Draft Minutes
Governance Committee Meeting

August 3, 2000
USFWS Building, 134 Union Blvd.
Lakewood, Colorado

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

Don Ament, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:20 a.m. and introductions were made. Don and the entire GC recognized Ralph Morgenweck and Mike Besson for past service as GC chair. Dale Strickland went over comments on the draft minutes submitted prior to the meeting. Minutes as amended were accepted by consensus. No modifications to the agenda were made.

Public Comment Period

No comments were expressed.

Program Documents

Margot Zallen stated that no additional comments had been received in the last month and the group had not met. Margot asked that comments be submitted to her by September 7 on any of the Program documents. Outstanding issues to be resolved by the GC for the Drafting Committee include addressing the different voting requirements in policy (9 of 10) vs. non-policy issues (7 of 10). The committee anticipates revised drafts will be distributed at the next GC meeting.

EIS Status Report

Ralph Morgenweck reported that the EIS Team and FWS are continuing to analyze the alternatives and the analysis is showing that none of the alternatives can currently serve as a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative (RPA) under the Endangered Species Act. The fundamental problem is that all alternatives continue to degrade the channel when analyzed with the sediment/vegetation model (sed/veg model), HEC-6 model, and sediment balance analysis. Ralph noted that it will not be possible to complete the draft EIS in August but they are hopeful that a draft can be completed this calendar year. It was recommended that two groups, the existing technical group and a policy group, work on basically parallel tracks to find an alternative that satisfies all parties. The technical group would identify problems and solutions within the sed/veg model and the policy group would insure that any given alternative satisfied all interests. Ralph noted that there is not complete acceptance that there is a sediment problem and that these collaborative groups would help insure that all parties are on the same page. Ralph also noted that this effort will require an extension in the Cooperative Agreement (CA) and that it would be necessary for the GC to work with the District's and others whose permits and licenses are dependent on a Program for regulatory certainty. Maryanne Bach commented that the DOI is unsure of the amount of time needed for the CA extension and that the GC should discuss it.

Curt Brown reviewed the process that has occurred regarding the sed/veg model and development of the ad hoc technical committee to review the model after the model was first presented at the April GC meeting in Sterling, Colorado. Curt noted that options should be formulated to insure that the preferred alternative can serve as an RPA. It was suggested that the Sed/Veg Working Group be reconvened to review the model after written documentation is distributed that further describes the model and its calibration.

Several GC members expressed concern that various federal and state agencies and programs advocate methods that reduce sediment in waterways and that these groups would now be in conflict with the Program if it advocates adding sediment to the system. It was suggested that groups such as the NRCS, EPA, Western Power, and the Corps be invited to participate in the process to insure that all groups are fully informed. There was discussion regarding whether or not the river is currently in equilibrium. Mark Butler commented that the sed/veg model looks at three time periods: 1) pre-development, 2) period of encroachment, and 3) recent conditions of relative equilibrium. Over the longer time period used in the EIS (48 years) the river is not in equilibrium and is degrading.

The GC discussed how to proceed. After discussions it was decided that the GC would serve as the policy group. The Executive Director's office will work with the GC to insure correct representatives are involved in the Sed/Veg Working Group (technical group). After the Sed/Veg Working Group meets and is fully informed there will be a workshop with the Sed/Veg Working Group and GC (policy group). The Technical Committee will also be invited to participate in the initial Sed/Veg Working Group meeting. Curt Brown stated that written information regarding the model and calibration could be made available by August 17. The Sed/Veg Working Group's first meeting was set for 9 a.m. - 5 p.m., August 30, 2000 at Denver Water.

Term of the Cooperative Agreement

Dale Strickland introduced the topic and noted that the current CA period ends December 31, 2000 and that it is clear that there will not be a Program in place on January 1, 2001. Don Ament described Colorado's legislative calendar and explained that a likely time frame for completion of the CA and implementation of a Program is likely extended 18-24 months. Several other GC members agreed and suggested that the extended time be used to implement pilot projects, monitoring, and research. The question was asked if the date of June 30, 2002, would permit sufficient time for full legislative review. States responded that it likely would. This would mean having the EIS completed this year, record of decision signed by December 2001, and to the state legislatures in January 2002. The comment was made that this will also fit with completion of Nebraska's COHYST schedule. Margot Zallen suggested that changing the CA end date is a GC policy decision and would require a super majority vote of 9 out of 10 and all signatories voting in the affirmative. There was some discussion whether or not signatures were needed from the three Governors and Secretary of Interior to change the CA end date.

There was discussion regarding the need for the entire GC to assist the Districts in convincing the FERC that progress is being made and that the Districts' licenses should be modified appropriately if the CA end date is changed. The GC will also need to work collectively with other federal agencies regarding other permits in the basin. The issue of the Glendo contract was discussed and it was noted that this would require work with appropriate legislatures. The group spent some time discussion how changing the CA end date will impact financial aspects. Dale Strickland reported that there is approximately $2 million left in the CA budget and this would probably cover operating expenses for the extended CA period but not significant expenditures on demonstration projects, monitoring and research.

