Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.... -0-- - -- -- (;II <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />- , <br /> <br />Gilbert, Hanna <br /> <br />-".4_ fl'1~"""I~LJ""1~.....L; '1)0 ~~~;, <br /> <br />David. Graf @ state.co. us <br /> <br />Friday, November 07t 20034:27 PM <br /> <br />Moreal Susan; Mosteller, Dougras; rick.brown@state..co..us <br /> <br />Steve ~Puttmann @ state.co.us; Sherman .Hebein @ state.co. us; John. T onko @ state ~co. us; <br />Doug. Krieger@ state.co. us; Bruce ~McC'oskey@ state.co. us; Mike .Grode @ state.co. us; <br />Grady ~McNeill @ state ~co.us <br /> <br />Subject: SWSf Review - Objectives and BibHography <br /> <br />From: <br />Sent: <br />To: <br />Cc: <br /> <br />Rick, Sue, and Doug.. <br /> <br />Thank you for including the Div;sion of Wildlife in these important water~related discussions, ar)d for providing an <br />opportunity for our feedback to this process. Obviously we have interests both as stewards for wirdUfe resources <br />of the State, and as a holder of numerous water rights within every major river basin. To this end, I am including <br />a few comments on both the Objectives and the Bibliography sections I have reviewed~ f also have included a <br />few general observations related to the participants' difficulties grappfing with the headers within the Objectives <br />section.. Although I did not attend any but the west slope meetings, I would surmise other basins had similar <br />difficulties wrestling through the ambiguities, redundancies, and interpretations within the headers and sub... <br />headers. A'so, if there is any additIonal information avaUable at this point regarding the demand methodology for <br />environmental needs, I would like an opportunity to review this material before the next meetings" Finally, I <br />apologize for the deray in providing you this review~ <br /> <br />Comments on SWSI Objectives <br /> <br />General Comments: <br />The Yar'Dpa..White(-Green-Little Snake) obviousfy produced something of a 'new paradigmt for the objectives <br />discussion w.r. to the structure of the discussion and any subsequent evaluation of these objectives. f think this <br />particufar discussion highlighted the basic difficulty with the concept of articulatjng ~vaJues' that will serve as <br />quantifiable indexes for the evaluation phase of SWSI, especially when it is perceived that all interests are not <br />represented equaUy by the objective headers. Arso as noted, many words or phrases are 'charged' with a <br />perceived bias (e.g., orecreational in-channel usesn; "highest beneficial use"); to the extent possible. these should <br />be avoided in the final word-smithing of the obfectives~ <br /> <br />I believe there were 3615 broad themes that emerged consistently throughout the meetings I attended: (1) Market <br />and economic efficiency should be accounted for; (2) water infrastructure should also retract an efficiency of use <br />and be able to capitalize on opportunities; (3) "institutional flexibiUty" shouJd be enhanced, both in tenns of real.. <br />time water administrative and within the broader legal framework, such as permitting and compUance wi <br />environmental laws; (4) the both the environment and reoreational opportunities should be at least~ preserved, <br />and better yet, enhanced; (5) cuttural and social values need to be recognized and preserved. Though these are <br />simply observations from four meetings, thair consistency from meeting to meeting is worth mentioning" To the <br />extent that your Ust of headers and sub-headers can be condensed and s;mplifiedt J would encourage it <br /> <br />Specific Comments: <br />Nos. 1-4, No.7.. I will leave to the word..smithers. J would take a close look at Incorporating the objectives re: <br />cost effectiveness (#7) into these.objectivest or re-framing one of them to specifically include the words HCost <br />Effectiveness" in the header. Generar sense was that the implications of 'reUabHityt (#1), ~efficiency' (#2), <br />'optimizing use' (#3)t and 'implementabilityt (#4) necessarily entail cost efficiencies. I wouJdt however, include a <br />sub-header incorporating the need to acknowledge the less tangible cost externalities (e.g., opportunity costs and <br />trade-offs, cumulative effects, etcp.) within this section. <br /> <br />No. 5 - Recreation <br /> <br />· the phrase 'in-channel recreation' is one of the aforementioned 'loaded' terms. The point is a good one <br />(".~provide for ~. .") but perhaps different wording may make the same point without the guttural response <br />invoked by RICDs~ <br /> <br />1/22/2004 <br />