Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />29 <br /> <br />Colorado is eager to see some specifics on the future depletions plans for Nebraska, <br />Wyoming and the Federal government, However, we are also concerned that the EIS <br />team appears to want much more detail regardin~ Colorado's plan because we are the <br />only state to have put forward tangible infonnatipn. Similarly, we are also concerned <br />that the EIS team is requesting more detailed information regarding tracking, operating <br />criteria, and gain/loss infonllation on our Tamarack Plan and the South Platte then is <br />needed to conduct NEP A review, <br /> <br />. The Land Committee did not meet. <br /> <br />. The Technical Committee (Te) met and comp~eted a number of tasks, A Whooping <br />Crane monitoring plan was completed and a cOl\tractor was hired to conduct <br />monitoring for Whooping Cranes in the study area (March IO-April 30), A Tern and <br />Plover monitoring plan was completed and the Finance Committee gave initial <br />approval to begin monitoring this May. The TC also established an initial overall <br />prioritization of monitoring/research activities. The priority efforts are; General <br />Vegetation and Geomorphology, Aerial Photography, Whooping Crane, Research <br />Related to the Impacts of Flows on Vegetation t-,1:anagement, Tern and Plover, Data <br />Base Development, Research Related to Impac~s of Flows on Forage Fish, and on <br />Potential Pal1id Sturgeon Habitat in the Lower Platte. The TC is also continuing to <br />monitoring the effects of vegetation clearing at Cottonwood Ranch. <br /> <br />. The three states are in the process of hiring a contractor to evaluate the channel <br />morphology issues (sediment) raised by the EIS team and Fish and Wildlife Service. <br />We received 6 proposals to do the work and wlj have narrowed the field to 4 <br />contractors. We will interview the top 4 firms !U1d I will be able to armounce the <br />selected finn at the CWCB Board meeting. ! . <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />In Summary the CA participants are making progress on a number of tasks. However, it <br />appears that there are some fundamental misunder$tandings/disagreements, which must be <br />resolved before a proposed program can be successfully assembled. Reaching agreement <br />on the level of responsibilities that the CA particip:ants have on lands, which the program <br />does not own or manage but that are located in th~ study area is at the heart ofthe issues. <br />! <br />