See other minutes at: : Technical Committee / Land Committee / Water Management Committee / Water Action Plan Committee
Final Minutes
Governance Committee Meeting
June 29, 2000
Ramada Inn
Ogallala, Nebraska
Agenda and Minutes
Mike Besson, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. The draft minutes from the May Governance Committee (GC) meeting were reviewed. Margot Zallen suggested changes to the minutes and the minutes as amended were approved by consensus. No modifications to the agenda were made.
Public Comment Period
Duane Havorka, Nebraska Wildlife Federation, pointed out that the Platte River was the subject of a feature article in the National Wildlife Federation magazine recently and that he had copies for those interested.
A local landowner also expressed concern that the Program might increase the noxious weed problems along the river.
Coordination of CNPPID FERC License
Don Kraus reported that Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District (CNPPID) had distributed a technical report and draft letter outlining the estimated net controlled conserved water to the Water Management Committee (WMC) and just the letter to the GC. CNPPID asked that comments be submitted to John Lawson, WMC Chair, for compilation and submission to them. John will send the comments to Mike Drain and cc the GC with the cover letter and comments, if not too extensive. CNPPID will submit the report and comments to FERC on or before July 28.
Program Documents
Mary Jane Graham commented that the Program Drafting Committee had distributed materials prior to the May GC meeting and asked for comments. Several comments were received and others were expected. Mary Jane noted that no new drafts were ready at this time. Mary Jane and other Drafting Committee representatives noted that the issue of GC voting was brought up in the comments. Currently the GC operates under a 9/1 super-majority needed to pass policy issues and a 7/3 majority to pass non-policy issues. The Drafting Committee suggested removing the 7/3 category and require a 9/1 super-majority on all matters. It was noted that the three states and federal government would still have veto authority. A decision on the voting structure was delayed. Mary Jane also said that the committee had received several more items needed for attachment and would soon have a complete list. The committee requested that the Executive Director's office provide the committee with hard copies of all draft documents available with an anticipated completion date. It was decided that all documents should go through the Executive Director's office and then onto the drafting committee to ensure the most recent versions are provided.
R3-1 Document
Mark Butler distributed the R3-1 Document consisting of a short introductory letter and tables identifying the data parameters and time frame for evaluation of biological response for fulfillment of the FWS's responsibility under milestone R3-1. Mark noted that the FWS had also drafted a version that contained a longer introduction outlining the FWS's rationale in identifying the data parameters and time frames. This document as well as comments related to the document are attached to the Technical Committee's (TC) May 31-June 1 and June 20-21 meeting minutes. Mark also noted that they have started the process of comparing R3-1 data needs with the protocols identified in the IMRC. Paul Tebbel, TC Chair, agreed with Mark Butler's evaluation and thought the document gave direction to the TC and allowed the FWS to complete their milestone. Dale explained that the TC will utilize the R3-1 as part of the Integrated Monitoring and Research Component (IMRC), and the document will continue to be reviewed as the IMRC is reviewed. Mark Butler agreed that the R3-1 milestone information as well as information from milestone R1-1 and R2-1 need to be incorporated into the IMRC. The R3-1 data needs will be used to help give direction to protocol writing to ensure that FWS data needs are addressed at a minimum during the Program.
Margot Zallen asked what would be provided to the Drafting Committee for attachment to the Program. Dale responded that there are two options, 1) an IMRC that incorporates all TC documents and 2) separate R3-1 Document, Baseline Document, etc. Paul Tebbel noted that the TC needs to decide which avenue they will follow. Ralph Morgenweck noted that the document is meant to fulfill milestone R3-1 and then the information can be used in the IMRC or separately, but that the FWS is not asking for acceptance of the document at this meeting. Rick Brown expressed concern that as a TC member he had not had the opportunity to review this particular draft of the R3-1 Document. Several GC members understood Rick's concerns and Don Ament asked that the TC review and provide input on the document before the next GC meeting. It was decided that the GC would defer review of the R3-1 Document to the TC in a similar manner as the review process used for state depletion plans.
Brian Barels suggested, and entire GC agreed, that the TC should meet in conjunction with the GC for the next several meetings. Dale suggested that the GC take the opportunity to give direction to the TC on several policy issues (e.g., how wide an area of interest because it has budget implications). The May 31-June 1 and June 20-21 TC minutes and attachments will be distributed to the GC prior to the next meeting.
