Missouri River Basin Association

____________________

DRAFT MINUTES

 September 20 Draft MINUTES of the

Missouri River Basin Association Directors’ Meeting

Chico Hot Springs, Montana

September 8-9, 2004

Wednesday, September 8, 2004

1.   Call to Order:

            The Missouri River Basin Association (MRBA) Directors’ meeting began at 8:30 a.m. on Wednesday, September 8, 2004.   David Pope (KS) called the meeting to order, and the following people attended:

MRBA Directors:

David Pope, Kansas (MRBA President)

Garland Erbele (MRBA Vice President)

Roger Patterson, Nebraska (MRBA Treasurer)

Todd Sando, North Dakota (MRBA Secretary)

Sue Lowry, Wyoming

Woody Corbine, Mni Sose

Harold Hommes, Iowa

Jack Stults, Montana

Mike Wells, Missouri

Federal Directors:

Jaralyn Beek, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation

Nick Stas, WAPA

Rose Hargrave, Corps

Bill Mulligan, Corps

Jim Berkley, EPA

Mike Olson, Fish and Wildlife Service

Mike Collins, Bureau of Reclamation, GP Region

Rick Nelson, Bureau of Reclamation, Bismarck

Others in Attendance:

Steve Adams, Kansas

Mike McGhee, Iowa

Dawnette Owens, Mni Sose

Mark Rath, South Dakota

Gary Flory, the River Group

Bill Bryan, Missouri AG’s Office

Don Jorgensen, Stakeholder

Jeff Shafer, Nebraska

John Drew, Missouri

Tim Bryggman, Montana

Rich Moy, Montana

Randy Asbury, Coalition to Protect the Missouri River

Darrell Dorsey, Kansas City, Kansas, BPU

Richard Opper, MRBA

2.   December 2002 Planning Document:

Opper summarized the MRBA December 2002 Planning Document.  He reviewed what MRBA has done well and what action items it has not yet achieved.   Bryan (MO) brought up the issue of how MRBA votes on issues.  Wells (MO) thought that the Principles of Management section inaccurately captured the MRBA Directors’ goal of insisting on consensus on all major policy decisions. Pope, (KS) and Lowry (WY) said that the section accurately reflected the thoughts of the directors, which was to shoot for consensus. A general discussion on the topic of consensus followed.  Hommes (IA) said that Iowa already insists on a consensus within his state before Iowa can vote on major policy issues at MRBA meetings.  Patterson (NE) said that all the Directors understand the perils of voting on big issues without a consensus, even if it is sometimes necessary.  Wells (MO) said that Missouri cannot participate in an organization that is not good for his state’s interests.  Asbury (CPR) said he thought MRBA’s most important role was to serve an informational, educational and facilitating function for the basin, things it has done well in the past.  He said that proceeding with votes on policy issues, particularly when there is no consensus, will only cause further hard feelings and mistrust of MRBA.

3.   MRBA Reorganization:

Pope (KS) summarized the Kansas Proposal (Appendix A).  He said the proposal is an attempt to get the water management and fish and game interests in each state on the same page.  The proposal suggests replacing MRBA and MRNRC with a single organization that has two representatives from each state, and two Tribal representatives.  Adams (KS) added the point that we can no longer separate most water management issues from fish and wildlife considerations.  He said the Kansas proposal attempts to help the states be more effective by changing the structure of the existing organizational.  Lowry (WY) asked whether the functions that MRNRC performs, and the organization itself will still be needed.   Hargrave (Corps) said the Corps would like to see the states speak with one voice, but asked about the other state agencies besides the DNRs and Fish and Game Departments.   She indicated that based on public comments on the Master Manual DEIS, the public was concerned that adaptive management meant that biologists would run the river, and that incorporating the MRNRC into MRBA without bringing along the stakeholders and other interests may be problematic from a perception standpoint.  Erbele (SD) asked how this proposal fits in with the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Committee (MRRIC).   Hargrave said the Corps had made no decisions on how to set up MRRIC.  She reported that the Corps needs to coordinate internally on MRRIC.  Then it needs to coordinate with other federal agencies regarding MRRIC. The Missouri River Basin Interagency Roundtable (MRBIR) may provide a forum for federal participation in a recovery effort.  Finally, she said MRRIC needs to be developed from the grassroots up and that the Corps would not dictate a structure for MRRIC.

Stults (MT) said Montana appreciates Kansas’s efforts to look at a new structure for MRBA.  He thinks it is a good proposal and generally worth pursuing.  He suggested not waiting for MRRIC to be developed before proceeding on other issues.  He also asked how the new group would deal with technical issues. 

 Patterson (NE) said that he met with the head of his state’s Fish and Game Department, who is interested in fleshing out the Kansas proposal. 

Erbele (SD) said he is generally supportive of the proposal, but that there will need to be lots of work on the details of transitioning to some new structure.

Hargrave (Corps) said that based on surveys in the northwest, the public tends to prefer to see biologists synthesize and integrate science into decision-making, but does not perceive scientists as policymakers.  She also said that the state biologists could likely not be effective providers of independent science because of public perceptions of biased science, and because the state fish and game agencies may be stakeholders in some instances.  Olson (FWS) disagreed with Hargrave’s observations and indicated that the expertise and experience provided by the basin’s biologists was extremely important.

Corbine (Mni Sose) said he feels the tribes are underrepresented in both MRBA and the Kansas Proposal because of the diversity in tribal landscapes. 

Berkley (EPA) said the devil is in the details, but that the Kansas proposal was generally a good idea.  He stressed the need for people to develop a trust in the science through openness and transparency.

Stas (WAPA) said the Governors need to be committed to the new organization and show their support by signing MOUs, otherwise the organizational change will not help anything.

Jorgensen (Stakeholder) said he still doubts the accuracy of many of the scientific conclusions of the BiOp and Master Manual.  He said much of the science comes from the states and the Fish and Wildlife service, both of which can lack objectivity.  He stressed the need for peer review.

Moy (MT) said the Kansas proposal was a good start, and he reminded people not to forget about the good recommendations in the National Academy of Sciences study. 

Flory (facilitator) summarized the discussion by saying that one option would be to merge MRBA and MRNRC into a new organization.  Another option would be to merge MRBA with other policy–level state fish and wildlife personnel while keeping MRNRC separate.  Many Directors mentioned their respect for MRNRC’s current role and functions. 

The discussions about restructuring MRBA raised the following points:

• Science and Politics:  How can the new organization be structured in such a way as to allow people to trust the science?  There are several good examples of independent scientific review in other basins, including the Columbia, where three standing committees – two scientific and one economic – are utilized.  Also, Glen Canyon uses a Science Advisory Board.  The Directors discussed MRNRC’s function, and it was explained that MRNRC, along with USGS and other agencies,  produces the science that is used by policymakers.  Berkley (EPA) wondered if MRNRC might be worried that its work would be squelched by MRBA if there was a merger.
• Group Organization:  The Directors decided that if MRBA were to reorganize in a way that led to two Directors per state, the Governors would need to make both appointments to the Board, even though this might be a problem for some states.  The Directors also agreed that the appointees from each state would need to be of equal political status, i.e. department heads.
• Tribal Representation:  Corbine (Mni Sose) said there is one set of issues that only involves the 13 tribes on the mainstem of the Missouri River.  There are other legal and sovereignty issues that involve all 28 Missouri River Basin Indian tribes.  He said the tribes want to be involved with the adaptive management process.  Corbine suggested that a technical working group of one or two tribal representatives per the 6 states with reservations (up to 12 total) be formed.  These tribal experts could be involved with adaptive management and recovery issues.  He also discussed adding more tribal representatives to the MRBA Board, and the group discussed whether to divide tribal representatives based on geology (upper basin and lower basin) or mainstem tribes and non-mainstem ones.  They concluded that this would be a decision made by the tribes themselves.

