Mike Besson, Governance Committee Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:10 a.m. No modifications to the agenda were voiced.

Larry Todd announced that Patty Beneke was stepping down from her current position either on January 8 or 15. Larry read some comments from Patty to the Governance Committee (GC). Larry indicated he and Ralph Morgenweck would continue as the Department of Interior's primary representatives on the GC.

Ralph Morgenweck announced the retirement of Jim Lutey. Jim was congratulated and thanked for all his hard work on the Cooperative Agreement.

The draft minutes of the November Governance Committee meeting were reviewed. Don Kraus suggested a minor change to the minutes and they were approved as changed by consensus.

Executive Director's Report

Dale Strickland, Executive Director, reported that disbursements would be covered during the Finance Committee report. Dale noted that there were no new contracts signed since the last GC meeting and then gave a brief review on the progress of existing contracts.

Committee Reports

Water Action Plan Committee

John Lawson reported that the Water Action Plan Committee (WAPC) had met on December 16, 1999. John briefly explained the lists of possible alternatives developed by each state as well as by Dan Luecke to provide the remaining 60-80 KAF of water. During the WAPC meeting there was concern raised over possible cumulative effects from the various water projects. During discussion of the alternatives, two main "concepts" were raised: 1) portions of water projects will likely be reserved to offset future depletions and 2) Dan Luecke suggested a possible Trust (Contingency) Fund to provide funds for additional water needs should selected water projects prove to be inadequate to provide the 60-80 KAF.

At the WAPC meeting, Curt Brown gave a presentation on the level of detail needed for EIS analysis. This information supplemented the information on the level of detail needed in the ESA analyses provided by Jim Lutey at the November meeting. Some of the areas discussed by Curt included location, operation, and legal/institutional requirements. The WAPC determined that three levels of detail are needed 1) Reconnaissance Level - needed for the Programmatic EIS; 2) Feasibility Level - needed to present projects to the public; and 3) Implementation Level - needed for construction of a project.

Action items from the WAPC meeting included having Boyle Engineering help draft portions of the first draft of the Water Action Plan. It was agreed that Dan Luecke's list of projects, which incorporated and supplemented the states project lists, would be a good starting point for the first draft of a Water Action Plan. Boyle will work closely with the WAPC and the three states to develop major principles for inclusion in the Water Action Plan. Boyle will also help identify information needed by the EIS Team for use in their models. These models will be used to estimate net reductions due to cumulative impacts of alternatives.

Another action item from the WAPC meeting was the testing of Nebraska State water law for the protection of Program water. During this discussion Ann Bleed explained the procedures that will need to be followed to test the law. Ann noted that the granting of a water right is a legal procedure. If there are any objectors to the application, the Director acts as a judge and determines whether to grant or deny the application based solely on the record created during the hearing. Thus, at this point in time, there is no way to judge what the Director would decide. However, the granting of a water right in Nebraska depends in part on insuring the new rights will not adversely impact existing water rights. For this reason, it is always advisable for the applicant to work with and enlist the support of any water right holders that might be impacted by the new right. In many cases, the holders of an existing right is willing to wave certain of their rights and not raise an objection to the new rights. The new water right can often be conditioned, if necessary, to accommodate any agreements between the applicant and the existing appropriator. Ann also pointed out that she is describing the existing law. If necessary to make the Program work, and if Nebraska deems the Program merits such action, the law could be changed so that Program water is sufficiently protected. Jon Altenhofen noted that another major point will be the definition of new water and that this is something that the Water Management Committee (WMC) will be working on but will not be able to give a definitive answer. Mike Besson asked for input from the WMC on the issue so the three states and the districts can meet in February to discuss the approach to be used for applying for a water right.

Future Depletions Report

Jim Cook was not able to attend the GC meeting and present Nebraska's future depletion report. The Wyoming and Nebraska reports will be given in January.

Water Management Committee

John Lawson, Water Management Committee (WMC) Chair, provided the report. John reported that Boyle Engineering has finished the final Water Conservation/Supply Study report and that 150 copies had been made for distribution. This constituted completion of a major milestone.

