Laserfiche WebLink
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