Laserfiche WebLink
9.0 RECOMMENDATIONS <br />By December of 2009, Water Providers on both the West Slope and East Slope of Colorado are <br />required to select an alternative, and have a signed agreement with the USFWS, that will <br />permanently provide a total of 10,825 acre -feet of water to the 15 Mile Reach. It is possible that <br />the Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish <br />Recovery Program could be reopened if such an agreement is not reached. This is a prospect <br />that all of the participants in this study would like to avoid. <br />Six water supply alternatives have been identified that meet the primary objectives and the <br />primary evaluation criteria that have been established for this study (Table 4), with the possible <br />exception of the "Stakeholder Consensus" evaluation criteria. Secondary objectives related to <br />headwater benefits are better met by several of these six alternatives than others. <br />An important evaluation criterion for the 10825 Water Supply Study is that any preferred <br />alternatives should be supported by the project stakeholders. We recommend that the 10825 <br />stakeholders evaluate whether stakeholder consensus can be obtained for any of these <br />alternatives, or for a variation of these alternatives. Alternatives which satisfy BOTH the primary <br />and the secondary (headwater) evaluation criteria are most likely to gain broad stakeholder <br />support. <br />It may not be appropriate to finalize this "draft" Phase 2 Assessment until the possibility of <br />stakeholder consensus has been explored. If broad support can be successfully obtained for one <br />or more alternatives, the Phase 2 Assessment can be finalized to provide support for the NEPA <br />process associated with any preferred alternatives. <br />1,0,825 Water Supply Study Phase 2 Altornatives Assessment January 2008 Draft 21 <br />