Final Minutes
Land Component Workshop

June 20 and 21, 2001
USFWS Building, 134 Union Blvd.
Lakewood, Colorado

June 20, 2001

Don Ament, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:25 a.m. and gave a brief introduction. It was noted that Dale Strickland would be facilitating the meeting to allow Ralph Morgenweck, original workshop facilitator, to participate more as a FWS representative. Dale noted agenda changes.

Land Component Elements and Status

Dale used a series of overheads to update workshop participants on the various elements of the Land Component and their status (see attached). Topics presented by Dale included Program Structure, possible protection process, Land Component operations, and the Habitat Protection Plan (HPP). Dale noted that multiple issues have been identified under each of the various elements and that most of the issues have not been resolved. During Dale's presentation the group discussed the issue of leases and easements and how they could fit into the Program and that concern has been raised with the use of leases, particularly "short-term" leases. Dale explained that the HPP describes the term of leases based on restoration needs and the chance for species benefit, no set time limit has been defined. It was noted that the Program should primarily consider leases with a minimum length of the time remaining during the First Increment. However it was explained that shorter-term leases might prove to be a valuable public relations mechanism. A suggestion was made to include a definition of leases and easements in the Program glossary. The Program will need to adhere to all federal, state, and county laws pertaining to the development of leases and easements. Other points discussed during the presentation included the need to decide how the Program would deal with damages that may result from Program activities. This will need to be factored into the budget. It was noted that the long review process needed before the Program can lease/purchase land could result in missed opportunities because land transactions often happen more quickly.

FWS Habitat Suitability Criteria Document

Mark Butler explained that the document was provided to the HPP Task Force for their use in developing the HPP. The Habitat Suitability Criteria describes what habitat complexes are in the FWS's view and describes the different habitat types and their approximate dimensions. Mark stated that these are goals, not for compliance, and that the FWS understands that there is not a single piece of property that fits the definition. The FWS used the Criteria and EIS Team GIS tool to investigate whether the First Increment and long-term land goals are attainable based solely on habitat and geography first for bridge segments 1 and 2 and then for all bridge segments. They determined that based just on geography and habitat it could be possible to attain or approach habitat complexes. The FWS realizes that this might not be actually possible because of landownership and the willing seller policy of the Program. Mark noted that their analysis indicated that major wet meadow restoration will be required to achieve these habitat complexes and that this will impact costs and protection time needed to realize benefits to the species. It was noted that the GIS analysis used the "best" parcels of property and still considerable wet meadow restoration is required. If the "average" parcels are used to construct a complex it is likely that more than 50% wet meadow restoration (approximately 1000 acres) would be required. Concern was raised regarding the impacts to the Program if it is not successful in achieving 10,000 acres in the correct proportions of wet meadow, open channel, and buffer. Margot noted that the Program will be able to use the "checks" during the First Increment for gauging the process and at the end of the First Increment all parties will have to evaluate where the Program stands in relation to the goals and objectives. Flexibility needs to be part of the Program.

Mark suggested that it would be useful for a small technical working group of individuals familiar with the region to go through a similar exercise with the FWS. The group could help "ground truth" the GIS land cover layer based on their familiarity with the region and help check the assumptions the FWS used in the analysis. Concern was raised that further analysis should not be conducted until the Program is ready to develop their proactive approach in protecting lands, but there was a general agreement that having more individuals familiar with the GIS analysis process would be helpful for furthering everyone's understanding of the issue.

Concern was raised that the FWS was identifying high priority lands (proactive approach) on the GIS maps and that this could lead to negative landowner reaction. If the effort is to internally convince the parties that the Program's objective is obtainable and the information is not distributed publicly then there is not the same level of concern. Ralph Morgenweck clarified that the FWS is not proposing using this effort to target specific lands. The DOI needs to insure that the land component is a viable alternative for analysis in the EIS and BO. It was noted that the Program could be proactive in identifying bridge segments and/or habitat types without identifying specific parcels of land. This would be something different than the current GIS analysis.

