Problems with a Two-State Agreement

Home Browse Search

Contingency $ 1.0 m $ 0.6 m Subtotal Land $32.3 m $21.0 m The Land Action Plan demonstrates one of the problems with the 60% approach. Under the current Proposed Program, the Land Action Plan could provide four large habitat complex areas, roughly the size of Cottonwood Ranch. Under the two-state approach, only two large complex areas could be obtained. Integrated Research and Monitoring Plan One major problem in contemplating a two-state agreement is how to handle the IMRP. The research and monitoring would clearly be needed to adequately understand the impact of the changes made on the habitat and the species response. Based on the current IMRP, none of the research and monitoring activities appear to be linked to the size of the land base or extent of water operations. The only way the current IlVIRP could be scaled back would be to eliminate or reduce the number or extent of research and monitoring activities included in the plan. Related costs, like the peer review budget, would also not appear to be scalable based on a smaller program. As noted above, it would not be reasonable to assume that Colorado projects would be providing supplemental funding or the needed monitoring and research plan. Cutting the IlARP budget by 40°Io would clearly leave unacceptable holes in the research and monitoring needed under a two-state program. Those holes in the IMRP would make it very difficult to adequately assess, near the end of the First Increment, whether or not the combination of land and water activities were having the intended effect of recovering the habitat. The scaled-back budget would also make it very difficult to adequately assess the results of various management strategies for adaptive management purposes, jeopardizing one of the key principles in the Proposed Program. Proposed Prgm At 60% MRP $19.8 m $11.9 m Peer review $ 1.0 m $ 0.6 m Administration The current CA budget contemplates a central office to administer the Proposed Program. While some of those costs may be tied to the volume of work (e.g., the amount of land acquired would drive both acquisition and land management staff,) much of the cost of administration could not be reduced proportionately to the size of a smaller program. The likely result would be shortfalls in the Proposed Program's ability to adequately oversee and manage Program assets, including water and land, and to adequately oversee research and monitoring efforts. Proposed Prgm At 60% Admin $ 14.3 m $ 8.6 m Draft - June 3 version - Draft