Final Minutes
Governance Committee Meeting

Agenda and Minutes

Roger Patterson, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 12:30. No changes to the agenda were suggested. No changes to the January Governance Committee (GC) minutes were suggested and the minutes were accepted by consensus.

Open Comment Period - No comments were expressed.

Nebraska Congressional Hearing

Jim Cook reported that approximately 350 people attended the hearing held in Grand Island. The two topics were the Cooperative Agreement and Piping Plover Critical Habitat designation. Nine witnesses were called and each provided five minutes of verbal testimony as well as written testimony. At the end of the hearing, Congressman Osborne stated that he reached four conclusions; 1) reform of the ESA is needed, 2) the Cooperative Agreement should be evaluated for fairness, 3) sound science was not used to establish critical habitat in central Platte, and 4) Nebraska needs a comprehensive water plan. The GC discussed the need to conduct outreach to insure the public is hearing the correct message about the Cooperative Agreement and Proposed Program. There will need to be clear direction given to the Program Executive Director on his/her responsibility in this area. Maryanne provided a faxed letter from Congressman Osborne to Gale Norton, DOI Secretary, describing his points of interest and conclusions from the hearing (see attached).

EIS/BO Information Needs

Pallid Sturgeon Monitoring and Research

At the January meeting, the GC asked the Grand Island FWS Office to identify monitoring and research needs for pallid sturgeon and associated budget. This information was to be reviewed by the Executive Director's office. Dale and the FWS agreed that it would also be good to have input on technical issues and cost estimates from the TC's Fish Subgroup and the entire Technical Committee (TC). Dale indicated that during the TC meeting it was difficult to get past the policy level issues. However, the TC was asked to provide written comments on technical issues by February 27. Dale noted that the TC is still forwarding comments on technical issues.

Dale indicated that this review identified overall cost as a major issue. He stated that the FWS has indicated that parties outside the proposed Program have some responsibility, but are uncertain of the Program's appropriate share . Dale also noted that the monitoring and research would be done sequentially and that it may not be possible to conduct all activities if sufficient numbers of sturgeon are not captured. Concern was raised that even if technical issues are worked through, costs will still be hard to sell to state constituents. Ralph Morgenweck noted that costs are based on estimates if consultants are used to conduct all of the work. If universities or cooperators are used the total cost may be reduced.

Concern was raised that the eventual Program needs to result in regulatory certainty for the states and that when issues such as sed/veg and pallid sturgeon are brought forward that certainty is more tenuous. Ralph stated that the process is very similar to that being followed on the Colorado River. The water users are getting a great deal of certainty by conducting monitoring and research activities to help learn about the species and their habitat needs. The Program must include the pallid sturgeon if it is to provide regulatory certainty for the states and water users. Concern was raised that historical biological opinions resulted in a finding of jeopardy for pallid sturgeon based on depletion of water and impacts to habitat and now the FWS is requesting that the Program conduct monitoring and research to define habitat. Ralph noted that biological opinions are written with the information available at that time and there is generally a great deal of unknowns for threatened and endangered species. For pallid sturgeon, experts still need to understand the species use and habitat better.

The point was made that for some participants to agree to fund pallid sturgeon work in the lower Platte, they need a better understanding of how the Platte River fits into the larger picture (e.g., do flows on the Missouri dictate how and when pallid sturgeon use the Platte) and how the Platte functions as part of Priority Management Area Four as well as within the entire range of the species. Mark Butler committed to providing this information but may need more clarification from concerned parties. Ralph stated that the amount of water is not the issue in the Missouri River, but it is the timing of the water. The USACE Missouri River Master Plan is expected in May. This will be useful in identifying how to coordinate efforts in the lower Platte with efforts on the Missouri River.

