also discussed a Concept Sampling Plan for monitoring and how that will fit into protocol development.

The GC spent some time discussing the R1-1 (baseline) Milestone. It was noted that the TC as well as the FWS feels the current draft document cannot serve as a quantitative baseline for the Program. Development of the R3-1 Document and protocols will help clarify needs and information for the baseline document. Paul Currier noted that he views the R1-1 milestone as a FWS document and that there may not be complete agreement on the final product. Others felt that the document was to be developed cooperatively and would need GC agreement. Bob McCue noted that the FWS sees R1-1 as needing GC agreement.

Outreach Committee

Jerry Vandersnick provided the Outreach Committee (OC) report. Jerry noted that he was volunteered to serve as the new OC Chair but he first needed to be added to the OC by the GC. Jerry was added and officially became OC Chair. Jerry asked if the states wanted assistance in outreach efforts related to the ASR and WAP releases and the states noted they would handle the efforts or contact Jerry if needed. Wyoming and Colorado will request newspaper inserts in late summer or early fall to help explain the WAP and Program. Jerry noted that a question/answer brochure has been printed that discusses the Environmental Account.

Finance Committee

Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, provided the report. Dayle went through invoices to-date and provided handouts outlining the GC monthly status report, contributions and disbursements, and Year 3 expenditures (see attachments). Dayle reported that the FC agreed with the 4th Quarter Funding agreements recommended by each committee. The FC discussed and agreed with extending the contract with Mary Jane Graham and Conservation Partners to allow Marty Zeller to analyze possible Land Interest Holding Entity options for the Program. The FC also agreed to extend the Executive Director's contract for six months and a proposed budget will be presented at the next FC meeting. Dayle noted that the FC spent the most time discussing the Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research proposal. The FC agreed to conditionally fund a monitoring and research project at NPPD's Cottonwood Ranch Property. The conditions of the funding include 1) design and protocols for project will be TC consensus documents, 2) full TC involvement in design, 3) system of checks and balances for TC (Dale is working on these), and 4) FC needs to kept informed of progress. The FC will still need to approve funds before actual expenditures are made.

Milestone Reports

Quarterly written reports will be provided by each state. Lynn Holt request electronic copies be supplied to her for posting on web site.

Wyoming - Mike Besson reported no change in Wyoming's milestones.

Colorado - Don Ament reported they are working on accounting and reporting issues as well as working on securing legislative support.

Nebraska - Dayle Williamson reported no change in Nebraska's milestones.

Department of the Interior - Bob McCue reported that most FWS milestones were covered earlier today. Mark Butler noted that FWS is continuing work on Milestone P3-1 (first increment milestone recommendations). The Executive Director's office will redistribute the October 1998 version of this document for GC review. The GC will have until May 31 for comment.

Open Comment Period

Carroll Sheldon addressed the Governance Committee (GC). Carroll noted that he had no problem with the States or their representatives only with the FWS. Carroll had concerns with statements made by Ralph Morgenweck and others in an April 27 article in the Omaha World Herald and said that the statements have made enemies with more farmers. Carroll suggested that he would not have his home phone number listed if he were a FWS employee. Carroll asked Mike Besson to respond to the demands relating to water quality issues that he read into the GC record at the October 15, 1999 meeting. Mike responded that none of the demands were acted on. Carroll presented a water sample that he said was collected in the central Platte valley. Carroll noted that he had placed some in all of the water glasses at the meeting. Carroll reported that the water was near acid due to high levels of waterfowl fecal material and would kill an individual before they got home if they drank some and would remove their skin before they got home if they washed with it. Carroll provided 10 copies of a statement (one for each official GC representative) that he read. The statement related to possible water contamination due to high waterfowl numbers and asked for action by the FWS through the GC to resolve the perceived problem. Carroll noted that if GC agrees with the minimum amount of 130,000 acre-feet of water and 10,000 acres of habitat, he would advise his constituents to cooperate with the Program. If not, Carroll said that he would call a Land Committee meeting and recommend expenditure of $500,000 to study water and land quality issues through the Cooperative Agreement/proposed Program.

Future Governance Committee Meetings

May 24 - Water Action Plan, Herschler Bldg, Room 1699, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

May 25 - Regular GC meeting, Herschler Bldg, Room 1699, Cheyenne, Wyoming.

June 28 - Water Action Plan, Ramada Inn, Ogallala, Nebraska

June 29 - Regular GC meeting, Ogallala, Nebraska

July - No meeting

August 2 - Water Action Plan, Colorado, site to be determined

August 3 - Regular GC meeting, Colorado, site to be determined.

September 13 - Water Action Plan, Wyoming, site to be determined

September 14 - Regular GC meeting, Wyoming, site to be determined

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned.