BOARD01413

• Board Meeting Date: 7/24/2000
• Description: WSP Section - Platte River Basin Issues - Platte River Endangered Species Cooperative Agreement
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

i" . . ~

.

.

.

major disagreements. However, given the general lack of definitive and defensible data this
may be the best we can expect at this time.

Another significant issue that the technical committee is addressing is the Service's document
that describes existing/baseline conditions. The Service has agreed that in some instances they
do not have adequate infonnation to document existing habitat and species conditions. The
Service's initial proposed solution is to further identify where data gaps exist and then attempt
to fill these gaps during the proposed program.

Overall Colorado is not completely satisfied with the two Service documents and the current
path forward. At a basic level one would expect to know the specific factors that lead to the
jeopardy opinion (baseline), what activities need to be implemented to reduce or eliminate
jeopardy (the proposed program), and what needs to be measured to show that the conditions
are improving or not improving. While this seems intuitively obvious, the details are proving
very complex and contentious. The root of the problem seems in part to be associated with
disagreement over whether or not the critical habitat is critical to the species and the belief by
some that even without the Platte the species would not be in greater jeopardy. Given these
fundamental differences in opinion the current conflict is not surprising.

The net effects of these disagreements are a lack of consensus on the definition of the problem,
a difference of opinion over the solution, and uncertainty regarding how the solution will be
evaluated. The good news is that the Service appears to be willing to admit that there are some
unknowns and data gaps and they are willing to work with us to resolve the issues. The bad
news is that the CA participants had hoped for greater objectivity and certainty in regard to the
path forward, and we have been and remain concerned about the possibility of "moving
targets" and changes in direction and policy. Over the next couple of months Colorado will
need to decide what level oftrust and risk we are willing to accept. The Board should
anticipate hearing recommendations on this and other important issues in the upcoming Board
m eetin gs

IV.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) Analysis

We have received very little new infonnation regarding the EIS process. The infonnation we have
received has been in regard to the EIS teams concern over the long-tenn effects of program water
on the Platte River channel. A sediment-vegetation model is currently under development but we
have very little infonnation on how the model works and the assumptions upon which it operates.

Colorado has grave concerns over the use of a model that we have not had a chance to evaluate and
a possible overreaction to the results of the model, which could significantly alter the proposed
program. We have voiced these concerns but with little effect. If the EIS team detennines that
they think the proposed program may have adverse effects they may develop and analyze a range
of additional elements that could be added to the proposed program. Some of the options that have
been discussed include sediment addition, pulse flows to clear vegetation, avoiding a reduction in
the annual peak flow, and reshaping the channel mechanically. Colorado and others have also
suggested looking at reducing the amount of program water and/or placing more focus on habitat
management versus water and channel management. We will continue or effort on this critical
issue and welcome your input and suggestions

V. Budget

The budget did not receive significant attention since the last Board memorandum. We are
anticipating an increase in the projected budget (original CA budget was $75 million in 1997
dollars). However, additional work is required to identify a realistic and acceptable budget level.

3