Final Minutes
Governance Committee Meeting

Agenda and Minutes

Ralph Morgenweck, Governance Committee (GC) Chair, called the meeting to order at 11:15 a.m. No changes to the agenda were suggested. The September Governance Committee (GC) minutes were approved as written.

Open Comment Period - No comments were expressed.

November Workshop Update

The following is a summary of the discussion and assignments resulting from the workshop held by the Governance Committee from 8:30 a.m. through 11:00 a.m. on November 14, 2002.

National Academy of Science Review - David Policansky, Associate Director, Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology, National Academy of Science (NAS) and Suzanne van Drunick, Senior Project Officer and Project Director for the Platte River NAS review, attended the workshop. The review process and options available to the GC were described.

NAS had provided a preliminary schedule for the review under the assumption that an interim report would be completed within six months. However, the interim report would not cover the entire scope proposed by the GC. It was decided that an interim report was not appropriate for the Platte River review and that one report would be completed, 12 months from the date of the contract between the NAS and the Department of the Interior (DOI). It was also agreed that the review would be guided by the scope and 10 questions provided by the GC. Suzanne van Drunick agreed to prepare a more detailed scope based on the GC scope and questions that would provide the basis for the contract with DOI. She also agreed to provide an updated schedule for the 12-month review.

It was agreed that at least two public meetings would be held during the review, one in Scottsbluff/Gering and one in Kearney, Nebraska. Each meeting would last from 2 1/2 to 3 days, with one day devoted to a field trip, one day for invited speakers and public comment, and one day for the panel to deliberate in private. It was agreed that the first meeting should be held in Scottsbluff/Gering and the second meeting should be held in Kearney, perhaps in April. A third meeting could possibly be held in Denver.

Suzanne asked for the following information from the GC:

2. Two to three meeting locations and suggested expert speakers to be invited to public meetings by the beginning of the contract; and,

3. A list of available scientific information within two weeks following the start of the contract.

The GC asked for recommendations for expert speakers and potential panel members to be sent to Executive Director (ED) Dale Strickland by December 6, 2002. The GC asked that the recommendations include names, addresses, and a brief description of the person's expertise. In addition, for expert speakers the recommendation should include a brief description of the information the person could potentially provide during their statement.

The GC discussed potential areas of expertise that should be covered by the invited speakers. The areas included:

2. Geomorphology;

3. Hydrology;

4. Hydrological infra-structure related to the river basin (i.e., the "plumbing");

5. Vegetation/habitat; and,

6. History of the Endangered Species Act in the river basin, starting with Greyrocks Reservoir.

It was agreed that both the GC and individual members of the GC may provide scientific information to the NAS. It was suggested that the GC could provide the literature upon which the Technical Committee's Baseline Document is based.

Recommendations for panel members, invited speakers, and available information will be discussed at the December workshop.

Outreach - It was agreed that the standing Outreach Committee would be dissolved. Members of that committee were asked to attend GC meetings when possible and to bring outreach needs to the attention of the GC. It was agreed that each state will continue to handle outreach within their respective state. It was also agreed that the GC would hold a brief discussion of outreach needs at the end of each GC meeting. If an outreach effort is identified, the GC will task the ED to see that the outreach effort is completed. The ED will solicit assistance from outreach expertise available from participating entities to accomplish these tasks.

Milestone and Subtask discussion, updates and decisions

Nebraska Depletions Plan (W1-EXT)

The Nebraska concept plan should be available in January of 2003. Jim Cook will ask the group working on Nebraska's plan if the existing draft is suitable for circulation. Jim was unable to provide a date for technical review of the plan by the Water Management Committee (WMC). Nebraska expects output from the COHYST Model in March of 2003. It is possible the plan will be ready for review by the WMC in June of 2003.

Wyoming Depletions Plan (W2-EXT)

Wyoming is currently responding to comments received from previous review. The Wyoming concept plan should be available in January of 2003 and possible technical review by the WMC by June of 2003.

Colorado North Platte Depletions Plan (W3-EXT)

Colorado's North Platte Depletions Plan is currently being reviewed by the WMC. John Lawson has received comments from Ann Bleed and the Bureau of Reclamation. Wyoming and Nebraska will provide additional comments on the plan to John.

Forest Service Vegetation Management Plan (W9-EXT)

The WMC has been asked for comments on the Forest Service (FS) draft plan, and none have been received to date. Colorado is still reviewing the document and will forward comments. Wyoming will also provide comments. Several members of the GC asked for clarification of the relationship between the FS plan and the Federal Depletions Plan. The Forest Service indicated that they are two separate plans and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) concurred. The Vegetation Management Plan covers potential depletions associated with vegetation management on FS lands and the Federal Depletions plan contains all other federal depletions, including all other potential depletions on FS lands. The FS consulted with the FWS on all minor depletions in 1995. The FS will provide a copy of the resulting Biological Opinion (BO) to anyone wishing to see a copy.

Federal Future Depletions Plan (W10,11-EXT)

John Lawson indicated that he had received two comments, both requesting that the plan clarify the relationship between the Federal Future Depletions Plan and the Forest Service Vegetation Management Plan.

Pallid Sturgeon

The GC discussed comments received on the draft decision document based on the discussion of the pallid sturgeon monitoring and research needs at the October 31 workshop. The decision document was approved as modified and revised final version of the document is attached.

