Comments for Cottonwood Ranch Demonstration Project

• File Number: 8461.300
• Description: Land Issues
• State: CO
• Basin: South Platte
• Water Division: 1
• Date: 1/14/2000
• Author: Rick Brown
• Title: Comments for Cottonwood Ranch Demonstration Project
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Correspondence

? - ? --
?
Colorado Water Conservation Board
Department of Natural Resources
1313 Sherman Street, Room 721
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
ww,w.dnr.state.co.us/cwcb
9
Bill Owens
Govemor
January 14, 2000 Greg E.Waicher
Executive Director
Mr. Paul Tebbel Peter H. Evans
Chair, Technical Committee CWCB Director
Lillian Annette-Rowe Audubon Bird Sanctuary Dan McAuliffe
44450 Elm Islarld Road Deputy Director
Gibbon, Nebraska 68840
Subject: Comments for Cottonwood Ranch Demonstration Project
Dear Mr. Tebbel:
First a thanks to NPPD and Jim Jenniges for taking the initiative on the proposed demonstration project. I am
hopeful that the Technical Committee can come together on this and embrace it as "our" proposal as I think the
Cottonwood Ranch site offers an opportunity to get a head start on the proposed program. I offer the following
comments on the proposed demonstration project.
Introduction
1. Paragragh 1, Line 4- I think it is important to have the goal of developing protocols which can be used
by both the Cottonwood project and the program. If the timing is such that Cottonwood needs to move
forward prior to the program protocols than we need to coordinate the protocol development scopes of
work to eliminated overlap. As a side note why wouldn't the protocols be sufficient?
2. Paragraph 2- I'm unclear on the Development and Enhancement Plan (Plan). It states that a conceptual
Plan was developed but also says the Plan has concurrence of NGPC and FWS. Please clarify the status.
More importantly since the Plan presumably establishes the means for habitat manipulation and the
Technical Committee is trying to "endorse" monitoring of this work it would be nice to have some input
into the implementation of the Plan. Perhaps and advisory group could be formed to provide NPPD with
input.
3. Paragraph 3, Line 1- Please revise to indicate that implementation of ±he Plan is NPPD's commitment to
the milestones. I am not comfortable indicating that it fulfills the requirements because I don't know that
to be true.
4. Page 2, Paragraph 1- I would like the better understand the existing monitoring plan scope. I do not
understand why it is stated that the existing monitoring plan is not sufficient to meet adaptive
management because page 2 of the November 17, 1999 FERC order indicates that "NPPD plans to
employ an adaptive management approach". Additionally, if the Service and NGPC concurred with the
Plan why wouldn't the monitoring be adequate? It is very important to deliniate and understand which
activities are FERC required and what activities the Program is supporting. •
STATE OF COLORADO