Laserfiche WebLink
<br />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 /> <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 /> <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 CWCS, 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 /> <br />Mr. Greene of the u.S. Fish and wildlife Service summarized <br />the following: <br /> <br />. <br /> <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 /> <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 /> <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 /> <br />The documents were intended to create a dialogue on the <br />subject. <br /> <br />Mr. Getches: The minimum streamflows are excessivel <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />-12- <br />