Development of Habitat Complexes

Paul Currier described two different examples that the Trust used to develop habitat complexes or segments of habitat complexes (see attachment). One method included the acquisition of three relatively large parcels of land that comprise Mormon Island and Shoemaker Island. The other method was the acquisition of smaller parcels by the Trust, TNC, and the FWS that combined can function as a complex. Paul noted that there are still areas within and around these areas that they would be interested in protecting. Two criteria used by Paul for identification of potential tracts are soils and proximity to sandhill crane roost locations. This information along with size, distance to other Trust ground, and other items identified in the handout help them prioritize acquisitions. Paul noted that the Trust has had lots of potential lands offered recently and that some of this land might be attractive to the Program. It was noted that all acquisitions are different and that the Program staff/land negotiations persons will need flexibility in dealing with landowners.

During the discussion after Paul's presentation the question was asked how or if the Trust's properties would score differently based on the Habitat Suitability Criteria, specifically in relation to buffers. Paul explained that he has not done this exercise but that it is possible that areas would score differently and that some of their properties might not meet the Habitat Suitability Criteria. It was noted that the Program would likely have the opportunity to begin their lands program by protecting areas near existing conservation lands to complete or add to complexes.

Land Policy Issues

Issue 1 - Role of the Habitat Suitability Criteria in Implementing the Land Action Plan

Ralph Morgenweck began the discussion by reading the proposed Program's goals and objectives for land. Ralph noted that both the long-term and First Increment objectives discuss land protected in habitat complexes. The Habitat Suitability Criteria is a guide when selecting lands to protect and should be part of the evaluation process. The evaluation process should identify if lands that can be restored to some portion of a complex or if it is important for some other reason. What the Trust and TNC have accomplished in building complexes by protecting smaller adjoining parcels and building onto them, as discussed by Paul Currier, is fine and will likely be the process by what the Program builds complexes. Ralph explained that he believed that the issue of habitat complexes was largely settled in the Cooperative Agreement but that the Land Component Policy Statement contains several gray areas on the issue. The Policy Statement needs to be brought together more with the Cooperative Agreement. There needs to be a clear discussion of "alternative" habitats and how they will be included. The discussion needs to clearly state what the alternative habitats are and what the Program wants to learn from them.

Concern was raised with the use of "criteria" and that there could be misinterpretation in the future that the document is for some level of compliance. It was noted that Ralph's description of the Habitat Suitability Criteria as being a "guide" is not clearly defined in the document and should be. Enough flexibility is needed so that an outside party cannot say that the Program is not in compliance because of their interpretation of the Habitat Suitability Criteria. Concern was also raised that in the future the document might be interpreted as being agreed to by all parties if there is not a clear statement as to it being a FWS document. It was suggested that the description of the document's use and development be included in the HPP. David Little explained that he was asked by the states to review the Habitat Suitability Criteria document and make suggested changes to the document as well as how the document can be used in the HPP. David indicated that information would be provided to Dale Strickland by June 29. The HPP Task Force will use the information in further development of the HPP. Ralph asked that David tier directly off of the Cooperative Agreement language. David will also suggest changes in the Habitat Suitability Criteria document that would help clarify that it is FWS guidance and not a performance standard.

There was some discussion regarding the use of "suitable" habitat since the First Increment objective just references habitat. There is the belief that the First Increment is meant to define suitable habitat and that this should not be defined prior. Margot noted that the proposed Program says the land objective will use the FWS's habitat complex idea as the initial focus. To them this is suitable habitat. This definition could change during the First Increment and whatever the resulting definition is will be used in the Second Increment.

Issue 2 - Relationship of Alternative Habitats and Definition of Suitable Habitat

Brian Barels indicated that he was asked by the states to draft a document related to alternative habitats and their "demonstrable" benefits. It was explained that some people believe that there are alternative habitats that provide valuable and suitable habitat to the target species. The challenge will be to balance the complex approach with alternative habitats to investigate the two options. Ralph noted that the first step would need to be to clearly identify what the alternative habitats are. After that the Program can conduct appropriate monitoring and research to investigate the role of those habitats in conservation of the populations of target species. This could change the focus of the Program toward protecting these alternative habitats as primary habitats, but currently the focus is on complexes. Dale noted that there appears to be at least two possible strategies. One is gather information on alternative habitats and their value to species and then use the information, during the First Increment or at end of First Increment, to protect alternative habitats as a primary focus. The other strategy is to acquire several habitat units of each type and compare one habitat type to another in a more experimental fashion. The HPP will need to be clear on what strategy is being taken by the Program. Ralph stated that habitat protections during the First Increment should be aimed at complexes, at least until this is changed with monitoring and research data. Ralph explained that this assumes that there do exist alternative habitats (e.g., sandpits) that the Program could conduct management on as well as monitoring and research. This could require payment to the owner for access rights but a large amount of money would not be invested on acquiring an interest in these lands.

