Resource Development Coordinating Committee Meeting

RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING Public Lands Policy Coordination

February 4, 2016

Department of Natural Resources Room 112

MINUTES

Attendees:

Members Jan Morse, Chair, DOGM Jamie Barnes for Laura Ault, Vice Chair, FFSL Evan Curtis, Governor’s Office Joel Karmazyn, DAQ Mike Lowe, UGS Lou Brown, SITLA Jay Olsen for Melissa Ure, UDAF Katie Crane for Hans Millican, DERR Michael Grange, DDW Todd Stonely, DWRe Jim Reese for James Greer, DWRi Naomi Kisen, UDOT Ralph Bohn, DWMRC Jodi Gardberg for Bill Damery, DWQ

Staff Guest Sindy Smith, PLPCO Redge Johnson, PLPCO Joel Williams, DWRe Jason Gipson, Corps of Engineers ______

Welcome Jan Morse, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. and welcomed everyone.

Approval of Minutes The committee unanimously approved November 5, 2015, minutes.

County Resource Management Plans, H.B. 323 Redge Johnson, County Liaison, PLPCO, Office of the Governor, reported on H.B. 323. H.B. 323 passed during the 2015 General Session. The bill requires a county to develop a resource

1 management plan (RMP) as part of the county’s general plan. H.B. 219 passed during the 2016 General Session. This bill modifies the requirements for a county RMP amending the deadlines relating to the county RMP until May 1, 2017. The additional time gives the counties a spring, a summer, and a fall to ground truth the data the counties have collected. Redge delivered a PowerPoint presentation and distributed a handout titled “County Planning Responsibilities.” The County Planning Responsibilities handout specifies that the RMP shall contain detailed plans regarding twenty-eight natural resources. Redge described each of the natural resources. The PowerPoint presentation is attached. Other discussion items included:  The RMPs represent planning for the economic success and ecological health of the state’s natural resources. Counties are identifying their recourses and developing goals and objectives to facilitate effective decision making on the best use of the land.  Twenty-nine counties have committed to gathering and analyzing a lot of data followed by writing and producing an RMP in a short time frame, two years, with not a lot of money, 3.5 million dollars. The final RMPs will then be rolled up into a statewide plan.  Data is expensive. Instead of creating new data and new studies in the priority areas, the counties are pulling together existing data and studies from various the state agencies, the universities, the Utah Association of Counties, and the federal government.  Emery County’s RMP is the furthest along, around 850-900 pages, which includes most of the twenty-eight natural resources. The county has looked at the reservoirs, the creeks, and the irrigation valves, as well as located and categorized the mines, coal deposits, and gas wells. The county’s relationship with the BLM office functions better because the county has a good plan the federal government can use to achieve consistency.  The county RMPs will not only promote better coordination with the federal government, but, should the state obtain public lands from the federal government, the plans could also be used as a blueprint in managing these lands in the future.

Redge answered questions and thanked the state agencies on behalf of the counties for sharing their data and expertise.

Lake Powell Pipeline: Preliminary Licensing Proposal Joel Williams, Utah Division of Water Resources, provided an overview of the proposed Lake Powell Pipeline (LLP) project. The LLP is a state water development project approved by Utah legislators in 2006. The Utah Board of Water Resources (UBWR) and the Division of Water Resources (DWRe) are tasked with seeing the project through feasibility. The proposed underground pipeline would allow Utah to tap into its unused appropriation of the Colorado River. The project proposes to convey about 86,249 acre-feet of water from Lake Powell to Kane and Washington counties and also includes a hydropower component. UBWR submitted a Preliminary Licensing Proposal to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The