4.   Independent Stakeholder Group:

            Hargrave (Corps) gave two presentations on adaptive management.  The first paper identified critical elements for successful recovery programs through a comparison of efforts across the country.  The second presentation outlined key elements of adaptive management strategies.  Some keys to a successful adaptive management program include well-defined roles for stakeholders, simple organizational structures, and transparency and good communication.  She presented several adaptive management recovery structures for groups, including those for the Everglades, Glen Canyon, Chesapeake Bay, and Columbia River, and discussed their stakeholder input.  She indicated that steady funding was the lifeblood of these efforts and that generally there was also some authorizing legislation to support the recovery program and stakeholder committee. 

Olsen (FWS) said that the Service considers a Stakeholder Committee to be vitally important to the success of recovery efforts in the basin.  He said that stakeholder involvement must be meaningful and believes the basin needs a broad stakeholder group that will support a recovery program that also sustains local economies. 

Jorgensen (Stakeholder) gave a presentation on the need for an independent Stakeholder Committee (Appendix B) and talked about the need for federal financial support.  He suggested that the Corps or the Fish and Wildlife Service could provide a federal employee to staff the committee to keep costs down.  Adams (KS) pointed out that there is a difference between independent science and independent scientific review.

Lowry (WY) suggested that the Corps communicate to the basin how the MRRIC money was spent last year.  Hargrave (Corps) said the funding last year was used to support data centralization and sharing.

Patterson (NE) said that every similar group he has worked with in other basins was started by high-level federal and Governor leadership.  He suggested that kind of leadership is what might be needed in our basin. 

5.   Annual Operating Plan Process:

Opper (MRBA) discussed the August 12 meeting with the Corps and the newly re-formed MRBA AOP Technical Committee.  He said that at the meeting, the Corps was asked to model several studies that were outside the realm of the new Master Manual.  And he reported that recently, the state of Missouri asked the Corps to lengthen this year’s navigation season by roughly 30 days.  Hargrave (Corps) said that the Corps had recently denied the request and responded to the State of Missouri that the Corps supported the newly revised Master Manual. 

Opper said that two more meetings have been scheduled (October 7 and 21) to discuss the development of the 2006 spring rise.  Hargrave presented a draft process and schedule implementation of the spring rise.  She said the tight time frame is necessary because by August of next year, development of a spring rise model has to be completed.  Hargrave said that the Corps will comply with the 2003 Amended BiOp and that the spring rise will occur.  However, there needs to be discussion with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and people in the basin about such things as the hydrological conditions under which a spring rise would occur, the stop protocol, how is success measured, and how many spring rise cycles are needed to measure success.  The Corps plans to present at the October 7 meeting a model of the default plan, generally described in the Amended Biological Opinion.  There was some discussion in which the “Nebraska Plan” was used interchangeably with the default plan in the Biological Opinion.  Drew (MO) pointed out that the default plan with the bi-modal spring rise was not the same as the Nebraska Plan, since the Nebraska Plan as modeled by the Corps was based on a different set of guide curves that the ones used in the new Master Manual.

Wells (MO) asked the Corps what it was going to model and whether the Corps was also going to model economic impacts of the various scenarios.  Hargrave said the Corps was planning to model the impacts.  However, the Corps would not model interior drainage and groundwater impacts for every scenario it models.  She indicated the range of impacts were already identified in the Master Manual DEIS and FEIS.

            Hargrave said that the AOP public meetings will be held in Williston on October 12, Pierre on October 13, and Kansas City on October 14.

6.   Current Hydrological Conditions:

Hargrave (Corps) gave a brief presentation on the current hydrological conditions in the basin.  Total system storage is only 36.5 MAF, well below the normal of 59.3 MAF and the previous all time low of 40.8 MAF.  She said the drought forecast has slightly improved in parts of the basin, but Stults (MT) said that there are signs of a new El Nino in the Pacific, which usually leads to warm, dry winters in Montana.  Sando (ND) stressed the need for immediate disaster planning for a continued severe drought and asked if the Corps maintained a database on intakes and boat ramps that it could make available.  Hargrave said the Corps did maintain such a database and would make it available.   She also indicated that the parties owning and operating intakes need to take responsibility to ensure the intakes are functional if drought conditions persist. 

