BOARD01435 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

. group, and a delineation ofthe decision making process. A "Charter" describing the concepts on how lhese and other activities will be conducled should be complete in June or July. However, even after lhe Charter is complele many of the details and issues associated with land acquisilion and managemenl most likely will nol be resolved unlil an actual program is in place. Another poinllo be aware of is that there is considerable concern in Nebraska over pOlential third party impacts thai could result from the program. The work completed 10 date indicates thai little to no nel adverse impacts to the local community and economy are expected. Some Nebraskan's do not agree and have had a second sel of experts look at the conclusions of the study. Hopefully, we will be able to resolve these issues and queslions by the end of June. . The Technical Committee is in the process of reviewing an important draft document that was just completed by the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). The purpose of the documenl is 10 identify the environmental and species parameters thai should be measured/evaluated 10 delermine if the program is having the desired effect. As you might imagine there is some disagreement over what activities should and should not be included in this effort, This a very important issue because ultimately the information oblained will be used to make critical species and habitat management decisions, and lhe information may be used in the future 10 evaluale the success/progress of the program. Clearly, the methods and scope of data collection can influence the conclusions that one might draw. Colorado is currently pushing for a more broad and flexible look al how 10 best benefit the species. At this time the Service is focusing on flow and riverine habitat as the means of benefiting the species. . . A drafting committee has been established to begin assembling all the individual work products compleled to date so thai we have a "single document" that will describe the proposed program. This group will also identify ilems that have been overlooked or still need to be completed. IV. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Analysis At the last three states meeting the Service provided a very general verbal description of the No Action Alternative (no Program) that will be included in the EIS. A number of people were quile concerned with the description of the No Aclion Alternative. Some people fell the description sounded a little like a threat rather than an alternative. This should not come as a surprise because to a large degree Colorado has elecled to be in the proposed program because the only other option (no action allernative) could be much worse. For example, the Service indicated that individual Endangered Species Acl consultation would occur, and thai mitigation of impacts to offset 417,000 acre-feet of flows would be needed (versus the 130,000-150,000 acre-feet if we have a program). A few examples of projects in Colorado that would likely need consullation include Chatfield reregulalion, Aurora conjunctive use, Northern Water Conservancy District Recharge Project, and others. The Service also indicated that individual land owners who are involved with federal programs such as the conservation reserve program and/or price supports may need to undergo individual consultation or forfeit federal supports. We will ultimately be commenting on this and olher alternatives when the draft EIS is released. At lhis point we should nol be overly concerned aboul the verbal description of the No Action Alternative. . The lhree slales also learned more aboul the Services concern over sediment management. The Service is concerned that a large amounl ofthe program water will be released from Lake McConaughy and lhat this water will have very little suspended sediment. The Service is concerned thai the release of this program water might cause erosion in the crilical habitat 2