Draft Minutes
Governance Committee Meeting

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

In the absence of Don Ament, Roger Patterson, Governance Committee (GC) Vice-Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m. and introductions were made. One comment on the August 3 draft minutes was suggested and the minutes as amended were accepted by consensus. No modifications to the agenda were made.

Open Comment Period

No comments were expressed.

Program Document Development

Margot Zallen reported that no comments had been received since the last GC meeting, likely because of other important issues currently being discussed. Margot suggested putting development of the Program document on hold until the recent "hot-button" issues (e.g., sediment) are resolved. GC agreed.

Sediment and Channel Stability

Curt Brown distributed a list of documents that are available from the EIS Office (see attachment). It was suggested that the reports be made available for downloading from the Platte River web site. Curt introduced the sediment and channel stability section by presenting an update of the August 30 Sediment/Vegetation Working Group meeting held at Denver Water. Curt noted that today's presentation would focus on field collected information as opposed to the Sediment/Vegetation model (Sed/Veg model) and would also initiate the policy discussion.

Mark Butler used a series of slides to outline the presentation and describe the river functions, changes and effects (see attachment). Mark noted that there has been a change in channel habitat at the J2 Return (e.g., channel narrowing and degradation) and that the change is continuing to progress slowly downstream toward Grand Island. Historically the wider channels were at Overton compared to Grand Island, and now the reverse is true. Mark pointed out that sediment grain size has approximately doubled over time due to the decrease in contributions from the North Platte River. There was a discussion regarding what is driving the change, less fine material or more coarse material. There was discussion regarding the mechanism by which the river is apparently continuing to narrow and down cut. Mark also presented the FWS's interpretation regarding the biological responses to changes in the channel form. Mark outlined whooping crane, least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon use of the river and surrounding areas and how river changes may have impacted the species. Mark outlined what FWS sees the Program needing to accomplish to provide benefits to the species and result in an RPA. Mark noted that the FWS and EIS Team are looking at ways to utilize the current water plan to best benefit the species and suggested that adaptive management will be key in eventually improving the channel stability once a starting point is established.

Curt Brown identified objectives and concepts that the EIS Team is considering to offset further channel degradation in their analysis as a starting point for adaptive management. Concepts being considered currently included removal of some existing wooded islands, use of the EA in achieving set annual peak flows, and addition of sediment into the river. Curt outlined one possible adaptive management approach for looking at the issue, provided very approximate costs, and concluded by noting that this is only a starting point and all parties need to work together to reach an acceptable solution.

During the discussion the question was asked if it might be most economical and logistically feasible to manage for 800-foot average channel width that the slide presentation indicated the river is currently headed. Steve Anschutz, FWS, indicated that whooping cranes prefer wider channels and for an RPA the Program needs to promote development of these wider channels. There was also discussion regarding how quickly the channel is narrowing. Curt Brown responded that the narrowing appears to be episodic with droughts that allow vegetation encroachment into the channel. It was noted that this appears to be the mechanism by which the channel narrowed during the 1950's drought and the closing of Kingsley Dam. Other technical points discussed included the potential problems related to bridges and other "hard-points" when widening channels and the concern that there may not be enough energy in the system to sufficiently maintain cleared areas with a pulse flow of 6,000-8,000 cfs.

There was discussion related to what the Program is expected to accomplish and how sediment management impacts the overall Program objectives. Some noted that they believed the Program was to protect and restore 10,000 acres of habitat and provide 130,000-150,000 acre-feet of target flow shortage reduction during the First Increment for the Program to be an RPA. Ralph explained that for the Endangered Species Act the Program needs to address the concern that the river is continuing to narrow and the Program as currently defined may aggravate the situation. For a more stable river, it appears the Program will need to add sediment to the system. Some concern was raised that the Program was going to be held to protecting and managing the entire river between Lexington and Chapman instead of the ultimate goal of protecting and managing 29,000 acres. Ralph explained that water depletions impact the entire river and that the Program cannot just look at discrete sections for issues such as sediment. The overall channel dynamics are a problem and the FWS is just suggesting a starting point for adaptive management.

Wendy Weiss and others noted that all parties need to agree on the ultimate goal, and that this appears to have shifted from the original goals and objectives outlined in the proposed Program. Some people thought the goals and objectives outlined in the proposed Program were meant to "fix" the degradation problems. Margot Zallen noted that the FWS and others have always said that it was not known if the Program would be the preferred alternative and now there is more information that shows the that proposed Program could potentially aggravate the problem. One example of how the Program may aggravate the problem is the reduction of peak flows. Some expressed the position that there has not been significantly more information made available since the signing of the Cooperative Agreement. Ralph noted that the previous existing information has never been looked at in its entirety as it is now. Mike Besson and others suggested the Program needs to look at other possible solutions (e.g., engineering solutions, ground water use) as a possibility instead of just river flows and sediment.

Several individuals expressed the position that the Program was not meant to change the existing conditions of the entire river or create a river to somebody's views and that now the standard of performance has changed. This could ultimately change the Program's overall concepts and open up the entire discussion. Ralph explained that the current condition of the river results in jeopardy for the species and the Program needs to improve the current condition to remove this jeopardy. Ralph also explained that the FWS is not asking for more habitat, but that if the problems with the channel are not altered the Program will eventually lose the value to the species in their protected lands.

