Laserfiche WebLink
9. Crediting for Land Activities: Finance Committee will address crediting issues. States and federal participants <br />will each discuss how Section 7 should be handled if GC expires in December of 2000 and a Program is not <br />immediately in place and if the 1997 Cooperative Agreement should be extended beyond December 31, 2000. <br />10. Third Party Impacts: There was some apparent confusion regarding direct impacts and indirect impacts. The <br />Land Committee will make a recommendation regarding how third party impacts should be handled. The <br />states indicated they would also address how mitigation of third party impacts are handled. It was agreed that <br />for now the GC should use the policy statement that the proposed Program will attempt to avoid third party <br />impacts. <br />11 and 16. Governance Document and GC authority to modify Program and Milestones: It was agreed that the GC <br />MUM[ ave Tie a—uMoF!ty to revise milestones . <br />13. Exit Strategy: A subgroup of Harriet Hageman (Wyoming, chair), David Kay (Colorado), Allison Berry (DOI), <br />and a TBD (Nebraska) will develop language for deeds, contracts, etc. <br />14. Unresolved issues: GC directed all committee chairs and committees to list the unresolved issues before them <br />and determine when they need to be resolved. <br />15. Reference to water commitments /requirements: The GC directed the Drafting Committee to continue referring <br />to water commitments /requirements as 130,000 - 150,000 acre -feet total instead of 80,000 acre -feet from the <br />three state water projects and 50,000- 70,000 acre -feet of additional water needs from the conservation/supply <br />The group discussed the List of Attachments (Chapters) and noted that most documents are being worked on or are <br />complete. Committee chairs were asked to review the lists and determine if it was complete in regards to their <br />respective committees and where items could be combined (e.g., one document covering more than one needed <br />attachment to the Program). <br />EIS Status Report <br />Curt Brown gave a status report on the EIS analysis of the proposed Program. The EIS Team estimates that the <br />water yield of the draft Water Action Plan is in the range of 135,000 - 145,000 acre -feet and that the land component <br />provides for the targets outlined in the Cooperative Agreement. These activities will provide immediate tangible <br />benefits for the species. The EIS Team next looked at the long -term effect of the proposed Program on the river <br />channel habitat using the EIS Sediment - Vegetation model. Curt explained that historically the channel has <br />narrowed because of a reduction in peak flows (current peaks are about 1/2 of historic), changes in sediment supply <br />(current supplies are about 80% less than historic), and the interaction of these two effects with vegetation factors. <br />He indicated that the proposed Program will likely affect high spring flows, and knowing this, there is the need to <br />look at the long -term impacts on channel habitat in the EIS/ESA analysis. <br />The Sediment- Vegetation model being developed by the EIS Team tracks the effect of flows on sediment transport, <br />deposition, and erosion, and calculates the long -term effect of a flow regime on the channel depth and shape and <br />areas of vegetation. As reported in the special briefing in Sterling, Colorado, the initial analysis of the proposed <br />Program with this model indicated the possibility that the proposed Program could result in further down - cutting <br />and narrowing of the channel, and result in loss of habitat. Because the model is still under development and has <br />not been calibrated, these results are being treated only as preliminary indications. The priority of the EIS Team at <br />this time is to determine whether in fact the proposed Program is likely to cause long -term degradation of habitat. If <br />this appears likely, the EIS Team will develop and analyze a range of elements that might be added to the proposed <br />Program to address management of sediment and vegetation. Some of the options to be considered include <br />sediment augmentation, reshaping the channel mechanically, pulse flows to clear vegetation, and alternatives that <br />avoid reduction in annual peak flows. <br />To assist in the refinement and calibration of the model, an ad hoc review group has been established. Members <br />currently participating are Ann Bleed, Duane Woodward, Frank Kwapnioski, Paul Currier, Mike Drain, Mike <br />Besson, Jon Altenhoffen, and Dan Luecke. A technical description of the model was sent to this group and a <br />Page 3 of 3 <br />