Concern was raised that in the Provisional Land Policy Statement it states that the initial focus would be on complexes but that this did not mean the entirety of the First Increment and that now it seems that the FWS is saying the focus on complexes needs to be for the entire First Increment. Ralph explained that he is attempting to get flexibility into the Program for the GC. The Cooperative Agreement only discusses 10,000 acres of habitat in complexes; however, if data show sandpits can function as suitable habitat then this focus should change to include sandpits. It was noted that the Program should insure that it would not be out of compliance if the GC decides to protect a land parcel that is not part of a complex (e.g., isolated wetland).

There was further discussion regarding different types of alternative habitats. Margot noted that the Program needs some sort of checklist of what will constitute demonstrable benefits in these habitats. Brian noted that he would include this as part of his assignment.

Issue 3 - Relationship of Land Policy to Crediting

Ralph Morgenweck noted that if the Program protects land for habitat (core and buffer) it should be credited toward the 10,000-acre objective. Ralph also stated that the FWS does not require a separate technical review of lands because they will be part of the overall review and evaluation process as described in the HPP. There was general agreement that the decision will be made before each land protection as to what will be credited (e.g., the GC might agree that some portion of a larger parcel should not be credited before the protection). It was noted that each state and the federal government would have veto authority over land transaction so if one party did not agree with the crediting the Program would not protect that parcel. Ralph stated that if some activity outside of the Program renders Program lands ineffective as habitat for the target species, the Program should divest itself of this land but that the Program should not lose credit until the land is fully divested. The point was made that the Program should not use lands simply to generate income, but that income could be generated from habitat lands either in grazing, haying, or other agricultural practices. It was noted that the Habitat Suitability Criteria is confusing in the definition of buffer and core habitat. Mary Jane Graham pointed out that the document describes core habitat as equaling suitable habitat and then goes on to describe buffer. Margot noted that buffer should be part of the suitable habitat definition and that it should be clarified in the document.

Issue 4 - Protection Priorities

Ralph Morgenweck noted that the Program will only be able to protect what is offered and available to the Program. However, all things being equal he personally would "vote", as a GC representative, to protect a parcel that would cost less to restore and manage than one with high restoration costs. Other factors that will need to be considered are location and relationship to other protected lands. Dale stated that the HPP does not identify specific parcels for protection but rather outlines a step-down process for protecting lands on a case-by-case basis.

Issue 5 - Impacts of the Piping Plover Critical Habitat Designation

Ralph explained that the only impact that the designation might have to the Program is a negative "image" effect on local landowners and others because of the term critical habitat. The designation will have no impact on the Program, and there will be no additional requirements. Ralph noted that a packet of information related to the designation was distributed to the GC and other recently.

Issue 6 - Use of Conservation Lands in the Program

Dale explained that the current HPP has two slightly different paragraphs dealing with the use of lands enrolled in federal, state, or private conservation programs to achieve the First Increment land objective of 10,000 acres of habitat. One paragraph is very general and allows the consideration of any conservation land on a case-by-case basis as long as the Program agrees with the way the lands are managed. The other paragraph is more restrictive in what lands can be considered (e.g., it would not allow inclusion of the Wyoming land during the First Increment). Ralph commented that the critical issues are the Program objective of 10,000 acres of habitat in complexes and that this will be done on a case-by-case basis. It was noted that the Program needs the flexibility to work with any landowner to achieve the land objective. Dale noted that the GC seemed to agree more with the general language. Ralph stated that this is generally the case as the Wyoming land could count during the First Increment, but that the wording in the HPP needs to better reflect what is said in the Cooperative Agreement. The GC asked that the HPP indicate that the landowner has the right to agree or disagree with enrolling their land, there will not be dual compensation for the same piece of property, the GC needs to agree on the land's management, and term of protection needs to be of sufficient length. The Executive Director's office was tasked with making the edits to the HPP based on the GC input.

