Laserfiche WebLink
Governance Committee Meeting Update <br />Paul Tebbel updated the TC on discussion at the previous GC meeting. Paul reported that the <br />DOI presented information related to several of the models they will be using in the EIS and <br />ESA analyses. Paul noted that some of the models appeared to not have all of the information <br />and a presentation to the TC may be warranted. TC agreed that they would like to hear the <br />presentations. Dale reviewed some of the other topics discussed at the meeting: Habitat <br />Protection Plan, Water Action Plan, Pallid Sturgeon, and Future Depletion Reports. Dale also <br />reported that the Finance Committee would be discussing budget caps for each of the committee <br />at their February 8 meeting. Sharon Whitmore noted that the Third Party Impacts analysis <br />recently completed indicated minimal economic impacts on the region as a result of a Program. <br />Baseline Document <br />John Nickum has taken over the efforts related to the Baseline Document. He hopes to have <br />information to the EIS Team by the end of February on what should be done with the document. <br />John noted that he is looking at the science of the document and will include input from <br />everyone regarding what needs further work and why. <br />Least Tern and Piping Plover Protection Program <br />Jeff Marcus, Least Tern and Piping Plover Protection Program coordinator, gave a slideshow <br />presentation outlining the program's intent and objectives. Jeff noted that the focus of the <br />program is on increasing reproductive success and heading -off conflicts between people and <br />birds at sandpits in the lower Platte River. Jeff explained some of the techniques they have used <br />and plan to use in the future as well as some new ideas they will be trying. A major effort within <br />their group is public education. They have started an "Adopt -A- Colony" project in which <br />volunteers are used to help monitor birds as well as install fences and other activities. Jeff noted <br />that there are no formal incentives for pit operators to participate in the program. Jeff was <br />interested in exploring areas in which his work and research and monitoring of the Program <br />could work together. <br />Cottonwood Ranch Property Demonstration Project <br />Paul Tebbel explained that the research and monitoring demonstration project proposal to be <br />discussed could be used to coordinate activities between the Cooperative Agreement and NPPD <br />and Central, but would not replace the District's obligations under their FERC licenses. Paul <br />also reported that the Finance Committee had approved the pre - proposal and that the TC should <br />submit a full proposal before their next meeting. <br />Jim Jenniges gave a brief overview of the thought behind the current TC proposal that he and <br />others drafted. Jim noted that the current TC proposal and a proposal brought forward by Dave <br />Carlson are very similar and could probably be combined into more of an experiment and not a <br />demonstration project of the IMRC. Jim did say that NPPD could not allow direct pushing of <br />sediment into the river because of possible legal problems, but that it was assumed that sediment <br />would be released through vegetation clearing. It was noted that the landowner upstream of <br />Cottonwood Ranch may allow sediment to be pushed into the river and then Cottonwood Ranch <br />could serve as a monitoring area for downstream affects. Jim also noted that once a Program is <br />in place and monitoring is being conducted, NPPD would fold its activities at Cottonwood Ranch <br />into the Program activities. <br />Page 2 of 7 <br />