EIS Status Report
Larry Todd provided the report in the absence of Curt Brown. Larry reported that the Sediment/ Vegetation model has been calibrated successfully and the calibration has provided a great deal of confidence in the model for the EIS Team. The EIS Team is currently using the model to evaluate alternatives for the draft EIS that will be out in late August. Mark Butler asked if the GC wanted Tim Randle and Peter Murphy, model authors, to provide a written report regarding the model or if the GC would rather have the information provided in a workshop forum. Several individuals asked that a written report be provided for review in advance of a workshop to discuss the calibration and sensitivity analysis. The most recent version of the model will be provided to the model Ad Hoc group as soon as possible for their review and comments before completion of the draft EIS.
Concern was raised that the time schedule for review of the Sed/Veg model was getting very tight and time is short for production and review of many other items (e.g., the R3-1 Document, Baseline, peer review, etc). Several individuals indicated that GC members need to understand the model and its use so they can answer questions that legislators and others will have regarding the process and effectiveness of the model. Larry Todd indicated that the EIS Team has been analyzing pieces of the proposed Program as they are supplied and they are currently looking at the most recent draft Water Action Plan, as an example. The entire program as proposed by the GC will be available in the draft EIS for comment. Larry reported that the minimum comment period is either 45 or 60 days and there is no maximum comment period.
Larry Todd indicated that if the Ad Hoc technical group finds a fatal flaw with the Sed/Veg model during its review of the calibration, there will be little or no confidence in the model. Larry indicated that the EIS Team needs to analyze the Program effects on sediment and now they have a tool to conduct that analysis. Ralph noted that this is only one tool and is not the only method for evaluation.
Ralph encouraged the Ad Hoc group to meet as soon as possible so input could be provided back to the EIS Team. It was suggested that the Ad Hoc group look at and discuss the calibration and sensitivity analysis as well as to see examples of how alternatives were analyzed.
The FWS is reviewing a working draft of the Whooping Crane Model and is not sure if the revised model would be available for use in the analysis for the draft EIS and Biological Opinion. If the revised model is unavailable they will use the old model for draft EIS and draft Biological Opinion and the revised model for the final reviews. Paul Tebbel noted that the TC has funds available to peer review the whooping crane model or other models as directed by the GC.
Subcommittee Reports
Water Management Committee
John Lawson, WMC Chair, reported that the WMC feel they have completed their Cooperative Agreement tasks and they have now moved on to discussing the future role of the Program's water committee. The WMC is utilizing Attachment III in the Cooperative Agreement for guidance. In the attachment there are 17 tasks identified and the WMC feels that many of these need to be accomplished by full-time staff during the Program and not the water committee. Other tasks have been taken off the WMC list and given to the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC), and John noted that no discussion have occurred regarding whether there will be a WAPC during the Program. The WMC will bring forward the role they see a water committee playing in the Program. John noted that there was consensus that a water advisory committee and not a management committee was appropriate for the Program.
The WMC discussed three tasks assigned to them by the Drafting Committee. The first was the topic of water verification. John indicated that the WMC was unsure what this means, compliance or just tracking and accounting. If water verification is referring to the need to track and account water then this task is done, if it means something else then more work is needed. John asked for clarification. Mike Besson suggested that the topic be covered when the Program structure is defined. The WMC also asked for clarification regarding Institutional Protection as posed by the Drafting Committee before they address the topic. John reported that the WMC feels that they have no unresolved Cooperative Agreement tasks unless more is needed to address the above topics. There will not be a WMC in August but John will report to Margot Zallen regarding the Drafting Committee's request.
Water Action Plan Committee Report
John Lawson, WAPC Chair, reported that the meeting held June 28 started with a discussion of the draft Water Action Plan (WAP) used for state meetings. Nebraska reported that fair share, schedule, and general ESA concerns were major issues raised at their 11 state meetings. Colorado and Wyoming reported that they did not conduct formal informational meetings and are waiting until the draft EIS is available.
At the WAPC meeting, Jim Cook from Nebraska provided an outline of Nebraska is willing to consider for inclusion in the WAP. Jim Cook addressed the GC and said that the presentation was made based on concerns of many Nebraskans and that they were trying to work at reducing these concerns so that the Program could be a success. There were three issues raised during the presentation 1) change mix of water projects for consideration in WAP, 2) incentives for development of water beyond a certain level, and 3) some basic principles utilizing Nebraska's water resources. Jim reported that as a result of the State's Meeting after the WAPC meeting on June 28 all projects are back into the mix of projects for consideration with some changes in the yield available to the Program. Jim indicated that there are still many issues that need to be resolved.