open comment period ends February 29, 2016. The project remains in the pre-NEPA review process under FERC, which is licensing the project. The PowerPoint presentation is attached. Main discussion items included:  Southern Utah’s population is expected to increase fourfold by 2060. The proposed LLP would help meet the growing water demand for additional water sources.  The proposed LLP, both a water supply and power generation project, consists of four systems: 1) Water Intake System, 2) Water Conveyance System, 3) Hydro System, and 4) Kane County System. The Hydro System includes a pumped storage hydro facility with a forebay and afterbay, and associated power transmission facilities and equipment. 2  Three possible pipeline alignments are being considered: the Proposed Action Alternative, an Existing Highway Alternative, and the Southeast Corner Alternative. The Proposed Action Alternative remains the preferred alternative because the archeological and cultural analysis show less impact to cultural resources by going south of the reservation. The pipeline would be a bit longer than the Existing Highway Alternative, but result in less impacts in the end.  With regard to the Kane County Water Conservancy District (KCWCD) Pipeline System, the tunnel would be sized to meet the demand of this future pump storage option. If Kane County is able to pursue this pump storage option and pump water to the upper reservoir during the night when power is cheap, then use it during the day when it is needed, the county could achieve net positive revenue. The pipeline portion that serves Kane County would be their own 24-inch pipeline, a short segment, dependent on which alignment is chosen. Kane County plans to build a new water treatment plant.  The current cost estimate for the LPP is from 1.1 billion to 1.8 billion dollars. The expansive range represents the potential possibilities being submitted through the NEPA process, i.e., which alignment will be selected, how deep the pipe will be buried. Even the difference between a three foot burial and a five foot burial has a huge impact on total cost.  The project is feasible and can be repaid. During the 2015 General Session, S.B. 281 created the Water Infrastructure Restricted Account. The bill appropriates in fiscal year 2016 to the Water Infrastructure Restricted Account, as a one-time appropriation from the General Fund, 5 million dollars. It is not earmarked for the pipeline, but it could go towards the cost of the pipeline. And a senate bill that passed takes a 1/16th cent portion of sales tax toward the water development fund.  FERC will prepare the EIS to meet Bureau of Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) NEPA requirements. BLM, NPS, and USBR will issue Record of Decisions (ROD) for the LPP right-of-way (ROW) and Special Use Permits. USBR ROD includes a Water Service Contract. The Bureau of Indian Affairs will issue a ROD if LPP goes across Kaibab-Paiute Indian Reservation.

Joel responded to questions.

Agency Reports  Jan Morse reported the following from the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining (DOGM): o DOGM provided comments to PLPCO on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed rule change and Draft EIS revision of the 50 CFR parts 28 and 29 regulations governing non-federal oil and gas development within the boundaries of National Wildlife Refuge System lands.  Jason Gipson reported the following from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers: o The Great Salt Lake Minerals Corporation (Compass Minerals) has withdrawn its application for a Department of the Army permit for the proposed fill of 54,000 acres of waters of the U.S. to expand their existing solar evaporation pond operations on the Great Salt Lake. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has terminated the EIS process. Great Salt Lake Minerals has identified an alternative option to expand their solar evaporation pond facilities near Lakeside that completely avoids discharges of dredged or fill material into waters while meeting their identified long- term needs.

