Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~c <br /> <br />~ <br />..-...,1' <br /> <br />Gilbert, Hanna <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />From: <br />~ent: <br />O. <br />- I <br /> <br />Subject: <br /> <br />Mosteller, Douglas <br />Tuesday, October 28,2003 2:57 PM <br />McCurry, Gordon; DiNatale, Kelry <br />FW: Rio Grande Roundtable <br /> <br />-----Original Message----- <br />From: Christine Canaly [mailto:slvwater@amigo.net] <br />Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 3:21 PM <br />To: SWSI (Statewide Water Supply Initiative) <br />Subject: Rio Grande Roundtable <br /> <br />Doug said I can forward this on to you. Thank you. <br /> <br />Please include these comments with the Rio Grande Ronnd table discussion~ I am a member of the ronndtable <br />representing the environmental community. I was unable to attend the first meeting but I understand <br />comments are still being taken nntil the end of the week~ Thank you for your time and consideration in this <br />matter. I reviewed the 54 page scope of work <br />(5/28/03) for SWSI and my comments are based on this document. I then wanted to share some objectives <br />that might have an opportunity to be included. <br /> <br />; ~ 1~ Task 2,,2 mentions Scope of Study <br />~any fine agencies are listed for data collection but I noticed that Division of Wildlife wasn't there nor was <br />the Colorado Natural Heritage Program or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service~ I noticed that U.S.FWS was <br />mentioned in the IIhmdingtl criteria but I feel it is appropriate that they be included in the fact finding portion <br />of the shtdy~ Information on Usensitive envirorunental issues't is included in the scope of study, so why not <br />mention those agencies and organizations that would have some of that information. <br /> <br />2. Task 6.4 "environmental1y sensitive areasH, there is no mention of wetlands. I would also recommend the <br />Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project as a resource for data collection. They have probably some of the most <br />comprehensive GIS maps for sensitive areas in the state of Colorado~ <br /> <br />3. Task 9.4 Estimated shortfalls <br />The environment is a primary benefit and need not be perceived as a "secondary benefitU in the final benefit <br />cost analysis. <br /> <br />The model that SWSI is using seems to be competing enviromnental health of an ecosytem willi existing and <br />projected needs of water supply ~ I hope to rmderstand more about this process as we continue but I am <br />already beginning to see some "pitfalls" in the logic. The economy of the water supply needs to be based on <br />the ecology of the landscape and the need of the river corridor. <br /> <br />Objectives <br />1. The Rio Grande is a living river with a healthy aquatic habitat. 2. Supply and demand needs to stay <br />balanced and be reflected in the aquifer that supports the river. 3. Sustainable agriculture and maintaining <br />biodiversity is a priority goal for the conununities in the San Luis Valley. 4. Water supply is based on the <br />.~onfines of existing weather conditions. 5. We support a balanced water budget <br />