Laserfiche WebLink
OF <br />C O lO Yado <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />rftq?ipr?,smf?1nt issue that the technical committee is addressing is the Service's docume <br />1313 She r e m <br />Denver, cthiuddeffli'ati?es existing/baseline conditions. The Service has agreed that in some instances th <br />Phone:13?W&Aig?e adequate information to document existing habitat and species conditions. The <br />FAX: (303) 66-4474 <br />initial ro osed solution is to further identifY where data gaPs exist and then atte <br />www.cwc?tL6??us? P P mp4 Uwens <br />to fill these gaps during the proposed program. covernor <br />Greg E. Waicher <br />Executive Director <br />Overall Colorado is not completely satisfied with the two Service documents and the curreqod Kuharich <br />path forward. At a basic level one would expect to know the specific factors that lead to thecwc6 Direccor <br />jeopardy opinion (baseline), what activities need to be implemented to reduce ar eliminate Dan McAufiffe <br />jeopardy (the proposed program), and what needs to be measured to show that the conditionDep"ty oi`e"°r <br />are improving ar not improving. While this seems intuitively obvious, the details are proving <br />very complex and contentious. The root of the problem seems in part to be associated with <br />disagreement over whether or not the critical habitat is critical to the species and the belief by <br />some that even without the Platte the species would not be in greater jeopardy. Given these <br />fundamental differences in opinion the current conflict is not surprising. <br />The net effects of these disagreements are a lack of consensus on the definition of the problem, <br />a difference of opinion over the solution, and uncertainty regarding how the solution will be <br />evaluated. The good news is that the Service appears to be willing to admit that there are some <br />unknowns and data gaps and they are willing to work with us to resolve the issues. The bad <br />news is that the CA participants had hoped for greater objectivity and certainty in regard to the <br />path forward, and we have been and remain concerned about the possibility of "moving <br />targets" and changes in direction and policy. Over the next couple of months Colorado will <br />need to decide what level of trust and risk we are willing to accept. The Board should <br />anticipate hearing recommendations on this and other important issues in the upcoming Board <br />meetings <br />IV. Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Analysis <br />We have received very little new information regarding the EIS process. The information we have <br />received has been in regard to the EIS teams concern over the long-term effects of program water <br />on the Platte River channel. A sediment-vegetation model is currently under development but we <br />have very little information on how the model works and the assumptions upon which it operates. <br />Colorado has grave concerns over the use of a model that we have not had a chance to evaluate and <br />a possible overreaction to the results of the model, which could significantly alter the proposed <br />program. We have voiced these concerns but with little effect. If the EIS team determines that <br />they think the proposed program may have adverse effects they may develop and analyze a range <br />of additional elements that could be added to the proposed program. Some of the options that have <br />been discussed include sediment addition, pulse flows to clear vegetation, avoiding a reduction in <br />the annual peak flow, and reshaping the channel mechanically. Colorado and others have also <br />suggested looking at reducing the amount of program water and/or placing more focus on habitat <br />management versus water and channel management. We will continue or effort on this critical <br />issue and welcome your input and suggestions <br />V. Budget <br />The budget did not receive significant attention since the last Board memorandum. We are <br />anticipating an increase in the projected budget (original CA budget was $75 million in 1997 <br />dollars). However, additional work is required to identify a realistic and acceptable budget level. <br />Flood Protection • Water Project Plannini'and financing • Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection . Conservation Planning