Laserfiche WebLink
Recommendations <br />Given the lack of flexibility and cooperation, and the upcoming August (draft EIS) and <br />January deadlines, it may be wise for a small group of Colorado Stakeholders (Don Ament, <br />Greg Walcher, Allen Berryman, Dave Little and others?) to meet with Ralph Morganweck <br />and perhaps other key Department of Interior Stakeholders such as Maryann Bach to: <br />• Discuss the need for the EIS to coincide with the Proposed Program. <br />• Emphasize the problems that will result if Colorado is asked to modify the Tamazack <br />Plan and provide water via reservoir release. <br />• Stress that the issue of sediment could become an insurmountable obstacle. There are too <br />many differing opinions, and a lack of good data and information for the EIS and Service <br />to take a fum position on this issue. Colorado understands the concern over impacts to <br />the habitat from flow management but we do not know enough to know if there is or will <br />be a problem, and we certainly do not know the full range of solutions if there is a <br />problem. Sediment transport is an issue that should be monitored and evaluated during <br />the first increment. <br />• Emphasize that the schedule should not push any of the CA participants beyond what is <br />reasonable. We have all accomplished a great dea1. Unfortunately there may be too little <br />time to complete the significant amount of work remaining. It may make sense to look at <br />the big picture in terms what needs to be completed and the amount of time needed to <br />complete these activities. An overemphasis on schedule may result in inferior work <br />products or unfinished items being pushed into the milestones for the first increment of <br />the Proposed Program. <br />• Reiterate that Colorado entered into the CA with the expectation that a collaborative and <br />objective process was needed to address issues in the Central Platte. The CA establishes <br />procedures and a structure that allows greater consensus and objectivity. However, there <br />are varying opinions within the Service regarding how to approach the CA and Proposed <br />Program. The Service is reluctant to modify past positions, which may only have tenuous <br />justification. Moreover, when these circumstances occur the issues/differences are not <br />being effectively addressed or resolved (i.e., elevated to decision makers). <br />• Indicate that it is impoRant for the Colorado to understand how the Service will measure <br />the success of the "Proposed Program". The cunent compromise is to just list data needs. <br />We do not want to be in a situation were parties feel "blind sided". The fina.l "R" <br />milestones should include some language indicating how ea.ch of the elements fit <br />together, and how the information may be interpreted.