Draft Minutes

Governance Committee Meeting

May 25, 2000
Herschler Building
Cheyenne WY

NOTE: This document is a draft based on one person's notes of the meeting. The official meeting minutes may be different if corrections are made by the committee before approval.

Agenda and Minutes

Mike Besson, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. The draft minutes from the April Governance Committee (GC) meeting were reviewed. Maryanne Bach and Margot Zallen suggested changes to the minutes (see attachment) and Dale Strickland went over suggested changes submitted prior to the meeting. The minutes as amended were approved by consensus. The agenda was modified to include time for discussion of a Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District's (CNPPID) FERC license requirement.

Coordination of CNPPID FERC License

Mike Drain gave a brief report to the GC related to a portion of CNPPID FERC license that requires them to provide estimates of net controlled conserved water to the GC. The GC or their delegates are allowed a minimum 30-day comment period after the report and estimates are provided. Mike suggested that the GC delegate the review task to the Water Management Committee (WMC). Mike suggested allowing the WMC 30 days to comment, with John Lawson compiling the comments for submission to CNPPID. Mike reported that Parsons Engineering would be providing a technical report to CNPPID shortly and that this would be provided to the WMC and/or GC. The WMC and/or GC would also be provided a letter from CNPPID to FERC for review.

Mark Butler asked for background related to the net controlled conserved water and the requirements in the FERC license. Mike Drain explained that CNPPID agreed, as part of a lawsuit, to undertake water conservation supply projects with a portion of the costs covered by the Bureau of Reclamation. As part of the FERC license, the net savings attributed to the BOR funding would be added to the Environmental Account at no cost to the Program. CNPPID is also to estimate the net conserved water amount attributed to CNPPID funds. CNPPID can then offer that amount to the Program at the costs associated with the measures taken. The report being discussed relates to current projects and additional projects will be added by 2002.

Both documents (letter from CNPPID and report from Parsons) will be supplied to the WMC and only the shorter letter will be distributed to the GC. John Lawson will receive all comments and formally present the comments to the GC. The official Cooperative Agreement response will be from the GC to the FERC.

Public Comment

Vernon Nelson noted that a concerned Land Committee member could not be present but wanted to convey the message that he would be at the next GC meeting to receive a full report on his earlier questions and demands.

Land Advisory Committee Charter Update

Dale Strickland reported that the Land Advisory Committee (LAC) Charter drafting committee had met for breakfast May 25 and that the committee was satisfied with the current draft as amended. The draft will be presented at the June 12 Land Committee meeting and then to the GC at their June 29 meeting. Issues resolved at the breakfast meeting included 1) determination of how local Nebraska representatives will be placed on the committee, 2) detailing that the LAC will maintain records and monitor compliance with Program milestones, and 3) determination of a quorum for meetings. Mary Jane Graham asked that the process for outreach functions be clearly stated in the charter. Concern was raised that local Nebraska representatives not be singled out for this process but all representatives should be charged with outreach efforts to their constituents. Outreach efforts will be included as part of the Purpose section in the Charter.

Future Depletion Plans

Mike Besson noted that Wyoming's future depletion plan is not ready for review by the WMC and then asked Mike Purcell to give a status report on development of the plan. Mike Purcell noted that Wyoming could not give details in their plan because of the Nebraska v Wyoming lawsuit. Now that the lawsuit status is changing, details may be added shortly. The latest draft of the plan will be provided to Curt Brown for inclusion in the EIS analysis. Mike Purcell noted that if Curt needs more information or details, he could contact the Wyoming representatives. Mike briefly explained how the plan had been edited since it was presented in Nebraska. Mike noted that there is still some concern by some regarding the implementation plan and hopefully this will be explained when the details can be included. Mike Purcell explained that the plan was sent to John Lawson and John sent the plan to Curt Brown.

Jim Cook explained that Nebraska's depletion plan is not in sufficient detail yet for WMC review but that Nebraska will help explain any questions that Curt Brown and others may have for EIS analysis. Jim noted that they are hopeful that a final plan can be presented before the end of the Cooperative Agreement. Margot Zallen noted that final plans and review by the WMC are needed before the plans can be attached to the Program document. Curt Brown explained that he would review the plans and develop lists of questions, if any, and discuss with the respective state.

Dan Luecke went over a comment submitted by Paul Currier. Paul, and the other environmental representatives, are concerned about the protection of pulse flows since the state plans focus on target flows for target species. Ralph Morgenweck said that the FWS would be working with the states to discuss the issue. Dan asked that the environmental representatives be included in the meeting.

John Lawson noted that he would make sure that Colorado's North Platte Basin Future Depletion Plan is transmitted to the EIS Team. John will distribute all the state plans to the GC and others requesting the information.

