BOARD00752 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

written explanation from the FWS concerning their position and have a better . understanding of the PBO proposal in the intervening months, The FSW comments were formalized in a letter dated September 9, 1998 (copy attached) and address both the IS-Mile Reach and Yampa applications, The Yampa applications are the subject of ongoing efforts to develop a "water plan for the Yampa River," which may take another 9-12 months to work out. The IS-Mile Reach Discussion Group has continued working intensively to evaluate the viability and effectiveness of potential elements of the PBO as is noted in the memo provided to you for this meeting on that subject (Agenda Item 17j). The Discussion Group is looking at potentially viable alternatives to the Board's 1995 instream flow applications, We have made a good deal of progress but we are still pinning down details and encountering important concerns, Wendy Weiss has advised that the referee for Water Division 5 indicates these 15 Mile Reach applications will likely be re-referred to the judge after the next status conference, set for February 22, 1999, for possible dismissal for failure to prosecute. Several attorneys representing objectors in the IS-Mile Reach case have maintained their insistence that the Board withdraw these applications as a condition for their support of alternative measures (e.g., the means for protecting savings which result from the Orchard Mesa Check Settlement and Grand Valley Water Management Improvement Project to the 15 Mile Reach). Eventually, you may want to signal your intentions regarding the 1995 applications for the IS-Mile Reach for the benefit of these objectors. . The Recovery I'rogram's Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) still calls for the adjudication of the 1995 applications within a 3-year timeframe. However, we expect that the FWS will propose revisions to the RIPRAP in December 1998 or January 1999. Recommendation: Based upon discussions with the Attorney General's Office, our Colorado Team, representatives of the Colorado Water Congress and other Colorado participants in the Program, I recommend that you defer action once again. We are not forced to take action at this time, and another two months should give us a better understanding of I) what the Fish and Wildlife Service needs, and 2) viability of alternative elements that may be included by FWS as part of the PBO, These two months will also help us assure that we aren't taking unilateral action to change course on items we've previously supported as part of the RIPRAP. Attachments at \J~ ~ PHE L:lboardmemlnov98/17i .