Laserfiche WebLink
Additional Background on the Various Processes <br />The various stakeholder processes are in vastly different stages. Following is a brief description <br />of the current status of the various processes. <br />Upper Colorado Stakeholder Group Update (Upper Colorado River) <br />As provided in the Director's report, Director Gimbel and the Stakeholder Group both wrote <br />letters requesting that the BLM grant the State and the Stakeholder Group additional time to <br />develop an alternative for consideration within the EIS process. The BLM Acting State Director <br />granted the Stakeholder Group up to November 30, 2009 to submit its proposal, but the Director <br />made suggestions and requests. These letters are attached. <br />The Stakeholder Group has one key issue that we are working on—provisional boating resource <br />guides. This issue has proven to be one of the thorniest issues of this negotiation; however, we <br />recently have made some substantial strides towards resolution of this issue. The Stakeholder <br />Group is (at the time of this writing) exploring a proposal wherein we include provisional <br />boating flows that are based on PACSIM numbers as resource guides. These provisional boating <br />flows represent future hydrology based on both west slope and east slope water development <br />futures. Because of concerns with using PACSIM (which the west slope interests do not agree <br />with), and with including the boating flow preference ranges (which the front range providers do <br />not agree with), we have developed the following "poison pill" language proposal to include in <br />the plan: <br />This language is submitted for consideration by the full Stakeholder Group (SG) with the <br />understanding that the SG still needs to address the following issues: <br />o We need to make sure that we reflect in the appropriate place(s) in the SG <br />Plan that we understand that we don't have the information we need to set <br />permanent guides and that setting those guides will be informed by <br />information about the resource and water uses. <br />o We need to be comfortable with how we explain the rationale, context, <br />and related caveats with respect to setting the provisional guides, while at <br />the same time putting forth the best we can do at this time. <br />The Provisional Boating Flow Guides, as set forth in Paragraph — of the Plan, were <br />negotiated using an assumed future hydrology. Some Stakeholders have expressed <br />serious concern with such an approach because they believe that it will result in a <br />reduction of usable boating days from what occurs under existing hydrology. However, <br />these Stakeholders have agreed to include the provisional boating guides in the Plan, <br />subject to the negotiation of protective measures within the context of the permitting for <br />the Windy Gap Firming Project and the Moffat Collection System Project ( "Projects ") <br />that will address consistency of the Projects with the ORVs. If the outcome of those <br />negotiations precludes continued support of the Plan by any Stakeholder, it is recognized <br />that the Stakeholder Group will withdraw the Plan from consideration by BLM as a <br />locally supported Wild and Scenic management plan alternative. To clarify, the net <br />effect of such withdrawal will be that the BLM will be left to determine the appropriate <br />Wild and Scenic determinations and protective measures for Segments 4, 5, 6 and 7, if <br />any, without taking into account the Stakeholder Group's local management plan <br />alternative. Notification to BLM of Plan withdrawal should occur prior to the issuance of <br />federal permits for the Projects or prior to the issuance of BLM's Revised Resource <br />2 <br />