Program Drafting Committee Report

Mike Besson noted that Harriet Hageman would be Wyoming's new representative to the committee. Margot Zallen explained that the committee has met and had conference calls to review and revise the proposed Program and attachments. Margot explained what documents have been revised and noted that comments are due to the drafting committee by June 16. Margot noted that the Governance Committee structure document has been edited to include the ability to change milestones, as with other policy issues, with a super majority vote. Other documents worked on by the committee include a "heads-up" list for the GC and others of issues needing resolution, a list of attachments (chapters) to the Program, and the start of a milestone list.

NOTE: Decisions and committee assignments are focused on in this section and not the general discussion regarding each point. Margot and the GC reviewed the 16 point heads-up list (see attachment).

1. Time period for the First Increment: The GC agreed to 13 years for the length of the first increment.

2. Financial Issues: Finance Committee will develop a finance document explaining issues such as total Program cost estimates and allocation of financial contributions.

3. Projects covered by the Program: The states will consider during their meetings which projects they want covered by a Program.

4. Outreach for Land Issues: Each committee will include outreach as a task in appropriate places (e.g., charters).

5. Federal Actions Covered by the Program: States will need to determine what new federal action projects (e.g., Forest Service projects) they see being covered by their respective new depletion plans. The states and federal government will then discuss resolving any differences.

6 and 12. Program Management Structure: A subgroup of Maryanne Bach (chair), Mike Purcell, Dayle Williamson, Wendy Weiss, Dan Luecke, Deb Freeman, and Mary Jane Graham will draft the structure and relationship of an Executive Director and staff, GC, other committees, and contractors. This group will be assisted by Dale Strickland.

7. Water Verification Sections: John Lawson reported that the WMC will address and report back at the next GC meeting.

8. Institutional Protections/New Water Related Activities: John Lawson reported that the WMC would address.

9. Crediting for Land Activities: Finance Committee will address crediting issues. States and federal participants will each discuss how Section 7 should be handled if GC expires in December of 2000, and a Program is not immediately in place and if the 1997 Cooperative Agreement should be extended beyond December 31, 2000.

10. Third Party Impacts: There was some apparent confusion regarding direct impacts and indirect impacts. The Land Committee will make a recommendation regarding how third party impacts should be handled. The states indicated they would also address how mitigation of third party impacts are handled. It was agreed that for now the GC should use the policy statement that the proposed Program will attempt to avoid third party impacts.

11 and 16. Governance Document and GC authority to modify Program and Milestones: It was agreed that the GC should have the authority to revise milestones and completion dates.

13. Exit Strategy: A subgroup of Harriet Hageman (Wyoming, chair), David Kay (Colorado), Allison Berry (DOI), and a TBD (Nebraska) will develop language for deeds, contracts, etc.

14. Unresolved issues: GC directed all committee chairs and committees to list the unresolved issues before them and determine when they need to be resolved.

15. Reference to water commitments/requirements: The GC directed the Drafting Committee to continue referring to water commitments/requirements as 130,000-150,000 acre-feet total instead of 80,000 acre-feet from the three state water projects and 50,000-70,000 acre-feet of additional water needs from the conservation/supply

The group discussed the List of Attachments (Chapters) and noted that most documents are being worked on or are complete. Committee chairs were asked to review the lists and determine if it was complete in regards to their respective committees and where items could be combined (e.g., one document covering more than one needed attachment to the Program).

EIS Status Report

Curt Brown gave a status report on the EIS analysis of the proposed Program. The EIS Team estimates that the water yield of the draft Water Action Plan is in the range of 135,000-145,000 acre-feet and that the land component provides for the targets outlined in the Cooperative Agreement. These activities will provide immediate tangible benefits for the species. The EIS Team next looked at the long-term effect of the proposed Program on the river channel habitat using the EIS Sediment-Vegetation model. Curt explained that historically the channel has narrowed because of a reduction in peak flows (current peaks are about ½ of historic), changes in sediment supply (current supplies are about 80% less than historic), and the interaction of these two effects with vegetation factors. He indicated that the proposed Program will likely affect high spring flows, and knowing this, there is the need to look at the long-term impacts on channel habitat in the EIS/ESA analysis.

