Laserfiche WebLink
briefing/discussion held May 23 in Cheyenne. The group will be provided additional results and briefings as the <br />. model calibration proceeds. A parallel review of the model is being conducted by the USGS. <br />The EIS Team expects to have final analysis of the proposed Program hydrology and channel impacts by the end of <br />June, at which time the GC will be briefed. Due to this change in focus for the analysis, the EIS Team does not plan <br />to prepare and release an Alternatives Status Report. A Draft EIS is expected in August. <br />Don Ament asked if activities currently being conducted by the NRCS and others that attempt to prevent sediment <br />from entering waterways will be in conflict with the Program. Ralph Morgenweck replied that these programs will <br />not be in conflict and that the construction of dams is seen as the major reason that sediment is no longer available <br />in the same quantities. Ralph suggested that an outreach effort was needed to explain these issues and to separate <br />dre inadef fi Mn Ofllei ideas b - is stne if the model aeeurately refleets real werld at this tiffle. Othefs felt <br />that not enough information was available yet to conduct an effective outreach effort and that it may only cause <br />further misunderstandings. <br />Kent Holsinger and others suggested that this issue should be addressed through adaptive management or in a <br />fashion similar to the pallid sturgeon issue in that the Program should test the assumption that adding more water <br />will cause channel narrowing. Ralph pointed out that the EIS Team and FWS need to use the best information <br />available to evaluate the Program and other alternatives and if impacts can be clearly defined, there can be more <br />regulatory certainty. Curt indicated that more information would be available in 3 -4 weeks on the utility of the <br />model to provide this information. <br />The question was asked as to when potential sediment impacts relative to the phased approach of water project may <br />be seen. Curt noted that the system's equilibrium seems to be somewhat fragile and maybe only one or two projects <br />may impact the entire system. Concern was raised that the science in building the model is very new and may not <br />even be totally in place and that using this untested methodology for making RPA determinations should not be <br />done. Ralph said that the model is only one tool of several that will be used in making the judgement and the <br />confidence of the technical community in the model will be considered in RPA determination. <br />Dan Luecke commented that the model is very complex and results of the model can not be taken as fact. However, <br />the model does point out areas needing consideration and discussion and that it was good to share the information <br />earlier rather than later. Mary Jane Graham noted that Curt suggested that the model will be used to list the need for <br />sediment augmentation and other measures. Concern was raised that the knowledge is not there yet to know if this <br />is a good or bad tool to be making that determination, but the impression was that decisions had been made. Larry <br />Todd pointed out that no decisions had been made and that this has only been a sharing of information. The model <br />can be used to identify questions and information needs. <br />The issue was raised that if adding more water to the system results in degradation of the existing habitat, the <br />analysis should consider adding less water to the system. It was pointed out that the current estimation of water <br />required to optimize habitat for the target species was based on the assumption that the riverbed will not change. <br />The point was made that the Program is intended to be a habitat Program and not a water Program, and if more <br />habitat can be achieved with less water or by looking outside the channel, that these things should be considered. <br />Concern was also raised that validation and calibration of the model and then buy -in and outreach, may not be <br />possible within 6 -weeks (when the DEIS needs to go to the printer). <br />Subcommittee Reports <br />Finance Committee . <br />Dayle Williamson, Finance Committee (FC) Chair, provided the report. Dayle went through invoices to -date and <br />provided a handout of the FC minutes (see attachment). The GC approved the invoices and a six -month revised <br />budget extension for the Executive Director. The FC and GC also approved extending the Nebraska Community <br />Foundation agreement through December 2000. Dayle reported that the Bureau of Reclamation had proposed a <br />"pre- audit" of financial matters that would cost a maximum of $5,000 and that the FC recommended approval of <br />funding for the pre -audit to a maximum of $5,000. GC approved by consensus. The FC and GC approved the <br />Executive Director to enter into a contract with a GIS expert to assist the Technical Committee. The budget for the <br />Page 4 of 4 <br />