There was discussion regarding the fact that the error in the current model encompasses the possibility of the river aggrading, degrading, and being in equilibrium and how this could impact the Program's adaptive management. It was noted that the current model indicates that there could be less degradation with the Program as currently designed compared to without a Program and that this needs to be considered in the RPA and Biological Opinion. It was also noted that water development in the future would likely not mirror the last 50 years, so the natural rate of degradation and narrowing should be slower even without a Program.

There was discussion regarding where the process needs to go from here. It was decided that the Channel Stability Working Group was not far enough along to hold a joint meeting with the GC to discuss policy issues. Curt noted that the technical body would attempt to meet before the next GC meeting.

Cooperative Agreement End Date

Roger Patterson explained that the states are still in the same position as previously with legislative constraints and that they suggest the Cooperative Agreement end date be moved to 12/31/2002. This will help insure all parties that there will not be the need to go back to the governors and Secretary for another extension. Roger explained that the states agree that if the end date is moved, more productive activities such as monitoring, research, and pilot projects are needed. Dan Luecke noted that the environmentalists do not have a problem with two more years, but that it is important to insure milestones, such as state depletion plans, are completed during that time. Mike Purcell asked that if individuals drafting the EIS or Biological Opinion have questions or need clarification on Wyoming's draft depletion plan, they should contact him directly. Jim Cook also replied that he could be contacted, but cautioned that further detail to any great degree would not be available until completion of the COHYST. Jim also noted that extension of the Cooperative Agreement does not impact Nebraska's schedule for the COHYST. Maryanne Bach explained that establishment and achievement of milestones during the two years would be important in their argument to the DOI for the end date modification.

There was discussion regarding the need to have the governors and Secretary sign-off on the change or if it was something the GC could do by vote. All states agreed that their respective governors would be involved in the decision but that they would not need to re-execute a Cooperative Agreement document.

The GC discussed the need to evaluate the budget considering the extension and to establish milestones. It was decided that Dayle Williamson would chair a subgroup comprised of subcommittee chairs, Mike Besson, Kent Holsinger, Mark Butler, Steve Anschutz, and the Executive Director's office. The subgroup was charged with drafting milestones for the extension based on uncompleted Cooperative Agreement milestones and new milestones for monitoring, research, and demonstration/pilot projects. The subgroup was also charged with evaluating the budget for the extension. Several members asked that the parties attempt to stay within the currently approved Cooperative Agreement budget, of which approximately $2 million remains. Dale Strickland cautioned that if several pilot/demo projects along with monitoring and research were implemented, there likely would not be sufficient funds. The subgroup will attempt to have the milestone available for acceptance at the October GC meeting.

Maryanne Bach reported that they were successful in putting language into a legislative bill for extending the Glendo Contract and that the DOI had express support of the bill. Margot Zallen also reported that she and others had investigated the District's FERC licenses and found that they will not need to go back to the FERC if the Cooperative Agreement is extended. Mike Besson and others reported that there is still the need to extend some individual consultations.

Land Ownership Entity Options

Dale Strickland reported that the contractor, Marty Zeller, was ill and could not give a presentation today. The presentation was rescheduled for the October meeting. Brian Barels asked that materials be provided before the meeting for the GC to review.

Subcommittee Reports

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, Water Management Committee (WMC) Chair, reported that the WMC had not met since the last GC meeting and is not planning on meeting until new milestones are identified.

Water Action Plan Committee Report

John Lawson, Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) Chair, distributed copies of the Reconnaissance Level Water Action Plan report and acknowledged Boyle Engineering for their efforts in compiling the document. John explained that the GC had adopted the report at their last meeting subject to acceptance of revisions by the WAPC. The WAPC did accept the revision. John noted that this effectively completes Boyle's contract and that there was approximately $20,000 remaining of the initial contract amount. There was some discussion regarding additional services that the states and/or the GC may ask of Boyle (e.g., additional copies of report, review forest management information, additional analysis after EIS review) and how this work would be handled and credited. It was tentatively decided that if the states were to ask for credit related to additional work performed by Boyle, that the GC should authorize the work. The states have the option of having additional work done and not asking for credit. Most representatives noted that if additional copies of the report were needed for their constituents, they would provide them at their expense.

State Meeting

Jim Cook reported that the states discussed the recovery goals workshop planned for September 26-28 and other topics already discussed today. During the recovery goals workshop discussion, there were concerns raised regarding the potential impacts to the Program.

Land Committee

Dale Strickland provided the Land Committee (LC) report in the absence of Rhodell Jameson and Vernon Nelson, LC Co-Chairs. Dale noted that both Vernon and Rhodell remain involved in Cooperative Agreement issues, but that no meetings are currently planned. Dale explained to the GC that Autumn Kowalski from the Kearney Area Community Foundation was leaving as the LC administrative assistant and that the Finance Committee and others would be discussing how to best handle the administrative needs (e.g., LC newsletter).