It was suggested that the FWS and Executive Director's office have the list of topics reviewed by species experts. If this is done it will be important to put the Program's needs and pallid sturgeon monitoring and research needs into proper context. The GC asked the FWS and Executive Director's office to develop a list of questions/topics that would be asked of species experts. Brian Barels requested that the TC and/or the GC review the list of questions/topics before distribution to the experts. Dale noted that he and FWS would attempt get this review done prior to the March 25 workshop.

Pallid Sturgeon Hydrology Plan (R1a-EXT)

Don Anderson, FWS, distributed a one-page handout describing the Pallid Sturgeon Hydrology Plan (see attached). The plan is a phased approach to begin "testing the assumption" that will be implemented by the FWS working with the Water Management Committees (WMC). After each step, participants will review the assumptions and findings before proceeding to the next step. Don explained that the TC and WMC have reviewed the plan and that he has been working with an ad hoc WMC subgroup to address their concerns. The ad hoc subgroup is comfortable with the strategy outlined in the plan. Don asked for GC approval to proceed with implementing the plan. The GC agreed that the plan should be implemented with review of steps by the WMC.

First Increment Milestones (P3-1)

Mark Butler reported that the subgroup had addressed GC concerns and direction given at the January GC meeting. This included addressing interim steps for land and water as part of the milestone descriptions and not as official interim milestones. Concern was raised that the milestones may not be specific enough in regards to protection of water (i.e., whether protection is needed and by what means it will be protected.) Concern was also raised regarding wording in the explanatory material for the Tamarack milestone. Colorado stated that it will deliver the water to the state line but will not apply for any type of protection in Nebraska. Ann Bleed noted that it might not be necessary to protect the water in Nebraska, depending on time of year. The GC agreed that the current draft is sufficient for distribution to the EIS Team and FWS for analysis as part of the proposed Program. It was understood that this does not mean that the Milestones Document is finalized and that all parties will have an opportunity to suggest revisions.

Program Budget (A1-EXT)

Dale Strickland distributed a revised estimated Program budget and described how it had been changed since the previous distribution. Modifications included having a separate line item for Third Party Direct Impact Mitigation Contingency for the entire Program and a separate line item for Peer Review. Dale noted that it was difficult to index budget items that were negotiated and that the current numbers are generally based on 2000-2002 dollars. The budget will be sent to the EIS Team and FWS for use in their analyses.

Habitat Protection Plan (L1-EXT)

Margot Zallen explained that the GC appointed subgroup consisting of the Drafting Committee, Mark Butler, Brian Barels, and Dale Strickland are continuing their work on defining various aspects of the Habitat Protection Plan. They are currently working on a table to describe the various components of a habitat complex. The group still needs to work on a table for non-complex lands and the text describing the tables. Margot noted that they hope to distribute a draft next week.

Dale asked Curt Brown how the EIS Team would proceed given the discussions today. Curt stated that they are proceeding with development of the EIS and plan to have the description of the proposed Program out before the March 25 workshop.

Program Document

Margot reported that the Drafting Committee has been focusing on work related to the Habitat Protection Plan but that they hope to distributed a revised Program Document prior to the March 25 GC workshop.

Milestones and Subtasks

W6-Ext - Yield/Benefit of Tamarack Phase I

John Lawson, WMC Chair, provided the report. John stated that a letter sent by Jon Altenhofen to the WMC completed the subtask in sufficient detail for analysis in the EIS and BO (see attached). There are still operational questions that need to be addressed by the WMC as part of the entire milestone. Mark Butler concurred that there is sufficient information for the analysis to proceed. GC accepted the letter as completion of the W6-EXT subtask.

W9,10-Ext - Forest Service and Federal Depletion Plan Subtasks

Mark Butler explained that the FWS is developing a matrix of federal agencies and their anticipated depletions for development of the federal future depletions plan. More information will be available in April.