Habitat Protection Plan (L1-EXT)/Land Action Plan (L6-EXT)

Dale Strickland reviewed comments he had received from Rhodell Jameson, Co-chair of the Land Committee (LC), regarding the Land Action Plan (LAP). Rhodell expressed concern about the Drafting Committee's plan to produce two documents, the official plan and a more reader-friendly version. Rhodell felt there should be one plan and that if the legal portion of the plan was to be summarized, the summary should be contained in the document, adjacent to the information being summarized. Rhodell also express support for the original plan prepared by the joint Technical Committee (TC)/LC Working Group.

Margot Zallen indicated that the Drafting Committee planed to discuss the LAP during an upcoming conference call. Margot suggested that Dale Strickland work with Vernon Nelson and Rhodell Jameson and prepare an article for the Landowner Newsletter describing the GC decision related to the LAP. Dale indicated that he would review the minutes of the appropriate GC meetings and prepare a draft of the article. He requested that the Drafting Committee assist him by providing an update on the status of the plan, a summary description of the contents of the plan, and a schedule for its completion.

The GC discussed Rhodell's concern about two documents. It was pointed out that part of the reason for having two documents was because information about the land component of the Program was scattered throughout Program documents. The GC indicated to the Drafting Committee that there should be one document and that the Drafting Committee should determine how to repeat critical information in the plan from other parts of the Program.

Dale Strickland discussed a draft of the material for the IMRP describing how in-channel habitat studies will be conducted and their relationship to adaptive management (see attachment). The description conveys the principle that these studies will begin at a small scale and a decision will be made at the end of each study regarding the next step. Options for subsequent steps will include abandoning the treatment (e.g., management method), modifying the treatment, or continuing with the same treatment at a larger scale. Paul Currier asked how multiple treatments on the same piece of land would be dealt with. Paul also suggested including a discussion of the level of effort required to fairly evaluate a particular treatment.

The GC generally agreed with the concept as described and suggested this information be reviewed with the TC and added to the draft IMRP.

Milestone Status Report

Dale Strickland distributed a status report on all milestones contained in the July 1997 Cooperative Agreement. He noted that Milestone W13-3 has not been addressed and asked for clarification about what the milestone meant. The GC agreed that the tracking and accounting component of the milestone is complete and the depletion impact analysis component of the milestone is no longer relevant.

Subcommittee Reports and Recommendations

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, WMC Chair, provided the report. John reported that Don Anderson and a subcommittee of WMC members continue to work on the hydrologic component of testing the assumption that water management for the target bird species in the central Platte would provide habitat benefits for the pallid sturgeon in the lower Platte. Don indicated that this group is nearing completion of their work. He will provide a report that summarizes all five phases of the analysis in one document. A presentation will be made to the WMC, and the TC will be invited to attend the presentation. After WMC review, the report will be presented to the GC, possibly at a future workshop.

John reviewed the status of the work on the choke point near North Platte, Nebraska. John recognized the passing of Peter Murphy, who had worked as a member of the EIS Team on this and any other geomorphology issues. Don Krause indicated that CNPPID will discuss the issue with their contractor on or before November 23, 2003. Don indicted Parsons would provide a written report at a latter date, hopefully by December 10 or 11. John indicated the issue would be discussed in detail at the January GC workshop.

John reviewed the status of the FWS description of in-stream flow terminology. He indicated that the WMC had tabled discussion of the use of the document because of lack of agreement on whether the document should be part of the Program. Don Anderson is working with a subgroup on a revision of the text of the document. The revised text will be submitted to the GC after January 1, 2003.

John reviewed the status of the chart describing the Section 7 process for future depletions and the language describing the chart. There is disagreement over whether the chart and text should be part of the Program. The primary concerns from Colorado's perspective is the effect peak flows have on their management of water and the fact that the chart (i.e., box 15) provides for a duel review of projects by the state and FWS to determine if they are covered by the state's depletions plan. John feels this is a policy issue that must be decided by the GC. The issue is that the chart indicates that if a proposed project impacts peak flows it is not covered by the Program and requires individual consultation. Colorado feels that peak flows were covered in the completed review of their depletions plan and that their one year and five year reporting requirement was satisfactory coordination with the FWS.

Mark Butler indicated that the FWS understood there could be some impacts to peak flows, but not substantial impacts. Butler also indicated that having a Program does not mean there will not be individual consultations, only that a project covered by the Program receives a quick review and brief and favorable BO. Mark is working with Hydrosphere to evaluate existing planned projects to see how peaks are affected at the state line and to the critical habitat. He indicated a desire to see what projects were used to analyze impacts in Colorado's Depletions Plan tool.

Mark Butler and Rick Brown will discuss the issue further so that the FWS understands how Colorado intends for their depletion plan to work in specific areas and with specific projects. John Lawson will work with them to identify policy issues for the GC.

State Meeting - No meeting held and nothing to report

Land Committee - No meeting held and nothing to report.

Technical Committee - No meeting held and nothing to report.

Outreach Committee - No meeting held and nothing to report. The standing committee was dissolved.

Finance Committee - No meeting held. Mike Purcell indicated that FC Chair Mike Besson had requested comments on the FC Charter, and had received no comments. Larry Schulz indicated he would provide comments.

Drafting Committee - No meeting held and nothing to report

Open Comment - No comments were received.

Adjourn - 11:30 a.m.

Future Meetings

December 10-11, 2002: Governance Committee workshop, Denver

January 13-14, 2003: Governance Committee meeting and workshop, Cheyenne, Wyoming

February 19, 2003: Governance Committee workshop, Denver