COMMITTEE MEETING DRAFT SUMMARY
Mail Stop 65115
To: Implementation Committee
Management Committee, Consultants, and Interested Parties
From: Director, Colorado River Recovery Implementation Program
Subject: Draft April 1, 1999 Recovery Implementation Committee Meeting Summary
Attached are the draft action and assignment summary and the general meeting summary from the recent Implementation Committee meeting. Please review these documents and contact Angela Kantola (ext. 221) or myself (ext. 223) if you think any changes are necessary.
- Draft Summary -
Actions and Assignments
Recovery Implementation Committee-April 1, 1999
1. Approved the September 10, 1998, meeting summary with no revisions.
2. Approved the revised RIPRAP with minor revisions (with the understanding that the environmental groups don't support the amendments on Colorado instream flow protection).
3. Approved the recommended Program Guidance as written.
1. Leslie James will post CREDA's letter on power revenues to the Program's listserver.
2. The Management Committee will draft a document that outlines what the Program will be from 2003-2010.
3. The Program Director's office will draft a scope of work for someone to gather and synthesize the technical information the Recovery Team will need to develop the recovery goals. Henry will work with the Management Committee to determine the funding source. Ralph Morgenweck will communicate to the Recovery Team the importance of developing these goals expeditiously
4. Henry will work with Brent Uilenberg and Bob Norman to add O&M and annual funding back into the RIPRAP funding table by the May 12 Management Committee meeting.
5. Henry's office will make sure that the next Implementation Committee meeting (in Grand Junction) is announced to the public.
- Draft Summary -
APRIL 1, 1999, IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA
CONVENE: 9:45 a.m.
2. Recovery Program update: Henry Maddux provided an update on the status of the endangered fishes in the Upper Basin, Program activities, and the most important challenges facing the Program in the next year.
Greg Walcher encouraged holding decision-making meetings (e.g., of the Management and Implementation committees) in the basin. Others recommended doing this particularly when the agenda contains items that directly affects the local community. Kathleen Clarke noted that Utah has been including discussion of Program activities at their Regional Advisory meetings so that the public can look at the big picture of what the Program is trying to accomplish.
Tom Pitts distributed a summary of the Program participants' March 22-24 Washington, D.C. briefing trip on the long-term funding legislation. Tom said the response to the request for introduction of the legislation and passage in 1999 was good. Leslie James noted that Commissioner Martinez emphasized the need to extend the Program's cooperative agreement to match the term of the legislation. Ralph Morgenweck recommended that the group meet with someone from the Office of Management and Budget during the upcoming April trip. >Leslie James will post CREDA's letter on power revenues to the Program's listserver.
Extending the Recovery Program beyond 2003 (to match the term of the funding legislation) - Wyoming is willing to sign an extension saying they'll provide the necessary in-kind contributions for their full participation in the Program, but they're not willing to sign one that says they'll contribute a set dollar amount each year. Jeff Fassett said Wyoming needs a better understanding of what the Program will be from 2003 to 2010 and how will it be different from the Program through 2003. Robert Wigington said he thinks the three major components of the Program after 2003 will be: 1) completion of some of the capital projects; 2) operation and maintenance of facilities; and 3) monitoring success. Tom Pitts suggested asking the Management Committee to provide a draft agreement at the Implementation Committee's September meeting (which would allow us to tell the delegation that we're working on a draft extension of the agreement). Leslie James emphasized the need to put the extension in place sooner, prior to hearings on the long-term funding legislation (either that or to amend the legislation to include an earlier sunset clause if the agreement isn't extended). Tom encouraged making the modifications very simple, perhaps with an adjunct document that explains what the Program will consist of from 2003-2010. Greg Walcher said we shouldn't assume that all the Program participants are ready to extend the agreement (at least until we've come to agreement on recovery goals). Margot Zallen noted that the agreement says the Blue Book (which contains the funding agreement) can be modified. Margot also said she thinks the extension will have to be signed at the same level as the original (by the Secretary of the Interior, governors, etc.). Finally, Margot noted that the group that drafts the extension needs to consider the draft programmatic biological opinion that depends on the Program being implemented. >The Management Committee will draft a document that outlines what the Program will be from 2003-2010.