The Sediment-Vegetation model being developed by the EIS Team tracks the effect of flows on sediment transport, deposition, and erosion, and calculates the long-term effect of a flow regime on the channel depth and shape and areas of vegetation. As reported in the special briefing in Sterling, Colorado, the initial analysis of the proposed Program with this model indicated the possibility that the proposed Program could result in further down-cutting and narrowing of the channel, and result in loss of habitat. Because the model is still under development and has not been calibrated, these results are being treated only as preliminary indications. The priority of the EIS Team at this time is to determine whether in fact the proposed Program is likely to cause long-term degradation of habitat. If this appears likely, the EIS Team will develop and analyze a range of elements that might be added to the proposed Program to address management of sediment and vegetation. Some of the options to be considered include sediment augmentation, reshaping the channel mechanically, pulse flows to clear vegetation, and alternatives that avoid reduction in annual peak flows.

To assist in the refinement and calibration of the model, an ad hoc review group has been established. Members currently participating are Ann Bleed, Duane Woodward, Frank Kwapnioski, Paul Currier, Mike Drain, Mike Besson, Jon Altenhoffen, and Dan Luecke. A technical description of the model was sent to this group and a briefing/discussion held May 23 in Cheyenne. The group will be provided additional results and briefings as the model calibration proceeds. A parallel review of the model is being conducted by the USGS.

The EIS Team expects to have final analysis of the proposed Program hydrology and channel impacts by the end of June, at which time the GC will be briefed. Due to this change in focus for the analysis, the EIS Team does not plan to prepare and release an Alternatives Status Report. A Draft EIS is expected in August.

Don Ament asked if activities currently being conducted by the NRCS and others that attempt to prevent sediment from entering waterways will be in conflict with the Program. Ralph Morgenweck replied that these programs will not be in conflict and that the construction of dams is seen as the major reason that sediment is no longer available in the same quantities. Ralph suggested that an outreach effort was needed to explain these issues and to separate the model from other ideas because no one is sure if the model accurately reflects real world at this time. Others felt that not enough information was available yet to conduct an effective outreach effort and that it may only cause further misunderstandings.

Kent Holsinger and others suggested that this issue should be addressed through adaptive management or in a fashion similar to the pallid sturgeon issue in that the Program should test the assumption that adding more water will cause channel narrowing. Ralph pointed out that the EIS Team and FWS need to use the best information available to evaluate the Program and other alternatives and if impacts can be clearly defined, there can be more regulatory certainty. Curt indicated that more information would be available in 3-4 weeks on the utility of the model to provide this information.

The question was asked as to when potential sediment impacts relative to the phased approach of water project may be seen. Curt noted that the system's equilibrium seems to be somewhat fragile and maybe only one or two projects may impact the entire system. Concern was raised that the science in building the model is very new and may not even be totally in place and that using this untested methodology for making RPA determinations should not be done. Ralph said that the model is only one tool of several that will be used in making the judgement and the confidence of the technical community in the model will be considered in RPA determination.

Dan Luecke commented that the model is very complex and results of the model can not be taken as fact. However, the model does point out areas needing consideration and discussion and that it was good to share the information earlier rather than later. Mary Jane Graham noted that Curt suggested that the model will be used to list the need for sediment augmentation and other measures. Concern was raised that the knowledge is not there yet to know if this is a good or bad tool to be making that determination, but the impression was that decisions had been made. Larry Todd pointed out that no decisions had been made and that this has only been a sharing of information. The model can be used to identify questions and information needs.

The issue was raised that if adding more water to the system results in degradation of the existing habitat, the analysis should consider adding less water to the system. It was pointed out that the current estimation of water required to optimize habitat for the target species was based on the assumption that the riverbed will not change. The point was made that the Program is intended to be a habitat Program and not a water Program, and if more habitat can be achieved with less water or by looking outside the channel, that these things should be considered. Concern was also raised that validation and calibration of the model and then buy-in and outreach, may not be possible within 6-weeks (when the DEIS needs to go to the printer).

Subcommittee Reports

Finance Committee

Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, provided the report. Dayle went through invoices to-date and provided a handout of the FC minutes (see attachment). The GC approved the invoices and a six-month revised budget extension for the Executive Director. The FC and GC also approved extending the Nebraska Community Foundation agreement through December 2000. Dayle reported that the Bureau of Reclamation had proposed a "pre-audit" of financial matters that would cost a maximum of $5,000 and that the FC recommended approval of funding for the pre-audit to a maximum of $5,000. GC approved by consensus. The FC and GC approved the Executive Director to enter into a contract with a GIS expert to assist the Technical Committee. The budget for the contract will be covered under the current Executive Director's budget.

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, WMC Chair, provided the report. John noted that many of the topics discussed at the WMC have already been discussed today and that he would not go over them again. John reported that Curt Brown and an individual from Hydrosphere presented the South Platte Model. The model is at the reconnaissance level and is considered a work in progress. The WMC also discussed milestone W13-3 and what their role may be in completing this milestone. John reported that the WMC adopted the states administrative procedures for tracking and accounting. John also reported that the WMC would start developing a list of needs (e.g., monitoring, tracking/accounting) for a Water Committee under the Program.

