Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Platte River Basin Issues . <br /> <br />South Platte Decision Support System: The South Platte Decision Support System (SPDSS) is <br />moving forward. The detailed scopes of work for all Phase I and 2 tasks have been completed and <br />contracts are being circulated. <br /> <br />Platte River Cooperative Agreement: During the last series of Platte River meetings the federal <br />representatives outlined their proposed schedule for completing a National Academy of Science <br />review of Platte River science and completion ofthe Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and <br />Biological Opinion for the Proposed Program. <br /> <br />Representatives from Reclamation indicated that it was essential to have a Record of Decision (ROD) <br />for the Program during this administration and set December 2004 as the goal for signing a ROD. <br />Using this deadline, several interim dates were established including: March 2004-November 2004 to <br />finalize negotiations on the Selected Alternative; November 2003 for a Draft Biological Opinion; <br />October 2003 for release of Draft EIS; and January 2004 for completion of the National Academy of <br />Science review. <br /> <br />The federal representatives also explained that to meet the schedule, the Proposed Program would <br />need to resolve and complete all work necessary to undergo NEP A analysis by March 2003. <br />Furthermore, they explained that if the information is not available they will make assumptions to <br />complete the EIS and Biological Opinion. <br /> <br />This aggressive stance is particularly interesting because the federal representatives continue to <br />identify "problems" or shortcomings to the Proposed Program. For example, in the last few months <br />they have indicated that the North Platte Channel will not convey the amount of water they assumed . <br />and they now want a solution for this problem even though they cannot identify the cause or <br />demonstrate the "problem." Furthermore, the EIS team has indicated that the Proposed Program does <br />not provide enough measurable positive benefits to the species. Finally, it was pointed out that the <br />National Academy of Science information will not be available until almost a year after the federal <br />representatives want the Proposed Program delineated and after the Biological Opinion has been <br />issued. . <br /> <br />There are a number of significant issues that simply will not be worked out in the next two months. <br />They include: <br /> <br />1. What will be considered surplus to target flows during peak flow periods and how and by <br />whom can this water be developed? <br /> <br />2. How will Nebraska and Wyoming's future depletions plans work and how will they protect <br />flow conditions that existed as of 1997? <br /> <br />3. How much will this Program cost and who will pay what portions? <br /> <br />4. Will Nebraska accept the operation of Tamarack as "new water" and protect it to and through <br />the critical habitat? <br /> <br />5. Will Nebraska continue to insist on compensation for any activity that affects Lake <br />McConaughy storage and hydro and thermal power revenues even if this water is developed <br />consistent with the South Platte Compact? <br /> <br />In the meantime, the federal representatives continue to insist on "microscopic-quantitative" review . <br />of every element of the Proposed Program. It appears the federal representatives are reviewing the <br />Proposed Program in the context of how they would like to see the River rather than what the <br />Proposed Program can do to provide defmed benefits for species. <br /> <br />16 <br /> <br />