3 o The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers just received a new application for the Gooseberry Narrows Reservoir project from Sanpete Water Conservancy District. It is an old project, since the 1990’s, with large impacts. The Bureau of Reclamation finalized their ROD January 2013, which authorized the use of that land for the reservoir site, but they declined to fund or provide the loans necessary for the project. The Bureau of Reclamation released the EIS November 2012. The Corp may need to do some supplement EIS work for the portion of the Corps’ permit analysis. The Gooseberry Narrows project remains controversial because it is a water right that Carbon County has been using, but it is Sevier County’s water right.  Todd Stonely reported the following from the Division of Water Resources (DWRe): o The State Water Plan has been put on hold. With the legislative audit looking at the weaknesses in the water data that DWRe collects and other issues, as well as the retirement of Ken Short, DWRe decided to postpone the public review of the plan until the new population projections come in around 2017. DWRe will also look at revamping the way it turns out state water plans, such as public involvement and interagency involvement process.  James Reese reported the following from the Division of Water Rights (DWRi): o DWRi held its first public meeting for the development of a Groundwater Management Plan for Cedar City in January. The Groundwater Management Plan is a plan to make sure that ground water depletions are in line with the recharge to the aquifer. Cedar City’s ground water depletions are currently a few thousand acre-feet over what DWRi believes the recharge might be.  Joel Karmazyn reported the following from the Division of Air Quality (DAQ): o The Utah Air Quality Board had passed a rule (R307-230) to reduce Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) emissions. The rule would require ultra-low NOx water heaters throughout the state. The Utah Home Builders Association and the Utah Association of Realtors opposed the rule expressing concern that DAQ’s administrative rule governing water heaters was in conflict with the Utah Code. The Legislative Administrative Rules Review Committee discussed whether the administrative rule was in conflict with state law and whether the rule raised public policy issues that should be addressed by the Legislature in statute rather than by a state agency administrative rule. The committee voted to place R307-230 on a sunset list prior to the session. o There is now a bill, H.B. 250, which would limit the sale of water heaters in Utah to models that qualify as ultra-low-NOx emitters in homes and commercial operations. Assuming H.B. 250 passes, the board would then repeat the same rule making process. H.B. 250 is important not only because it is probably the lowest cost rule with the greatest potential emission reductions that DAQ can put in place, but also everyone can participate. The entire state would benefit from low-NOx water heaters. o With regard to furnaces, DAQ is waiting for the technology to become economically feasible as it has for the water heaters. o Last week DAQ attended a public hearing on how to curb Utah’s “regional haze” that drew a standing-room-only crowd. DAQ has the data and the chemistry that shows reducing nitrogen oxides at certain specific core power plants would not achieve any significant reductions in the pollution mix that causes haze. But clean air advocates claim that Utah’s plan does not go far enough. DAQ’s Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, often overlooked, is actually ten years ahead of what was required. o DAQ attended a public hearing for EPA’s proposed rule for coal-fired power plants; also a very well attended meeting. Utah is in a better position than many other states, specifically because the Carbon County plant was retired. The power plant 4 was headed for retirement, but its retirement was accelerated because of the rule. Although the state is in a good position, it opposes the rule and has joined the lawsuit. o The Obama administration January 15, 2016, placed a moratorium on new leases of federal coal reserves. A challenge has been made to an EIS that has already been completed for an oil and gas project that now is on hold due to politics. BLM’s lawyers are trying to figure out what they can and cannot do. DAQ is participating in the development of the EIS as a cooperating agency because of the air quality issues in the Basin.  Lou Brown reported the following from the School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration (SITLA): o SITLA’s semi-annual spring auction land sale this year includes two negotiated sales: Iron County and Garfield County for prairie dog habitat. o DOGM has completed seismic surveys and will drill test wells on the Big Water block within six months and Parker Mountain block sometime after August.  Jodi Gardberg reported the following from the Division of Water Quality (DWQ): o In 2015, a Technology based effluent limit for phosphorous (TBPEL) went into effect requiring wastewater treatment facilities to meet an effluent limit of 1 mg/L Phosphorous by January 1, 2020, (R317-1-3.3). DWQ spent 4 years developing this rule with stakeholders and assumed everybody was on board because it is was a modest approach to controlling nutrient pollution and was technology based rather than water quality based. However, some aging wastewater treatment facilities on the Jordan River and elsewhere will have to upgrade their facilities to meet the limit. Legislation (SB 110) sponsored by Senator David P. Hinkins and supported by a coalition of Jordan River wastewater facilities established an independent peer review process to challenge DWQ rules and proposals and will likely effect implementation of the TBPEL. While DWQ welcomes peer review, this bill is unusual in that it is limited to permittees only. Permittees would also bear a financial cost.

Other Business Next meeting: May 5, 2016

Adjourn The meeting adjourned at approximately 10:29 a.m.