Land Interest Holding Entity Options

Dale Strickland introduced Marty Zeller, Conservation Partners, and described briefly that Marty was to provide information and background on various Land Interest Holding Entity (LIHE) options. Marty used a series of overheads to explain what his investigation on the various options has revealed (see attachments). Marty explained that the CALFED program has recognized that they do not know what entity should ultimately hold the land so they are utilizing The Nature Conservancy (TNC) to temporarily hold lands. This allows time for the group to decide what entity should ultimately hold lands. Marty explained that he did not locate any good models of an inter-governmental entity to hold lands and that it may not be the best option to have government ownership when disposing of lands. Also, local parties generally prefer neutral third parties in these situations. Marty suggested utilizing an existing non-profit or creating a new non-profit for the LIHE.

The group discussed various entities that could potentially serve the role of a temporary or permanent LIHE for the Program. Several existing entities were identified as having potential conflicts in the central Platte region with varied organizations and individuals. Most people agreed that a national entity that had not worked in Nebraska previously or a new entity was needed. The point was made that regardless of the entity each signatory needs a process and assurance that their equity can be recovered if the Program dissolves. Also, the group was reminded that the LIHE would not function in any management capacities and that this would be the responsibility of other contractors. It was decided that Marty should use the remaining amount in his contract to focus on the pros and cons of the various existing national non-profit entities and the various types of new non-profit entities that could be formed (see attachment provided by Marty Zeller after the GC meeting). As part of this analysis Marty was directed to give guidance on how funds would flow from the various governments to the various LIHE options.

Subcommittee Reports

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, Water Management Committee (WMC) Chair, reported that the WMC had not met since the last GC meeting. John noted that upcoming issues before the WMC include reviewing state depletion plans, tracking and accounting procedures, and conveyance losses. No meeting is scheduled.

Water Action Plan Committee Report

John Lawson, Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) Chair, reported that the WAPC held two conference calls since the last GC meeting to develop consensus regarding the Water Action Plan (WAP). The WAPC did come to consensus on the WAP; however, because of logistical problems some changes were still needed to accommodate comments received during the final conference call and a physical copy of the final report was not available. John explained that there are two options 1) the GC could adopt the report as edited to achieve WAPC consensus or 2) wait until next meeting to accept report. John noted that if the GC accepted the report a final copy and letter of transmittal would be sent to Don Ament, GC Chair, and cc to entire GC. Don Ament asked that the GC accept the report as described in John's first option. There was some discussion regarding future review and changes to the document if the GC accepted the report as final. John explained that the WAPC wants to take 'Draft' out of the title and have the document made available to the EIS Team for use in their analysis. The Process section in the report explains that all parts are only at the recon level and describes how new projects can be added and existing projects changed. The GC agreed that the title should be "Reconnaissance Level Water Action Plan" and the report was accepted as described in option number 1 above by consensus.

Dave Mazour, Tri-State Generation and Transmission, introduced several people involved in power generation and transmission in the Platte Basin including Ron Steinbach, Western Area Power Administration and John Allum, Platte River Power Authority. Dave expressed concern that as the North Platte River system is modified for the Program that one of the goals should be no negative impacts to power generation. Dave also asked that groups such as his, Platte River Power Authority, and Western Area Power Administration be involved in the process as issues on the North Platte River develop. It was recognized that the EIS Team has been considering power generation impacts as a portion of their analysis of alternatives.

State Meeting

Don Ament reported that the primary topic during the meeting was schedule. Don noted that many during the meeting felt that the CA period should be extended longer initially so there is not the need to extend again and that activities such as monitoring and research be started. The States also discussed Technical Committee and sed/veg model issues. Mike Besson explained that Wyoming proposed a process by which fair share for water provided to the Program is addressed. Under the proposal the states would act as a water broker and determine what is most saleable in their respective states. The Program would then pay a fixed per acre-foot rate annually to the states for water provided to the Program. Mike noted that this is not to replace the WAP but is only proposed as a method to implement water supply projects. Several different individuals noted that they are willing to discuss the proposal but have not bought into the idea as of yet. It was noted that a field trip to Frazier Experiment Forest is planned for August 27 to review various experiments related to forest management and water yield. If individuals are interested in attending they should contact Kent Holsinger.

Land Committee

Vernon Nelson, Land Committee (LC) Co-Chair, reported that the LC had not held a meeting since the last GC meeting and no meetings are scheduled. Vernon presented a revised "Mitigating Direct Impacts" statement signed by both Vernon and Rhodell Jameson, LC Co-Chairs, for inclusion in the minutes (see attachment). Vernon noted that most landowners are very positive about the idea of the Program saying impacts will be mitigated with out the need for legal action.