Another topic discussed was tracking and accounting. The WMC discussed how dry year leasing could be done, possible need for additional state laws to protect water, and what was needed for compliance issues. Water compliance issues need to be resolved and provided to the Technical Committee for inclusion in the Integrated Monitoring and Research Component (IMRC). Mark Butler will provide compliance criteria and examples of how compliance might work using Pathfinder (3-Brick) and Tamarack. Each state will also be providing information on their tracking and accounting procedures for use in the IMRC

The definition of "new water" was also discussed. This will be a major discussion topic at the January meeting. It was agreed that the WMC is the best technical body to provide advice to the GC on this topic. The South Platte Model will be useful as well as the other models. The South Platte Model should be completed by the end of December.

Land Committee

Rhodell Jameson and Vernon Nelson, Land Committee (LC) Co-Chairs, provided the report. Vernon started by giving a brief update on the Third Party Impacts study. He asked for and received approval from the GC for a comment period extension until the next LC meeting, January 10. Dale Strickland reported that a LC member had asked that 500 copies of the report be provided to him and that he would distribute to the full LC at his expense. The GC felt that the current effort to make the report available through the LC's monthly newsletter is sufficient and that providing 500 copies was not warranted.

Rhodell updated the GC on the dates for the facilitated workshop of the Land Ownership Entity Subcommittee. The white paper has been completed by Mary Jane Graham and Marty Zeller and has been distributed. The white paper will be used as a basis for discussion at the workshop. A questionnaire will be sent to participants prior to the workshop to help identify further concerns.

Dale Strickland provided an update on the Habitat Protection Plan Task Force. Dale briefly discussed the major comments received and how they were addressed. These points included accepting large complexes as "ideal" but realizing that they may be unattainable, inclusion of a figure diagramming an existing protected area (e.g., Rowe Sanctuary), protecting wet meadow buffer habitat as lowest priority, and including a series of "step-downs" for priorities. Larry Todd asked that Dale provide a brief description of the Habitat Protection Plan at the Land Ownership Entity facilitated meeting. Paul Tebbel described how buffer habitat for open channel differed from buffer habitat for wet meadows.

Dale explained the two options for protection of habitat as 1) protect existing "suitable" habitat and 2) restore and protect areas that are currently not "suitable". Option one is less expensive but option two may result in a net increase in habitat. Both options are included in the current plan but the GC needs to decide if there will be a stated preference for one of the options. Ralph Morgenweck responded that the first option makes more sense fiscally, but he realized that existing "suitable" habitat was not very available. Brian Barels and others asked that the options be left open, but fiscal consideration would be made when actually protecting land. Larry Todd noted that these types of process issues would be discussed at the facilitated meeting.

Ralph Morgenweck noted that the current plan focuses on leases and easements as the means to protect habitat and that this may not provide the long-term land objectives like purchasing would. It was explained that the current draft focuses more on leases and easements because this is what local land interests have always preferred. There was discussion on what the GC direction to the Task Force should be on this point. Jim Lutey noted that providing a range for how much lands would be in leases, easements, and purchased may be best for EIS analysis. Many felt that starting with short term leases was the best approach and that longer term arrangements would be made through these short term leases. Comments on the current draft are due by January 7, 2000. Ralph suggested that the LC develop scenarios with the EIS Team to use in the analysis. It was also suggested that the plan could state that regardless of the method used for habitat protection the intent was to work toward protection in perpetuity.

Vernon Nelson provided a presentation on the findings of the water leasing subgroup (see attachment). Points covered during Vernon's presentation included cost and profit for irrigated and dryland corn and soybeans. The subgroup noted that water is worth more at different locations along the river and estimated the average cost for leasing water at $123.40/acre-foot.

Technical Committee

Paul Tebbel, Technical Committee (TC) Chair, gave the report. Paul explained that the majority of the last TC meeting was spent discussing comments received on the IMRC. One of the major discussion points was the concept of compliance versus biological response monitoring. Dale Strickland made a brief presentation to the GC on the TC's view of this topic. Paul discussed how changes to the IMRC would be made.