Water Action Plan Committee Report

John Lawson reported that the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) met by conference call on May 16, 2000 and in person on May 24, 2000. During the May 16 conference call, the WAPC discussed revision 4 of the draft Water Action Plan (WAP). John noted that major edits as a result were the removal of the principles section and change in the forest management language. John explained that Jim Cook had said that Nebraska might look at changes in their new depletion plan and that the mix of projects may change but not the yield. It was also noted that Colorado had offered a revision to the process section in the WAP that was more flexible. It was decided that the draft WAP would be distributed to the states without this revision and that the changes would be worked into the next revision after state meetings. The WAPC recommended that the GC invite the USDA Forest Service to participate in WAP and GC meetings for discussion and commitment purposes. The GC agreed to invite the Forest Service. The WAPC also discussed the cost analysis portion of the WAP and decided to develop an annual capital construction and operation/maintenance budget based on when projects are proposed for implementation. The budget will include a 3% inflation factor. It will be a GC/FC topic to discuss how the Program will be funded (e.g., annually, lump sum).

At the May 24 meeting, the draft WAP was accepted for state meetings and for official distribution to the EIS Team for analysis. The acceptance was contingent upon revisions agreed to at the meeting. John recommended that the GC approve the report for use by the states and EIS Team with the understanding that it is a draft and will be revised. If there are no extensive revisions after state meetings, the WAPC plans to produce the final WAP in the first week of July. GC agreed.

State Meeting

Jim Cook reported on discussions at the states meeting held May 24, 2000. Jim noted that progress is being made and that they had discussed schedule, sediment transport, and budget and that these items had already been covered today.

Land Committee

Rhodell Jameson, Land Committee (LC) Co-Chair, reported that after the June 12 meeting, most LC tasks will be complete with the exception being the Habitat Protection Plan. The products will be presented at the next GC meeting. Rhodell also noted that the question has been raised as to how long the services of the Kearney Area Community Foundation will be needed. The GC agreed by consensus to continue work with the KACF through December 2000. Vernon Nelson, Land Committee Co-Chair, noted that the GC should consider the lag-time from when a property comes up for sale and when the GC will be able to act on a purchase if desired. Vernon suggested the GC setup an earnest money fund to help secure land deals while the details are worked through in the FC and GC. Vernon also expressed concerns of several on the Land Ownership Entity subcommittee that the Land Interest Holding Entity (LIHE) for the Program should not leave the impression that it is a federal agency. Marty Zeller is currently looking at the various options for the LIHE and will report at the next GC meeting. Dale Strickland noted that most of the LC tasks will soon be completed but that the LC not be dissolved until the end of the Cooperative Agreement as there may be a need for meetings near the end of that time. Rhodell read several comments that he had received from concerned citizens related to the No Action alternative being considered in the EIS.

Technical Committee

Paul Tebbel provided the Technical Committee (TC) report. Paul noted that the TC had not met since the last GC meeting and that topics for discussion at the May 31-June1 meeting included the Sediment/Vegetation model, R3-1 Document, and aerial photography proposal. The TC is also still working on protocols.

Outreach Committee

Jerry Vandersnick provided the Outreach Committee (OC) report. Jerry reported that the OC had not met since the last GC meeting but that Lynn Holt continues to post items on the web page as they are provided to her.

Milestone Reports

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

Colorado - Kent Holsinger reported no change in Colorado's milestones.

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

Department of the Interior - Mark Butler noted that comments on the draft First Increment Milestones Document (P3-1) were due May 31. The document will be revised, then distributed again for comments. Mark also reported that they will be meeting with the TC to discuss the R3-1 Document and hopefully the document will presented to the GC by the June meeting. Work is continuing on the Baseline Document for R1-1.

Open Comment Period

Mike Besson noted that Jeff Fassett, Wyoming GC alternate, has resigned his position as State Engineer effective June 15. Mike and the entire GC recognized Jeff's efforts on the Cooperative Agreement.

Dale Strickland noted that only 10 people had signed up for the special water project tour scheduled for either June 27 or June 30. Dale will redistribute the notice.

Future Governance Committee Meetings

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

June 29 - Regular GC meeting, Ramada Inn, Ogallala, Nebraska

July - No meeting

August 2 - Water Action Plan, Colorado, USFWS Office, Lakewood, Colorado

August 3 - Regular GC meeting, Colorado, USFWS Office, Lakewood, Colorado

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 at approximately 2:20 p.m.