Laserfiche WebLink
additional information as needed, and assess the overall sufficiency of the combined <br />offset measures to offset depletions to "target flows." If more offset water was being <br />provided than was determined necessary through that assessment, credit for the offset <br />of future new depletions would be available. If not enough offset water was being <br />provided, the state would implement projects and programs as necessary to make up <br />the deficiency. <br />Land Component <br />Terrestrial habitat is also deemed necessary to meet the needs of the species. The <br />proposed program would over time result in the development and protection of 29,000 <br />acres of terrestrial habitat between Lexington and Chapman. This long -term goal could <br />change as a result of adaptive management. The goal for the first increment of the <br />proposed program would be to develop and/or protect at least 10,000 acres. NPPD's <br />Cottonwood Ranch property located between Overton and Elm Creek (2,650 acres) <br />would be dedicated to the program. That would leave an unmet first increment need of <br />7,350 acres. That habitat would be acquired from willing participants via leasing, <br />conservation easements, and purchases. The initial focus would be placed on riverine <br />and wet meadow type habitat that would or could form a "habitat complex ". Some <br />limited quantity of other types of habitat, such as sandpits, likely would also be acquired. <br />Also, the Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust, the Nebraska Game and <br />Parks Commission, the Nature Conservancy, and the Audubon Society currently own <br />several thousand acres of potentially eligible habitat. Eventually, those holdings are <br />expected to contribute to meeting the 29,000 acre goal, but they will not count toward the <br />10,000 acre first increment goal. <br />Why Nebraska is Participating in the C.A. Process <br />Relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission of the Platte hydropower <br />projects indicated to Nebraskans that there were many problems with the non- <br />collaborative regulatory approach under the ESA. The costs expended as part of that <br />process and the frustrations experienced with it did not set an example most were willing <br />to repeat. On the other hand, the collaboration that occurred in negotiating the <br />Cooperative Agreement eventually provided the basis for much more acceptable <br />relicensing provisions and demonstrated that better ways of meeting the species needs <br />could be found. Choices between the strictly regulatory approach and the collaborative <br />method were going to have to be made soon relative to other water uses, most notably <br />ESA consultations regarding the operation of the North Platte projects that are so <br />important to the Panhandle. Problems were also expected with other activities in <br />Nebraska (e.g. Section 404 projects). In addition, many uncertainties existed about the <br />application of the ESA to activities which were not then being treated as subject to the <br />ESA, but which also affect flows, such as groundwater use. That combination of <br />reasonably predictable but unacceptable consequences for some activities and huge <br />uncertainty for others suggested to Nebraska that trying to meet the species needs in ways <br />that inflicted less pain on water users and others was well worth the effort. <br />-4- <br />