Technical Committee

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, reported that the TC had met September 12 to discuss protocols. Paul reported that progress is being made on the protocols identified by the TC as top priority and that the Executive Director's office continues to bring questions and issues for resolution before the TC. Some concern was raised during the TC meeting that some protocols are considering using methods found in the past to be unsuccessful, specifically aerial surveys for whooping cranes. Paul explained that the Program needs to collect monitoring data in a sound scientific manner and aerial surveys are one method by which monitoring can be done in an unbiased manner. Paul reported that the TC also discussed the aerial photography proposal and that Mark Butler had distributed several documents developed as part of the EIS. John Nickum also provided an update and tables relating his analysis of where qualitative, quantitative, and no baseline data exist.

The TC discussed milestone R3-1. Dale reviewed TC agreed upon wording regarding completion of the milestone: "The FWS has completed its R3-1 milestone by providing work products on data needs for determining biological response of target species to the Program. The TC will now go forward with the development of a consensus Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan (IMRP) using as appropriate the materials provided by the FWS. This consensus IMRP will define the Program's data needs and analysis for determining biological response of target species to the Program during the First Increment." The GC also agreed by consensus that the FWS had completed milestone R3-1. The information provided by the FWS will be incorporated into the Program's Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan.

Paul reported that the TC had worked with the GC at a workshop on September 13 to clarify several TC issues and to define the Cooperative Agreements direction. Paul noted that the TC will not further address the issue outside of the workshop forum until the GC is satisfied with the direction given.

Outreach Committee

Roger Patterson provided the report in the absence of Jerry Vandersnick, Outreach Committee Chair. Roger noted that the Outreach Committee is currently focused on Husker Harvest Days.

Finance Committee

Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, reported that the FC had met on September 12. During the meeting the FC approved disbursements for current budget requests and recommended that the GC also approve. GC approved. Dayle noted that the FC will be looking at changes in the Kearney Area Community Foundation. Any changes will remain within the currently approved spending amounts. The FC also discussed and approved a TC proposal for $13,000 to conduct aerial photography this fall. GC agreed. Most of the FC meeting was spent discussing the FC charter and comments received. The FC is hopeful that the charter will be ready after the next meeting. Larry Schulz reported that a qualified individual had not been found to perform the pre-audit and that he was still reviewing potential candidates.

Milestone Reports

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

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

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

Department of the Interior - Mark Butler reported that the FWS appreciates agreement on the completion of the R3-1 milestone and recognizes that information from R1-1, R2-1, and R3-1 will need to be included in the Integrated Monitoring and Research Plan. Mark asked that if there were any comments on documents prepared as part of the EIS that they be provided to Curt Brown.

Recovery Plan Workshop

Ralph Morgenweck explained that a workshop is planned for September 26-28 between the FWS and species experts to begin the long process of identifying species recovery goals for the central Platte River. This will help tell all parties "how much is enough" for the various target species. The meeting will be used to talk about the biology of the species and will lead to a series of draft reports to be reviewed by all parties. Ralph noted that there will likely be several years before completion of the plans and during that time there would be numerous "bio-political" discussions.

Ralph asked for clarification of a letter sent by Colorado regarding the workshop. Kent Holsinger explained that Colorado had a few objections to the workshop including: other big issues such as Sed/Veg model make it difficult to properly address the workshop, Colorado has not seen the science stating that the central Platte is limiting the species, and they see the workshop as a set back to previous collaborative efforts. Wendy Weiss noted that Colorado thinks the workshop is premature and that it may create a new area of controversy before such issues as sediment are resolved. Ralph explained that this is only the start to gather the biology and that it will help identify habitat implications. There was a discussion regarding how this will fit in with revisions planned for the overall recovery plans and the need to clearly discuss the biology of the species (e.g., not a lot known regarding pallid sturgeon biology). There was also a discussion regarding what the meeting product would be. Ralph explained that the meeting participants might be able to get to the point of having a straw-dog plan drafted but may also just be able recommend what to address next. Dale Strickland noted that when the process is complete the Program would be able to identify such things as how many acres are needed to support each species.

Mailing List Request

Ray Supalla, University of Nebraska Kearney, described the project he was proposing in which he would use a mailing list from the Cooperative Agreement. Ray explained that confidentially would be honored and that he did not want to interfere with the process. Several people expressed various concerns regarding release of addresses and it was decided that mailing lists would not be released. Roger Patterson asked that if people had mailing lists of individuals interested in Platte issues that could be released that they forward them directly to Ray.

Open Comment Period

Dennis Strauch distributed an invitation to a social to be hosted by the North Platte Valley Water Coalition and North Platte Valley Irrigators Association on October 11 before the GC meeting. A map of the Scottsbluff/Gering area for use in finding the civic center and hotels was also distributed (see attachment).

Future Governance Committee Meetings

October 10 - Joint Channel Stability/TC meeting, 1-5 p.m., Scottsbluff/Gering, NE

October 11 - TC meeting 8 a.m. - 1 p.m., States meeting 8 a.m. - 5 p.m., 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 1:10 p.m.