Issue 7 - Adaptive Management

Ralph commented that the Program would need to use adaptive management throughout the First Increment. The key will be to determine when enough information has been collected to indicate a change should be implement (e.g., from complexes to some other habitat configuration). The only part of the land component not subject to adaptive management is the objective of 10,000 acres of habitat. The GC agreed with this point.

Habitat Protection Plan

Issue 1 - Should Mussels be Included in the Other Species Section

Jim Jenniges noted that the HPP Task Force agreed that they should be included at their June 14 meeting. Paul Currier asked if "indicator" species could be added in the other species criteria. Sharon noted that the TC is working on a list of other species of concern to help the Program keep track of these species and consider them during management. The Other Species of Concern section should include language on how species could be added or removed from the list.

Issue 2 - Intermediate Land Targets

Mark Butler stated that the P3-1 Milestones Subgroup is addressing the issue of land milestones and any possible intermediate targets. The GC agreed that the HPP should include these as drafted by the P3-1 Milestone Subgroup.

Issue 3 - Proactive Approach to Land Identification

Dale noted that the GC had asked that this be added to the agenda based on the discussion earlier in the day. Ralph commented that the issue would likely come up again near completion of the Cooperative Agreement. All parties realize that it is a sensitive topic.

Recap

Dale provided a review of the day's discussions. Margot noted that the HPP Task Force should consider defining short and long-term leases. Dale noted that the Plan has criteria identified for determining if lands should be protected under given lease terms (i.e., sufficient to realize restoration costs and benefit the species) but does not define by number of years. The HPP should also include that lands will count when acquired as agreed to by the GC. Margot asked that the figures that Dale used during the meeting introduction be included in the Land Action Plan introduction. Other announcements for different meeting times and locations were discussed.

June 21, 2001

Dale called the meeting to order at 8:15 a.m.

Land Component Implementation Issues

Decision Making Process - Role of GC, LAC, staff, and FWS

Ralph stated that the FWS does not need a separate review and that there should not be a special role in the decision making process for the FWS. The FWS and others will be part of the land evaluation process and will also be on the LAC. All parties agreed that the GC has ultimate authority, subject only to direction from the Oversight Committee, in decision making.

The group discussed the role and function of the LAC. The LAC will advise the Program staff and GC, they will not make final decisions on land protections or management. The LAC will review reports from the Program staff, Land Management Entity and Land Interest Holding Entity and pass their findings to the GC. Paul Currier explained in his view, and how the Trust works, is that the committees would develop broad policies and then the staff would implement the policies as related to land protection and management. The staff needs to be able to tell landowners if the Program is interested and that their lands fit within what the Program is looking for. Concern was raised that if a cumbersome process is established now there will be the need to immediately streamline it in the Program. The staff will develop management plans or recommendations for protection and will review them with the LAC and then forward them to the GC. The Structure and Staff Subgroup was asked to review the Land White Paper and incorporate that information when discussing staffing needs.

Concern was raised that the Program will not be able to act quickly enough when lands are offered and that they might only be left with protecting lands from people that are willing to wait for the Program. Dick Pierce noted that with smaller tracts this will be particularly true but with larger parcels the Program might have more time to act. Dick suggested that the Program staff or land negotiating person/entity could make offers contingent on LAC/GC approval.

Land Interest Holding Entity

Issue 1 - TNC Proposal and Plan for Identification of Program LIHE

Dale explained that he had sent a letter to Brent Lathrop, TNC, outlining the GC request for a written proposal related to their involvement in any land protection during the Cooperative Agreement. TNC is in the process of developing the proposal for GC review. Vernon Nelson noted that John Heaston and Brent provided a presentation during the June 14 Land Committee meeting. They commented that TNC is planning on having a program in the central Platte region and hopes that they can work with our Program. Several GC members commented that the Program should work with TNC and not compete for lands. Paul Currier noted that currently all conservation organizations in the region work together on land protections so that they are not competing against one another and that the Program will need to be involved in land protection on a similar level.