John Lawson reported that Nebraska also provided an edited copy of the Process section in the WAP. The committee deferred review the revisions to the subgroup of Jim Cook, Mike Besson, and Wendy Weiss.
Concern was raised over using the schedule of water projects in the draft WAP as the first increment water milestones. The suggestion was made that quantity of water and not projects should be used. John reported that the WAPC also addressed the points assigned to them on the "heads-up list" provided by Margot Zallen at the last GC meeting (WAP completion, Process, and implementation). John noted that the state's new depletion plans were submitted to the EIS Team for analysis but that they are not yet ready for GC review and acceptance.
State Meeting
Mike Besson reported that the meeting consisted mostly of discussion of issues raised by Nebraska during the WAPC meeting. The states also discussed how they envisioned federal water projects being covered or not being covered under the state's new depletion plans. Mike noted that the states agreed that the projects will be reviewed on a case by case bases in consultation with the federal entity. The states also discussed fair share, TC activities, and schedule. Margot Zallen asked for clarification on how the states were anticipating handling federal future depletions. Mike Besson responded that for Wyoming they would look at the action and see if it was for the direct benefit of Wyoming residents. If it was then the state plan would likely cover. If the action was for federal/national interest then the federal agency would have to offset either with water or money. Kent Holsinger and Jim Cook replied that they also envision their respective states looking at on an individual case base.
Land Committee
Vernon Nelson, Land Committee (LC) Co-Chair, reported that their June 12 meeting started with a workshop and then moved into a business meeting. Lisa McDonald provided a verbal report on the Third Party Impacts study at the LC meeting and noted that the final written report would be out shortly. Vernon had provided the most recent draft report to the Governors Advisory Board and their impression was that there would likely be minimal third party impacts. Vernon suggested that the GC review the final written report when it is available and he will ask for concurrence on the report at the next GC meeting.
Paul Matson reported on the Land Ownership Entity subcommittee. Paul gave some background on tasks and workshops undertaken by the subcommittee as well as comments provided on the draft Land Advisory Committee (LAC) Charter. Paul noted that a White Paper Supplement was available that described the facilitated workshop and decision made. Paul recommended the Natural Resources Districts choose the three local Nebraska representatives to the LAC. Paul has asked the NRD's if they are willing to participate in this manner but has not heard back from them. Paul also reported that the subcommittee feels that there are several possible options for a land holding entity and they are waiting for a report on the possibilities from Marty Zeller. Marty will report at the next GC meeting. Paul felt that regardless of what entity is chosen, taxes or tax equivalents must continue to be paid on the property. Paul also expressed concern with changing Executive Director to "person in charge" within the LAC charter and elsewhere. If the "person in charge" has the same responsibilities and is selected in the same fashion as those laid out for the Executive Director in Attachment III of the CA, then he does not have any problems. Paul also expressed his personal desire for full monitoring and research funding during the Program so the best scientific information is collected.
Mark Czaplewski reported that the Habitat Criteria Subcommittee had provided a copy of the Habitat Management Methods document to the GC for their review in the last mailing from the Executive Director's office. Mark noted that the subcommittee and LC would be asking for GC concurrence on the document at the next GC meeting. Mark also reported that the joint LC/TC Habitat Protection Planning Task Force had met on June 12 to begin fleshing out the detailed Habitat Protection Plan outline.
Vernon asked that any topic related to the Cooperative Agreement/proposed Program of interest to the public could be circulated through the LC newsletter. Vernon and Rhodell Jameson also provided a draft "good neighbor" policy for GC review.
Technical Committee
Paul Tebbel, TC Chair, reported that the TC had met twice since the last GC meeting. Dale Strickland updated the GC regarding development of the Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Protocol. The TC continues to develop the protocol and will present a consensus protocol to the Finance Committee for their next meeting. Dale also reported that the TC is developing a proposal/protocol for conducting aerial photography during the Program and this will also be brought back to the Finance Committee. Paul reported that the TC received a presentation on the Sed/Veg Model at their May meeting and requested another after the calibration was complete. The Executive Director's office continues to work on protocols with the TC. Paul noted that the TC also discussed R3-1 and that it was covered sufficiently earlier today.
