Laserfiche WebLink
• yj <br />Checklist concerning status of combined issues <br />10-28-03 <br />1. Peak Flows --FWS found that Colorado Tab 3B did not affect and in fact <br />helped the birds (at least to 121kaf). FWS found an impact on the Pallid <br />Sturgeon that Colorado proposed to handle in a manner similar to IRMP, by <br />adding $250,000 to the cost of the IRMP. <br />2. Excesses to Target Flows--We modified Tab 3A III B and C to address <br />Colorado's excess issues. This language allows us to still get full credit for <br />Tamarack I even if new Nebraska uses lower the times when there are <br />excesses to target flows. <br />3. Choke Point/Sed-Veg Issues. Choke point is being resolved through <br />structural changes that will allow the NWS to reevaluate the flood <br />designation at the choke point--this effectively will remove the choke point. <br />4. Regulatory certainty and equity amongst all basin water users. The <br />certainty part is established by language in the Water Section that states that <br />once Tab 3A and 3B are approved that there is no other impact to other <br />water rights. The regulatory certainty language in the blue book gives us our <br />best certainty. The certainty is a programatic RPA as long as we are <br />complying with our obligations. The flow-chart issue is still unresolved, yet <br />we have proposed language that removes FWS authority to determine that a <br />state project is or is not covered by our new depletion plan. <br />5. Impact of Program on existing water uses. There is no program impact <br />to Colorado water users. Nebraska originally wanted all upstream states to <br />pay for, mitigate or prohibit adverse impacts to McConaughy or the power <br />diversions caused by any program project, regardless of the compact. We <br />agreed to the concept as long as it did only applied to program water <br />conservation and supply projects and did not apply to any of the GC <br />approved initial projects (we didn't have any water conservation and supply <br />we really wanted in Colorado and all of our new water related activities are <br />covered in our initial project. <br />6. Defining the Current Regime of the River. The agreement not to define <br />program benefits or to define injury to the program by looking at the effect <br />of operations of approved new depletion plans on other program elements <br />eliminated this issue for Colorado. I can't verify this same protection exists <br />for the approved initial projects! !! <br />7. Impacts of future depletions on the Current Regime of the River. <br />ditto above. <br />8. Fair Share and Program Cost. We have not dealt with this issue yet.