My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement & Water Action Plan
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
DayForward
>
2001-3000
>
Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement & Water Action Plan
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 4:39:23 PM
Creation date
6/23/2009 9:42:24 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8561.550
Description
Water Advisory Committee & Water Advisory Planning
State
CO
Basin
South Platte
Water Division
1
Author
Kent Holsinger, Rick Brown, Randy Seaholm
Title
Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement & Water Action Plan
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Correspondence
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
16
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
group, and a delineation of the decision making process. A"Charter" describing the concepts <br />on how these and other activities will be conducted should be complete in June or July. <br />However, even after the Charter is complete many of the details and issues associated with <br />land acquisition and management most likely will not be resolved until an actual program is <br />in place. <br />Another point to be aware of is that there is considerable concern in Nebraska over potential <br />third party impacts that could result from the program. The work completed to date indicates <br />that little to no net adverse impacts to the local community and economy are expected. Some <br />Nebraskan's do not agree and have had a second set of experts look at the conclusions of the <br />study. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve these issues and questions by the end of June. <br />The Technical Committee is in the process of reviewing an important draft document that <br />was just completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The purpose of the document <br />is to identify the environmental and species parameters that should be measured/evaluated to <br />determine if the program is having the desired effect. As you might imagine there is some <br />disagreement over what activities should and should not be included in this effort. This a <br />very important issue because ultimately the information obtained will be used to make critical <br />species and habitat management decisions, and the information may be used in the future to <br />evaluate the success/progress of the program. Clearly, the methods and scope of data <br />collection can influence the conclusions that one might draw. Colorado is currently pushing <br />for a more broad and flexible look at how to best benefit the species. At tlus time the Service <br />is focusing on flow and riverine habitat as the means of benefiting the species. <br />• A drafting committee has been established to begin assembling all the individual work <br />products completed to date so that we have a"single document" that will describe the <br />proposed program. This group will also identify items that have been overlooked or still need <br />to be completed. <br />IV. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Analysis <br />At the last three states meeting the Service provided a very general verbal description of the No <br />Action Alternative (no Program) that will be included in the EIS. A number of people were quite <br />concerned with the description of the No Action Alternative. Some people felt the description <br />sounded a little like a threat rather than an alternative. This should not come as a surprise <br />because to a large degree Colorado has elected to be in the proposed program because the only <br />other option (no action alternative) could be much worse. For example, the Service indicated that <br />individual Endangered Species Act consultation would occur, and that mitigation of impacts to <br />offset 417,000 acre-feet of flows would be needed (versus the 130,000-150,000 acre-feet if we <br />have a program). A few examples of projects in Colorado that would likely need consultation <br />include Chatfield reregulation, Aurora conjunctive use, Northern Water Conservancy District <br />Recharge Project, and others. The Service also indicated that individual land owners who are <br />involved with federal programs such as the conservation reserve program and/or price supports <br />may need to undergo individual consultation or forfeit federal supports. We will ultimately be <br />commenting on this and other alternatives when the draft EIS is released. At this point we should <br />not be overly concerned about the verbal description of the No Action Alternative. <br />The three states also learned more about the Services concern over sediment management. The <br />Service is concerned that a large amount of the program water will be released from Lake <br />McConaughy and that this water will have very little suspended sediment. The Service is <br />concerned that the release of this program water might cause erosion in the critical habitat
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.