Paul reported that the baseline continues to be a topic within the TC. The FWS is working to complete the Woodward-Clyde Existing Conditions Document, but all have acknowledged that this can not serve as a quantitative baseline for the Program. The FWS and TC will be working on a process to identify what information is available to use as a quantitative baseline and where additional data needs exist. Paul suggested that this be a topic for the upcoming TC/GC workshop. Jim Lundgren asked why we are going through the Cooperative Agreement process if there is not enough information to say what is wrong with the river. Dale responded that the TC is attempting to develop information that will allow the Program to quantify the the effects of Program activities on the target species and their habitat. FWS and others believe there is enough information to justify their opinion of jeopardy with water projects, but some of this information is qualitative. There was discussion regarding the need for a Program if bird numbers are already increasing and how long before this trend can be defined.
Several people noted the need to clarify the role of the baseline document, the R3-1 document, and the protocols in evaluating the First Increment of the Program and that the schedule is becoming tighter and tighter. It was suggested that the TC address how the Program will be evaluated since there is little baseline data and Environmental Account water is already being released. There was some discussion as to why waters were being release and at what amounts. Dale pointed out that the IMRC should clarify integration of R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1 and how evaluation of biological response of the target species and their habitats to Program activities will occur.
Outreach Committee
Jerry Vandersnick, Outreach Committee (OC) chair, reported that the OC did not have any immediate activities planned, but there will likely be the need for outreach when the draft EIS is distributed. Jerry provided a report on Nebraska outreach efforts conducted through a series of public meetings and the concerns raised during those meetings.
Finance Committee
Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, went through invoices to-date and noted that the FC had approved all disbursements. Dayle reported that the FC also went over Year 4 funding agreements and approved amounts for each committee as well as the Executive Director. Dayle noted that the Executive Director had reduced his time but had increased the assistant's time. Dayle reported that approximately $800,000 was remaining from the Year 3 funding agreements and the Year 4 funding agreements totaled approximately $767,000. Dayle recommended that the GC approve the invoices and funding agreement. GC agreed by consensus. Dayle reported that the FC also spent some time discussing issues raised by the Program Drafting Committee as the related to the FC. All topics were assigned to individuals or groups for resolution. The FC will be holding a crediting workshop on September 12. Howard Propst and others expressed concern that it will be difficult for the states to sign onto a Program with such a large budget overrun and that the states will need to identify how the money will be appropriated and spent.
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 reported that it is his intent to provide a revised P3-1 document prior to the next GC meeting.
Open Comment Period
Don Adams read a comment into the GC record and provided a copy for attachment to the minutes (see attachment).
Carroll Sheldon asked for a response for his earlier demands by the next meeting. Mike Besson provided Carroll a written response and copies were distributed to the GC (see attachment). Carroll also proposed establishing a 20 person committee to review all Cooperative Agreement associated documents at a cost $500,000. Mike Besson responded that a peer review process was in place and that peer review panels would be selected as the need arose. He also told Carroll that he could suggest names to be considered in the selection process for the selection of experts but that the process was competitive and he could not say who would be on any given peer review panel.
Kurt Bucholz addressed the GC regarding forest management. Kurt noted that he was representing several interest groups as well as the Carbon County Commissioners. Kurt recommended that forest management be included in the WAP and that the U.S. Forest Service needed to be responsible for some of the depletions. Kurt recommended that increased storage facilities were needed to capture the increased runoff due to forest management.
The entire GC and audience thanked CNPPID and NPPD for hosting a social the previous evening.
Future Governance Committee Meetings
July - No meeting
August 1 - Technical Committee meeting, USBR Building 67, Federal Center, Lakewood, Colorado
August 2 - TC/GC workshop 8 a.m.-12 p.m., USBR Building 67, Federal Center, Lakewood, Colorado
August 3 - Regular GC meeting, FWS Building, Lakewood, Colorado
September 12 - Technical Committee meeting, site to be determined, Wyoming
September 13 - TC/GC workshop 8 a.m.-12 p.m., site to be determined, Wyoming
September 14 - Regular GC meeting, site to be determined, Wyoming
October 10 and 11 - unresolved schedule of meetings, Nebraska
October 12 - Regular GC meeting, Nebraska
Adjourn
The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:20 p.m.
For further information about the Partnership,
contact any Governance Committee member.For comments and questions about this website, please email Buck Feist or call 406-247-7607