Agenda Item: Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement (3)

Home Browse Search

major disagreements. However, given the general lack of definitive and defensible data this may be the best we can expect at this time. Another significant issue that the technical committee is addressing is the Service's document that describes existing/baseline conditions. The Service has agreed that in some instances they do not have adequate information to document existing habitat and species conditions. The Service's initial proposed solution is to further identify where data gaps exist and then attempt to fill these gaps during the proposed program. Overall Colarado is not completely satisfied with the two Service documents and the current path forward. At a basic level one would expect to know the specific factors that lead to the jeopardy opinion (baseline), what activities need to be implemented to reduce or eliminate jeopardy (the proposed program), and what needs to be measured to show that the conditions are improving ar not improving. While this seems intuitively obvious, the details are proving very complex and contentious. The root of the problem seems in part to be associated with disagreement over whether or not the critical habitat is critical to the species and the belief by some that even without the Platte the species would not be in greater jeopardy. Given these fundamental differences in opinion the current conflict is not surprising. The net effects of these disagreements are a lack of consensus on the definition of the problem, a difference of opinion over the solution, and uncertainty regarding how the solution will be evaluated. The good news is that the Service appears to be willing to admit that there are some unknowns and data gaps and they are willing to work with us to resolve the issues. The bad news is that the CA participants had hoped for greater objectivity and certainty in regard to the path forward, and we have been and remain concerned about the possibility of "moving targets" and changes in direction and policy. Over the next couple of months Colorado will need to decide what level of trust and risk we are willing to accept. The Board should anticipate hearing recommendations on this and other important issues in the upcoming Board meetings IV. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Analysis We have received very little new information regarding the EIS process. The information we have received has been in regard to the EIS teams concern over the long-term effects of program water on the Platte River channel. A sediment-vegetation model is currently under development but we have very little information on how the model works and the assumptions upon which it operates. Colorado has grave concerns over the use of a model that we have not had a chance to evaluate and a possible overreaction to the results of the model, which could significantly alter the proposed program. We have voiced these concerns but with little effect. If the EIS team determines that they think the proposed program may have adverse effects they may develop and analyze a range of additional elements that could be added to the proposed program. Some of the options that have been discussed include sediment addition, pulse flows to clear vegetation, avoiding a reduction in the annual peak flow, and reshaping the channel mechanically. Colorado and others have also suggested ]ooking at reducing the amount of program water andlor placing more focus on habitat management versus water and channel management. We will continue or effort on this critical issue and welcome your input and suggestions V. Budget The budget did not receive significant attention since the last Board memorandum. We are anticipating an increase in the projected budget (original CA budget was $75 million in 1997 dollars). However, additional work is required to identify a realistic and acceptable budget level.