Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />I <br />. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />OU1510 <br /> <br />DRAFT <br /> <br />May 10. 1995 <br /> <br />PLATTE RIVER PROJECT <br /> <br />The Platte River Project (Project!. a consortium of major water prOViders and users In the South <br />Platte RIver Basin. supports the development and Implementation of the Platte River Recovery <br />Implementation Program (Program). which will provide effective conservation of federally-listed <br />species and reasonable and prudent alternatives for projects In the South Platte Basin In <br />Colorado which are subject to Section 7 consultation. <br /> <br />Durtng the three-state MOA meeting In Denver on April 27. 1995. Colorado. Wyoming. and <br />Nebraska. as well as the Department of Interior reached consensus In deftn1ng four elements that <br />should be considered In a basin-wide recovery program. These elements Include regulatory <br />certainty. adaptive managemenL a land element. and a water element. <br /> <br />The PrOject continues to support the development of the Program. and generally supports the <br />l11c1uslon of these four basic elements Into the Program. There will be many questions to be <br />resolved and many concerns to be addressed. We look forward to partiCipating In the resolution <br />process. One of our concerns Is that any implementation of adaptive management must not <br />undercut the need for regulatory certainty. In addition. the concept of adaptive management <br />must Include appropnate peer revlew and a cOIllprehenslve monitoring plan so that decisions <br />concerning habitat management are made on the basis of good data and sound science. and be <br />IIDplemented over a long enough time period so that the SPedes response can be measured. With <br />respect to the land and water elements. the Program must be slnlctured In a manner that <br />, <br />ensures that the numertc "goals" are not transformed Into "mlnJmum levels" or mandatory and <br />enforceable requirements. <br /> <br />'!be PrOject supports further progress under the MOA and believes that Colorado can playa <br />significant role in the Program. However. the Program shQuld not contain the following: 1) a <br />determination of each state's "fair share" of the water delivery target flows In Nebraska if that <br />IIDplies that Colorado's obUgations to the Program are other than those established by the South <br />platte RIver Compact; or 2) a I1m1tatlon on existing or a cap on future water use In Colorado. If <br />either of these issues become a condition for further partiCipation in the basin-Wide program. the <br />Project requests that the State of Colorado enter Into negotiations With the United States <br />regarding the development of a Colorado Program. The Colorado Program would: address listed <br />species and designated habitat concerns: serve as the reasonable and prudent alternative for <br />Section 7 consultations for water 'projects,ln Colorado: and allow existing and future uses of <br />water In Colorado made In accordance With the South Platte RIver Compact. <br /> <br />1 <br />