Another area discussed at the TC meeting was the progress of the FWS on developing a "R3-1 Document". The document will outline the minimum information needed by the FWS to assess biological response to the Program. The R3-1 Document will help focus the TC efforts in developing the IMRC and protocols and will assist in budgeting.

Paul noted that the he and the TC would be developing a scope of work for development of protocols. Paul also noted that the Cottonwood Ranch Demonstration project was not discussed sufficiently at the last meeting and will be a major discussion point at theJanuary meeting.

Outreach Committee

Becky Mathisen provided the report in the absence of Jeff Buettner, Outreach Committee (OC) Chair. Becky reported that limited work had been done since the last GC meeting. The OC had considered preparing a press release in advance of the Water Action Plan but decided that each individual entity would respond to the media. The OC will be working on question/answer brochures for the EA and Groundwater issues. Production of newspaper inserts for Colorado and Wyoming has been delayed until development of the Water Action Plan. Dayle Williamson distributed some materials sent out by his office and introduced Nebraska's new outreach person for central Nebraska, Gerry Vanderschnick.

Finance Committee

Larry Todd, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, provided the report. Larry reported that invoices have been received from the Executive Director's office, WEST Inc., Kearney Area Community Foundation, and CDR. The FC and GC accepted the amount of $30,631.97 for December invoices. A worksheet has been developed that outlines disbursements, expenses, and budget remaining (see attachment). The Executive Director presented a Cooperative Agreement/ Program budget to the FC comments. Preliminary estimates based on each committee's information show the Cooperative Agreement/Program as being approximately $49 million over budget. All committees are working on modifying and refining their respective budgets. Decisions on a proposal from the TC to develop protocols and third quarter funding agreements were discussed but no decisions were made.

Groundwater Study Update

Mike Slifer, USGS, gave a brief report on the progress of the current groundwater study. The subgroup is working on analyzing the data and anticipates a final report in March. A more detailed report to the GC would be possible in the future. Rhodell Jameson noted that preliminary information appears to show some use of groundwater may be possible for the Program given current rainfall amounts.

Milestone Reports

Colorado - Kent Holsinger indicated nothing new to report. Colorado will provide a complete milestone report in January.

Nebraska - Dayle Williamson indicated nothing new to report.

Wyoming - Mike Besson indicated nothing new to report.

Department of the Interior - Larry Todd reported that the EIS Team is identifying models that they will be using in the analysis and asked for time at the January meeting to brief the GC. Larry also asked for time at theFebruary GC meeting to discuss alternatives being considered and items to be in the formulation report due in March. Jim Lutey noted that Paul Tebbel had addressed the work the FWS is doing on R3-1. Jim also noted that the USGS-BRD office in Fort Collins will be finishing revisions of the whooping crane model soon.

Open Comment Period

Mary Jane Graham brought forward four areas that Central Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation District feels need clarification/revision in the Environmental Account document (see attachment). Mary Jane noted that at some point the GC might need to write a letter to the FERC regarding these issues.

Ralph Morgenweck explained to the group that the FWS has been sued several times for not establishing critical habitat for various species. The latest lawsuit that they lost involved the piping plover in the Midwest. However, the decision will likely impact the entire range of the piping plover. FWS has asked for 18 months to develop the critical habitat areas. This will likely result in more of "perceived" effects rather than any "real" effects to central Nebraska. The FWS outreach people have started working on documents to explain the issue.

Future Governance Committee Meetings

January 20, 2000 - Water Action Plan, Quality Inn, North Platte, Nebraska

January 21, 2000 - Regular GC meeting, Quality Inn, North Platte, Nebraska

February 23 - Water Action Plan, site to be determine, Wyoming

February 24 - Regular GC meeting, site to be determine, Wyoming

March 22 - Water Action Plan, Kearney, Nebraska

March 23 - Regular GC meeting, Kearney, Nebraska

April 26 - Water Action Plan, Denver, Colorado

April 27 - Regular GC meeting, Denver, Colorado

Adjourn

The meeting was adjourned at approximately 12:20 p.m.