The GC confirmed that the Program's Land Interest Holding Entity (LIHE) will primarily hold land, pay taxes, and cover other financial and legal responsibilities. The GC needs to develop a strategy for selecting the LIHE before Program initiation. Rhodell Jameson noted that there is not a perfect existing entity and that the states and federal government need to work out their legal issues. The LIHE is not a major Land Committee topic at this point. It was noted that the Program would likely have to partner with existing entities to protect enough lands to achieve the 10,000-acre objective. Paul Currier noted that he believed the Trust would be willing to partner with the Program if the lands are not protected solely with Trust money. For example, if the Program contributes toward the purchase or management costs in his opinion this could count toward the First Increment objective. If all protection and management costs are paid by the Trust the lands should not count until the second increment. The GC asked the Structure and Staffing group to flesh out the issue of how staff and the LIHE would interact/function, including joint ventures.

Issue 2 - Exit Strategy

The GC recognized that there were two related issues involved in developing an exit strategy, the policy and the specific language for leases, easements, and deeds. The Finance Committee was charged with developing the exit strategy policy/process and then state and federal land experts will be utilized for the specific language. This was identified as a lower priority than milestones needed for the EIS Team and other "hot topics". It was noted that even without the Program the states would likely need to have some land under protection and being managed for the target species.

Land Management

Process for Selecting a Land Management Entity

Dale suggested that selection of the Land Management Entity (LME) could be handled as a sole source or by the development of an RFP and proposal process. The LME will be charged to work with staff to develop management plans for each tract protected. The group discussed what types of guidance is needed for development of the plans (e.g., timeline, include both management and maintenance, etc). The LAC and GC will have some idea of what management a specific tract will require because of the evaluation process conducted by staff and LAC.

Adaptive Management

Dale asked that the GC provide policy ideas to help the adaptive management group working with the Draft Committee to address the specifics of the adaptive management issue. There was general agreement that sufficient monitoring needs to be funded so that quality data are collected to help make adaptive management decisions. The issue of including multiple methods of management or other activities for use in adaptive management was discussed. The GC will have the ultimate authority in making adaptive management decisions.

Good Neighbor Policy

The point was made that the GC has not resolved how the Program will deal with the issue of direct damages. Rhodell noted that this is a major concern with landowners and needs to be addressed, if the Program can avoid having to go to court for the smaller claims it might help with public relations. Dale noted that the Program would likely receive bad public relations if they deny any claim, even if the claim is deemed to be unjustified. It was agreed that the issue needs to be discussed in a good neighbor policy. There was general agreement that the best solution was to avoid any negative direct impacts if at all possible. The development of a good neighbor policy was delegated to the Structure and Staffing Subcommittee. The subcommittee was asked to work on the policy issue as well as the process of implementing the policy during the Program.

Program Staff

Dale noted that there was significant discussion regarding the role of Program staff earlier in the meeting and that the Structure and Staffing Subcommittee is working on the issue.

Land Examples

Mark Butler provided a list of theoretical lands or situations that the Program could face during the First Increment. The examples varied from a large piece of property approaching a complex to a very small isolated wetland. Several of the examples will be included as part of Brian Barels' task for describing alternative habitats. It was generally agreed that the GC would make the ultimate decision whether to protect a tract or not. Concern was raised that the entire focus was being placed on protection of complexes and that the Cooperative Agreement includes more flexibility in the protection of lands outside of the area through the adaptive management process. Dale noted that combining information from the Cooperative Agreement, the Provisional Land Policy Statement, and the HPP would likely be part of Brian's task in describing alternative habitats. When demonstrable benefits are shown those habitats will become part of the Program's focus.

Summary

David Little and Brian Barels will review the wording in the Cooperative Agreement and Provisional Land Policy as they relate to draft Habitat Suitability Criteria document and alternative habitats. Information for these efforts will be used to develop guidelines in the HPP. The FWS agreed that the Habitat Suitability Criteria document is not a compliance standard but is guidance for the HPP and land evaluation process. The HPP Task Force was charged with identifying areas within the Provisional Land Policy Statement that need clarification and revision. The GC will then decide who should revise the document based on the HPP Task Force recommendations.

Parsons Update

Don Ament commented that the Parsons Team is still on schedule but do not have any conclusions as of yet. The Parsons Team has met with the EIS Team and plan more meetings, as needed. Don reminded the group of the July workshop to discuss the topic. Ann Bleed noted that Parsons felt the meeting with the EIS Team to discuss the Sed/Veg model was helpful and that they have started to analyze data.