Service Section 6 Funding: Ralph Morgenweck said that Section 6 funds nationally have been relatively stable, but Region 6's allocation has shrunk from over $800,000 in 1994 down to $429,000, so that the $200,000 that goes to the Colorado River Recovery Program now totals almost 47% of the Region's Section 6 budget. Assuming that the long-term funding legislation passes and other funds pick up the slack, Ralph said he wants to re-visit the Service's commitment to the $200,000 in Section 6 funds at that time. John Shields asked if the Service would then consider increasing the resource management fund contribution to $824,000; and Ralph responded that the Service already provides more than their annual commitment with the addition of Ouray operation and maintenance funds. Ralph clarified that he's not saying he want to reduce the Service's overall funding commitment, just the mix of where it comes from. The reduction would not impact the states' contribution to the Program.
Ralph presented awards of appreciation for Clayton Palmer, Gary Burton, Leo Lentsch, and Larry Shanks for their years of service on the Managment and Biology committees.
3. Decision Items:
a. Approve September 10, 1998, meeting summary - approved as written.
b. Review/approve recommended RIPRAP revisions - Henry Maddux provided an overview of the revisions.
Greg Walcher said the recovery goals must be developed much sooner than March of 2001 (page 23). >The Program Director's office will draft a scope of work for someone to gather and synthesize the technical information the Recovery Team will need to develop the recovery goals. The consultant hired would subsequently work with the Recovery Team and the Program participants to develop the recovery goals. >Henry will work with the Management Committee to determine the funding source. >Ralph will communicate to the Recovery Team the importance of developing these goals expeditiously. The due date for this item in the RIPRAP was changed to FY 2000.
Dan Luecke said he doesn't believe the current recommended RIPRAP revisions on Colorado instream flow protection guarantee that the Colorado Water Conservation Board will be able to protect flows under State water law (given the changes in the instream flow filings). Therefore, he will abstain on this item because he does not support the way the RIPRAP was amended with respect to instream flow protection. Tom Pitts said he doesn't believe that the instream flow protection enforcement agreement has been violated at this point.
Robert Wigington noted that based on the earlier discussion about extending the Program, we need to add O&M and annual funding back into the RIPRAP funding table earlier than next year. Henry agreed and said that >he would work with Brent Uilenberg and Bob Norman to provide that by the May 12 Management Committee meeting.
The Committee approved the revised RIPRAP with minor revisions (with the understanding that the environmental groups don't support the amendments on Colorado instream flow protection).
c. Review/approve FY 2000 Program Guidance: Henry Maddux provide an overview of the recommended Guidance and it was approved by the Committee as written.
4. Next meeting: The Committee will meet on August 31 in Grand Junction at the Bureau of Reclamation office. The meeting time will be set up to best accommodate those flying in from Denver, Salt Lake, and Phoenix. >Henry's office will make sure that the meeting is announced to the public. We'll see if we can arrange to have lunch at the 24 Road Hatchery.
ADJOURN: 1:45 p.m.
Attachment 1 - Attendees
Colorado River Recovery Implementation Committee
April 1, 1999 Meeting
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Ralph Morgenweck, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Chairman)
Carol DeAngelis for Rick Gold, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Greg Walcher, Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Clayton Palmer for Dave Sabo, Western Area Power Administration
Dan Luecke, Environmental Defense Fund
Tom Pitts, Upper Basin Water Users
Kathleen Clarke, Utah Department of Natural Resources
Jeff Fassett, State of Wyoming
Leslie James, Colorado River Energy Distributors Association (nonvoting)
Henry Maddux, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Program Director) (nonvoting)
Robert King, Utah Department of Natural Resources
Dan McAuliffe, Colorado Department of Natural Resources
Bruce McCloskey, Colorado Division of Wildlife
Shane Collins, Western Area Power Administration
Robert Wigington, The Nature Conservancy
John Shields, State of Wyoming
Dave Mazour, Colorado River Energy Distributors Association
Angela Kantola, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Recovery
Brent Uilenberg, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Margot Zallen, Department of Interior Solicitor's Office
Susan Baker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Christine Karas, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Larry Fluharty, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
TOP OF PAGE