Laserfiche WebLink
Most comments to the draft documents questioned: (1) the <br /> adequacy of data, (2) the relative worth and ( 3) objections to • <br /> the lack of consideration given competing interests. Also, <br /> exception is taken to the alleged minimum flow requirements which <br /> attempts to claim essentially all of the presently remaining <br /> undeveloped hydrograph. <br /> Mr. McDonald' s recommended posture for the Board is: (1 ) <br /> question the adequacy of the data base used, (2) question whether <br /> or not the proper objectives are being considered, ( 3) state to <br /> the Fish and Wildlife Service that the value of these fisheries <br /> has been over emphasized, (4) question the legal authority on <br /> which these studies stand, and (5) point out that conflict has in <br /> no way been minimized with competing interests . <br /> David Getches then commented on his letter to Galen. He <br /> stated that the Department of Natural Resources has two concerns: <br /> ( 1 ) water interests and (2) wildlife interest in preserving the <br /> endangered species. He further stated that the Recovery Plan <br /> addresses strictly technical concerns which have been isolated <br /> from other important issues . Secondly, the Colorado Division of <br /> Wildlife has done some research on these fisheries and these data <br /> and recommendations have not been considered in either draft. <br /> Getches wants the CWCB, State Engineer, and Wildlife to get <br /> together and develop an acceptable compromise. Getches then <br /> wants this input plus any other public input considered in a <br /> federal document in an effort to find and develop an acceptable <br /> solution. • <br /> Mr. Greene of the U.S . Fish and Wildlife Service summarized <br /> the following: <br /> Document (1) was day-to-day accounting of the monitoring <br /> done by biologists and the conclusions and <br /> needs developed during the monitoring. The <br /> draft tries to mesh long-range and daily <br /> activities together. <br /> Document (2) Part I - Was a staff look at some technical <br /> issues but by no means all of them. The staff <br /> realizes that all issues must be looked at and <br /> solved to some degree and some must be <br /> addressed immediately. <br /> Document (3) Part II - Was not intended to address any more <br /> than technical issues and solutions . All <br /> issues and competing interests must be <br /> addressed in time. <br /> The documents were intended to create a dialogue on the <br /> subject. <br /> Mr. Getches: The minimum streamflows are excessive! • <br /> -12- <br />