Polly Hays, US Forest Service (USFS), reported on W9-EXT. The USFS is participating with the other federal agencies as part of W10-EXT for activities other than vegetation management. Polly noted that the USFS would be clarifying how they consult with the FWS on forest plans and what the relationships are between vegetation management on Forest Lands and depletion issues. The USFS schedule is to have this information ready in April. The USFS is using 1997 as the baseline and modeling to demonstrate changes in water yield over time. She indicated that preliminary results indicate that vegetation management at the scale planned by the USFS does not have an impact/effect on depletion or water supply issues. Vegetation management issues will be addressed through individual consultations and will not be part of the Federal Depletions Plan. Concerns were raised that any depletion because of forest management needs to be replaced. Concerns were also raised that the current model might not considering evaporation off of the forest canopy adequately. Ralph noted that the USFS decision on water depletions or augmentation due to vegetation management would be precedent setting throughout the country and that a legal decision/determination will be needed. John Lawson noted that a draft Federal Depletion Plan, or at least initial write-up, has not been brought forward for GC or WMC review. There is also not a schedule in the milestones for review of the Federal Plan as there is for the state plans. Mark noted that he would include a discussion of the concepts during the March 25 workshop.

Parsons Deliverable

Dale explained that a draft letter report and table received from Parsons Engineering was distributed prior to the January GC meeting and a slightly revised draft was distributed as a hard copy after the meeting. The report represented the work product produced by the Parsons-EIS Technical Team dealing with the sediment/vegetation issue. Dale indicated that he had received no comments on the draft report to date and recommended that the GC accept the letter and associated table as completion of the Parsons contract, or provide comments so that Parsons can revise the information appropriately. The GC decided to take the topic under consideration at the March 25 workshop and requested that the Executive Director's office distribute a reminder prior to the workshop.

Subcommittee Reports

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, WMC Chair, noted most WMC topics have already been discussed today. The one remaining topic was review of the first annual information report from Colorado as part of their South Platte Depletions Plan. This is described in milestone W4-EXT. Rick Brown explained that Colorado is working on the report and will present a schedule for completion to the GC.

Land Committee

Brian Barels explained that he has been and will continue to keep Land Committee (LC) members updated on the work being done on the HPP. The LC is not planning a meeting until the HPP is ready for review.

Technical Committee

Dale Strickland provided the report in the absence of Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair. At the their February 25 and 26 meeting the TC discussed the pallid sturgeon issue, baseline, protocol development, and IMRP. Dale noted that the TC is planning a habitat selection workshop the morning before the April 18 GC workshop in Denver. Dale encouraged GC members to attend. The TC is implementing the Whooping Crane Monitoring protocol this spring using AIM Environmental Consultants.

Outreach Committee

Jerry Vandersnick, Outreach Committee (OC) Chair, provided the report. Jerry noted that he and others are getting low on Cooperative Agreement informational brochures and that before they are reprinted they should be reviewed for accuracy and to make sure that they are up to date. The GC directed the OC to review the brochures and recommend any changes that are needed. Margot Zallen also requested that the OC begin developing an outreach plan for when the DEIS is distributed. The GC concurred with this recommendation.

Finance Committee

Rick Brown, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, reported that the FC has not met recently. A FC subgroup is continuing to work on crediting document and fair share issues. This information will be discussed by the entire FC at upcoming meetings. Rick noted that the TC is having difficulty getting contractors to bid on monitoring projects. The TC is going to discuss the topic and one option is to bundle several projects together (e.g., spring and fall whooping crane monitoring).

Organizational Structure and Staffing

Maryanne Bach reported that the subgroup's intent is to have the GC review and discuss the most recent Organizational Structures Document at the March 25 workshop. Comments should be sent to Dale by March 18.

Open comment - No comments were expressed.

Future Meetings

March 25, 2002 - GC workshop, Crystal Inn, Denver; 9:30 a.m. - 5 p.m.

April 18-19, 2002 - GC workshop, Denver

May 21-22, 2002 - GC meeting, Denver

June 10-11, 2002 - GC workshop, Denver

July 18-19, 2002 - GC meeting, Nebraska