My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01194
CWCB
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
1001-2000
>
BOARD01194
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 2:58:59 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 6:51:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
11/25/2002
Description
Native Species Trust Fund Recommendations for FY 2003-04
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Memo
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
6
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />Agenda Item 12, Native Species Trust Fund <br />November 25-26, 2002 Board Meeting <br />Page 3 of3 <br /> <br />amount reflects funding needs over a multiyear period and that partial funding over the next few <br />years could be feasible. <br /> <br />It is important to keep in mind that the work described will provide only a portion of Colorado's <br />commitments for the CA. Long-term funding requirements for implementation of a proposed <br />program could begin as early as next fiscal year. Colorado initially anticipated that its portion of <br />such program would be $15 million dollars over approximately 15 years, Preliminary indications at <br />this time suggest that Colorado's contribution may need to have "front-end" emphasis, as the <br />program will be required to acquire land and build water projects during the first few years, In <br />addition, it appears that Colorado's cost share requirement could be in the $15-25 million dollar <br />range. Weare very concerned about this potential cost increase and will be working aggressively to <br />reduce the overall cost of the program, <br /> <br />3. Colorado Division of Wildlife Recommendations: $1,104,384 <br /> <br />In addition to the above, we understand that the DOW is requesting $1,104,384 for work <br />associated with other state threatened species or species of concern, including the Mountain Plover, <br />Grassland Bird Conservation, Prairie Dog associated species (Ferruginous Hawk, Mountain Plover, <br />Burrowing Owl, and other associated bird species), Sage Brush/Shrub ecosystems, White-tailed and <br />Gunnisons Prairie Dog, Gunnisons Sage-Grouse, and Pocket Gopher. We will provide the <br />memorandum from Russell George explaining the request as soon as received. <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Staff recommends that the Board concur with the above expenditures totaling $4,627,779,00 <br />from the SCTF and forward that recommendation to the Executive Director ofDNR. In addition, <br />staff recommends continued coordination with the DOW and development of more detailed <br />information on the SCTF expenditure history, and the long-term SCTF goals and funding needs. <br />Given the limited funds in the SCTF at present, staff recommends additional funds be added to the <br />SCTF. If additional funding is not forthcoming, then staff recommends that the Board provide <br />general direction concerning the use of SCTF dollars limiting the expenditures to the top priority or <br />only those necessary for participation in the two Recovery Programs and the CA. <br /> <br />Staff will continue to work closely with those involved to ensure the funds are expended in <br />accordance with state obligations and local needs, If there are additional, or amended, proposals <br />after further consultations we will present those to you at your next meeting, <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />The attached excel spreadsheet provides a summary of selected SCTF financial information, <br />including the current spending pattern for Federal cost share versus State funding requests. There is <br />no detailed information on total long-term projected State funding needs from the SCTF. It is <br />anticipated that the costs for the Platte River Program could increase substantially. These factors <br />indicate that the existing SCTF is inadequate and clearly show that future expenditures need careful <br />prioritization and that future funding sources must be found. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.