7.   Federal and Stakeholder Feedback:

            Berkley (EPA) said that he favors restructuring MRBA to make it broader, so that when steps are taken, we take them with everyone, including the tribes, states, federal agencies, municipalities, and NGOs.

            Mulligan (Corps) said that MRBA’s scope of work should be broader than just Annual Operating Plans and Master Manual-related items.

Olsen (FWS) pointed to several local success stories in the basin where people worked together to bring in money, solve resource issues, and help local economies.  He urged MRBA not to lose site of its educational functions.

Beek (U.S. BOR) said that her Regional Director, Maryanne Bach, will be the next Chair of the Missouri River Roundtable.  She asked if MRBA still wants official appointment of federal officials to its board, and encouraged states to bring project ideas to the federal agencies.

Stas (WAPA) discussed how the drought has affected hydropower production and rates.  He mentioned the Dakota wind study and said that WAPA is continuing to fund the pallid sturgeon recovery effort.

Hargrave (Corps) thanked the lower basin states for their help in obtaining the 1,200 acres of shallow water habitat last spring/early summer.  She also thanked South Dakota and Nebraska for their support of emergent sandbar habitat.

Asbury (Stakeholder) said MRBA could become a unifying group for the basin, even though it is currently seen by many of his constituents as a divider.  He urged MRBA to take the leadership to find win-win situations for the basin, like increased federal funding for necessary projects and activities.  He asked the federal agency representatives to be specific about their needs so that MRBA and the stakeholders could help them attain their goals.  Asbury again stressed the importance of the information, education, and facilitation role of MRBA, and suggested that when possible, MRBA meetings be combined with educational field trips. 

Jorgensen (Stakeholder) agreed with the need for field trips and suggested that obtaining sustained funding for the stakeholder committee and recovery efforts should be a very high priority for MRBA.  Hargrave suggested that the MRBA Directors visit emergent sandbar and shallow water habitat sites.

Thursday, September 09, 2004

8.   Executive Session:

The MRBA Directors met in executive session and discussed the following items:

1)      The Kansas Proposal:

Pope (KS) agreed to work with Adams (KS) to prepare a one page, bulleted summary of the benefits of restructuring MRBA in a way that would encourage states speaking with one voice.   Opper will circulate the document to the MRBA Directors for their comments.

Erbele (SD) will try to join Opper (MRBA) at the MRNRC meeting on Sept. 30 to listen to their discussion about restructuring.

The MRBA Directors agreed on the need for MRNRC’s work to proceed uninterrupted regardless of what happens with the restructuring effort. 

      The MRBA Directors do not yet know whether the restructuring will proceed, but they will discuss it further at their November 4-5 meeting.

2)      Tribal Issues:

The MRBA Directors agreed to consider adding another tribal vote on the MRBA Board if it reorganizes.  This would double the tribal vote while keeping the state votes the same as they are now.  They also discussed having Mni Sose help put together a team of tribal experts from each of six states.  These experts would work with officials from their respective states on recovery issues.   MRBA would help make sure the Tribal team is invited to participate in AOP technical meetings, and other meetings concerning recovery issues and adaptive management.  The Directors asked Opper (MRBA) to add an item to the December 2002 planning document concerning helping the tribes participate in the adaptive management process.

3)      Stakeholder Committee/Legislative Issues:

The Directors agreed that there needs to be a Missouri River legislative package which would include the formation of a Stakeholder Committee.  For this to occur, there needs to be high-level support from federal agencies for such a legislative package.  The Directors agreed to work on a legislative package at their November 3-4 meeting.   The Directors also agreed to call their House Representatives to encourage them to approve more money for the Corps of Engineers next year.  They asked Opper (MRBA) to also push for additional funding (at least $42 million).  The Directors asked Opper to try to get Gen. Grisoli and/or Karen Durham-Aguilera and Robyn Thorson to attend future MRBA meetings.

