|
OW-
<br />P�ll'P�o -�
<br />tN
<br />pulse flows) outweigh any negative �,ff, s relative to maintaining peak flows. Projects that are
<br />included in the Water Action Plan at the time the Program is adopted will not be subject to
<br />further evaluation for impacts on peak flows, provided. that the scope, location, and scale of the
<br />finahzed project is consistent with its conceptual description in the :Plan.
<br />(5) Evaluation of Whether a Project is Covered by a State or Federal rre Depletion Plan.
<br />0"."J �'
<br />Implementation of the three state and the Federal t� depletions plans, i�g subsequent ► `q
<br />tracking and accounting of Program water, is intended to "determine and prevent new water �'�//�� a,,� YO
<br />related activities from increasing shortages to target flows" (Cooperative Agreement 1997)..v"1� elt 0n�l
<br />y u 5 o ,e AM u
<br />Whether or not a specific project is "covered" by a particular depletion plan will be decided as "' "''`
<br />part of the ESA Section 7 consultation process. A flow chart and explanatory text describing the
<br />basic steps of the consultation process for proposed projects, once a Program is in place, was
<br />led to provisionally accepted by the Governance Committee by ^ "depletion „fin i G�'s
<br />,.°,�,.,.eup" of the �xTater -,�, anag°, en4 r,,,...,,-..,;,+ °° in 2001 ( see .Program Water "� �, ;s � �,4
<br />TI14LV V
<br />Plan). This flow chart addresses the requirement ( a__ milestones �'►'? ext, W2 ext, Paz ^�— �A -V S
<br />W 10 ex} that state and federal future depletion plans include analysis for "potential effects the
<br />plan may have o o faqug .and �a nitude ". Box 15 of the flow chart specifies that
<br />when the FWS, thiiPefland
<br />f`e pro�et proponent review whether a proposed project is covered
<br />by the corresponding state or federal depletion plan, impacts of the proposed project on all pulse
<br />flows, including peak flows, will be an important consideration. That is, substantial reduction
<br />in the magnitude and /or frequency of peak flows resulting from the propose project ay be
<br />considered a basis for determining that the project is not covered by any state or fed e al depletion
<br />plan. (p,,,
<br />Ma_ jor new storage projects are the most likely projects to not be covered because of their likely
<br />impact on peak flows. Otherwise, the depletion plan subgroup antie Service anticipates
<br />that the vast majority of proposed projects will be covered, as described in the text accompanying
<br />the flow chart:
<br />"Because the State's depletion plans were each designed with an eye towards the
<br />majority of potential new developments /actions that are anticipated to occur in that State,
<br />it is anticipated that the vast majority of new depletions will be viewed by the Service and �`�
<br />State as being covered by the States existing plan. If the Service or State potentially
<br />thought it was an anomaly, or "outside" of a State's plan, then the respective State and ►A
<br />Service would mutually decide if the proposed project fit within the State's plan. In those
<br />instances where disagreement remains the Service will first bring the issue to the��'
<br />Governance Committee". �J
<br />O Replacement Obligations under State and Federal €metre Depletion Plans for Projects ��°,�
<br />Covered by Plan `
<br />S /V JU
<br />JU ,,
<br />Because many flow re- regulation activities of benefit to target species in the central Platte River
<br />may have some negative effect on the frequency and/or magnitude of peak flows, FWS has
<br />8
<br />C�aTC
<br />
|