Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SWSI Colorado Basin - Follow-up Comments to Meeting #4 <br />Submitted by: Kristine Crandall, Roaring Fork Conservancy <br />August 30, 2004 <br /> <br />Here are some follow-up comments to the meeting we had on August 25th. <br /> <br />--J <br /> <br />o In reference to the development of environmental alternatives, which was presented both <br />in conceptual tenns and with some specific "projects" ("Identified Potential <br />Environmental Enhancements" PowerPoint slide), I wanted to make sure that additional <br />efforts that have already been submitted to SWSI are acknowledged within this category. <br />Specificall y , <br />o The fish and recreational flow targets developed within UPCO; <br />o The Fryingpan Valley Economic Study and FryingpanJRoaring Fork Rivers <br />Fishery Study have been done in order to characterize both water-based recreation <br />activities and the condition of the aquatic ecosystem. An important goal of these <br />studies is to provide information on water levels and flow rates that maximize <br />economic and ecologic values. This work is being used to inform decisions about <br />how Ruedi Reservoir is operated and to specify flow targets. <br />o In a SWSI submission after Roundtable #3, I included the project summary for the <br />Roaring Fork Watershed Stream Flow Survey Project This is an example of an <br />approach that is addressing the quantification of environmental demands and <br />availability. <br />In addition, to restate what has already been presented in the process: all "projects" <br />should have a component that addresses the conservation, protection) and restoration of <br />riparian and aquatic habitat and species. I sense we have made some progress through <br />SWSI in articulating this, and hope that the "placeholder" status of environmental and <br />recreational alternative development receives much attention and refinement over time by <br />all interested parties, including the CWCB. <br />o As I brought up at Meeting #4, if we do not know the trans-basin "firming" prospects that <br />are being discussed in the South Platte and Arkansas basins, it is impossible to assess the <br />related impacts to the natural environment, recreation-related activities, headwaters <br />communities, and to overall patterns of water use in the Colorado Basin. How can we <br />respond to these effects in our basin, and try to plan for them, if they were never <br />presented to us and we never had the chance to dialog with the basin with the demand? <br />o Finally, given the great concern about the lack of inter-basin coordination within SWSI, it <br />is most appropriate that trans-basin options were not suddenly brought into the process at <br />the last minute (the trans-basin project "list"). One lingering question about this list is <br />how were these options identified in the first place? They d'id not come from any <br />discussion within the Colorado Roundtable (the Ruedi Pumpback was never brought up, <br />the Green Mountain Pumpback was mentioned very b.riefly, and other than show:ing up <br />on the Options Catalog list, the Big Straw never received any specific discussion). The <br />"bottoms-up" claim of the SWSI process is severely challenged by development of a <br />trans-basin project list that came from outside the stakeholder venues~ <br />