Dale Strickland reported that copies of the Habitat Management Methods report and Third Party Impacts report had been circulated for review and the respective subcommittees and LC is asking the GC for concurrence on those documents. There was some concern raised by Nebraska representatives that the Third Party Impacts report may have been changed significantly since the last draft and some constituents may want more time for review. Vernon noted that the LC newsletter had contained a notice of the report's availability and direct contacts had been made to interest parties. The GC concurred with and accepted both reports.

Technical Committee

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, reported that the TC had met August 1 and several topics were discussed. Paul noted that the TC came to consensus on the Cottonwood Ranch Property Monitoring and Research Protocol and that Randy Parker is ready to proceed with the work. The TC also discussed a proposal to conduct aerial photography in 2000 for use in monitoring. The proposal is being edited to address GC and Finance Committee concerns and will be brought back to the Finance Committee for consideration at their September meeting. The TC also is working with the Executive Director's office in preparing monitoring protocols for the Program.

Paul also reported on the TC/GC workshop that was held August 2. Paul noted that the direction on the R1-1 milestone was 1) the FWS will produce a document identifying important areas that either contain or do not contain sufficient quantitative data for use in the analysis of biological response, 2) the TC will review the document and all parties will agree on the final document, and 3) the information will be incorporated in the IMRC. Mark Butler explained that the current Woodward-Clyde document is viewed as a compendium of existing information and that another document would be developed that outlines the areas of quantitative and qualitative information for use as the baseline document. It was also noted that the baseline would be included as part of the IMRC that will be peer reviewed.

Paul explained that the TC received direction from the GC on the intent of the R3-1 milestone and that he felt that the GC wants to see a combined FWS/TC document. The TC will work on clearly identifying the issues and opinions for GC consideration before the next workshop (e.g., should off-channel habitats for the species be a part of the Program or not). Concern was raised that the FWS should not 'pull rank' at the TC level and that the process needs to be more collaborative. Ralph Morgenweck responded that the FWS has been repeatedly criticized for work done at the TC level and that he is reluctant to allow FWS personnel to take the lead in further development of documents. The GC needs to help the TC get beyond disagreements from all levels and not just blame the FWS. If policy issues arise they should immediately be elevated to the GC for resolution. It was agreed that the TC and GC should continue to meet on a regular basis.

Outreach Committee

Jerry Vandersnick, Outreach Committee (OC) chair, reported that a booth has been reserved at Husker Harvest Days and asked for input on materials that the GC would like distributed. Jerry asked that Sharon Whitmore or another FWS individual provide information related to EA releases to date. Sharon will work with Diane Katzenberger to prepare the outreach materials. Maryanne Bach asked if the GC should provide information regarding discussions on changing the CA end date. The Executive Director's office was asked to draft a short statement for GC consideration regarding the change for use by the OC and others. Jerry noted that the OC would meet immediately after the GC meeting.

Finance Committee

Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, reported that the FC had met by conference call on July 28 and approved requested disbursements. Dayle noted that most of the meeting had been spent discussing the FC charter and that comments were due to the Executive Director by August 11. The results of the Program Structure Committee will impact charter development. Dayle also reported that Larry Schultz and Nadine Wilson had reviewed the financial information and both feel that things are complete and ready for the contractor's audit. The contractor will be conducting the review during the week of August 21 in Denver at a cost of approximately $5,000. The FC also indicated during the call that the TC could move forward on implementation of the Cottonwood Ranch Property Research and Monitoring Protocol if the TC came to consensus.

R3-1 Document

Ralph Morgenweck noted that this topic had been sufficiently covered earlier in the meeting.

Milestone Reports

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

Nebraska - Dayle Williamson reported Nebraska continues to work on their depletion plan.

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

Department of the Interior - Mark Butler reported that outside of R3-1 and R1-1 discussed earlier that the DOI continues to work on P3-1.

Vice Chair Elections

Allen Berryman nominated Roger Patterson for Vice Chair. Maryanne Bach seconded the nomination and Roger was elected by consensus.

Open Comment Period

No comments were expressed.

Future Governance Committee Meetings

September 12 - Technical Committee meeting, Room 129 Center for Conferences and Institutes, LCCC, Cheyenne, WY

September 13 - TC/GC workshop 8 a.m.- 2 p.m., Room 129 Center for Conferences and Institutes, LCCC, Cheyenne, WY

September 14 - Regular GC meeting, Room 129 Center for Conferences and Institutes, LCCC, Cheyenne, WY

October 10 and 11 - unresolved schedule of meetings, Scottsbluff/Gering, NE

October 12 - Regular GC meeting, Scottsbluff/Gering, NE

November 14, 15, 16 - unresolved schedule of meetings, Denver Water, Denver, CO

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 1:20 p.m.