9.   Red River Report:

            Maryanne Bach, Regional Director of the Bureau of Reclamation joined the meeting by conference call.  She said she will be the new President of the Missouri River Interagency Roundtable.  She is looking forward to the Roundtable continuing to work with MRBA.  The Roundtable is looking forward to the opportunities associated with developing MRRIC.  The Roundtable has a meeting in Omaha on January 19 and 20, and she invited MRBA to meet jointly with the Roundtable for part of one of those days. 

            Nelson (BOR) provided an update on the Red River Project.  He said the Bureau of Reclamation is preparing a needs and options document that looks at the following options:

1)      No Action.  There are 45 water supply projects in SE North Dakota that will need some updating by 2050.

2)      North Dakota In-Basin – Use water from the Red River Basin in North Dakota to meet water shortages.

3)      Red River Basin – Use groundwater in Minnesota and North Dakota to meet water shortages.

4)      Lake of the Woods – Pipe water from Lake of the Woods to the Red River Valley to meet water shortages.

5)      Missouri River to Red River Valley Import – Construct a pipeline to transport water from Bismarck to Fargo/Grand Forks.

6)      Garrison Diversion Unit (GDU) Import to Sheyenne River – Link the Garrison Project to the Sheyenne River.

7)      GDU Import Pipeline – Use the GDU and a pipeline to meet water shortages

8)      GDU Water Supply Replacement Pipeline – Use GDU and pipeline systems to meet the full water needs of the Red River Valley and replace old water supply works.

The concerns about this project have to do with environmental issues (biota transfers, Missouri River water depletions, and T&E species), and cumulative effects (addressing future depletions of Missouri River water).  

There is a needs and options technical team.  The Bureau asked governors of affected states, and the tribes, to appoint technical team members.   The Bureau invited the affected tribes to participate in government-to-government consultations. 

The Secretary of Interior, in consultation with affected entities, will select the preferred alternative. 

The Red River needs and options study can be found at www.rrvwsp.com.

10.   Legal Update:

Bryan (MO) provided an update on the following lawsuits:

1)      American Rivers – American Rivers sued in the 8^th Circuit over whether the 1,200 acres of shallow water habitat construction was successful. 

2)      Multi-District Litigation – still pending before the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

3)      North Dakota Clean Water Appeal – This was a separate appeal before the 8^th Circuit Court of Appeals.

4)      Northwest Area Water Supply (NAWS) Project.  One issue is whether Canada has legal standing to sue in U.S. courts on the biota transfer issue.

Bryan also said that Missouri may go to court to lengthen the navigation season this year.  If so, it would have to file during the first week in October.

11.   Treasurer’s Report:

Shafer (NE) handed out the Treasurer’s Report (Appendix C).  Montana, Iowa, and the Tribes have not yet paid their FY 2005 dues.  Corbine (Mni Sose) moved to approve the Treasurer’s Report.  Erbele (SD) seconded the motion, which passed unanimously.

8.   Next Meeting Dates:

• October 13 Conference Call Meeting.  3:00 Central
• November 3-4, Nebraska City.  Meeting will begin at 10:00 November 3 and end at noon on November 4. Agenda items will include the hydropower revenue seminar and discussion of a legislative package.
• January 19-20, Omaha.  In conjunction with the Missouri River Roundtable meeting. 
• Spring, 2005.  Meeting in Missouri.  Meeting will include a field trip to observe the interior drainage problem.
• Summer 2005.  Meeting at one of the reservoir states.  Meeting will include a field trip to observe the low water levels and their impacts.

9.   Adjournment:

                        The meeting adjourned at noon on Thursday, September 09, 2004

                                                                                    ______________________________

                                                                                    September 09, 2004

                                                                                    Todd Sando, Secretary