My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP03180
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
3001-4000
>
WSP03180
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:49:02 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 11:35:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8240.200.16.E
Description
UCRBRIP Technical Committee
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Date
1/1/1996
Author
UCRBRIP
Title
Draft 1997 Work Plan Review
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 />, -' <br /> <br />2 <br /> <br />We began by outlining criteria by which to examine each project. Those criteria included <br />expected contribution to recovery, the potential for the project to succeed, species (razorback <br />sucker) and geographic (Upper Colorado and Middle Green River reaches) priorities, and <br />project urgency, We discussed each project and identified potential savings, After this <br />discussion, we were still about $SOOK over the annual funds budget and more than $1 million <br />over the capital funds budget. I then asked each staff member to list the cuts they would <br />recommend to balance the budget and we discussed those cuts as a group until we reached <br />agreement on the overall work plan we are recommending to you now. <br /> <br />The comments column of the recommended work plan summary table describes any differences <br />between my recommendations and Program Guidance or submitted proposals. Generally, the <br />scope of work itself will not yet reflect recommended changes, unless it was prepared by Program <br />staff. <br /> <br />I realize that many of the budget cuts and modifications that I have recommended will be difficult <br />to accept. However, I ask that you be as objective as possible in considering this work plan and <br />keep in mind the Recovery Program "big picture." In light of our limited funds and intense <br />competition for them, I also ask that you "balance the budget" in any changes you may <br />recommend (in other words, if you recommend a budget increase for any project, please <br />recommend a specific, equal [and feasible] decrease in that project's or another project's budget). <br /> <br />It's frustrating for US all to be asked to undertake these many challenging recovery activities <br />within the current budget limitations. Program participants at the management level are working <br />to secure more and long-term funding for the Recovery Program, In the interim, I want to say <br />that I especially appreciate each Program participant's continuing commitment to the difficult task <br />of recovering the endangered fishes. <br /> <br />I look fOIWard to your review and comment on this draft plan. As always, if you have any <br />questions, please contact Angela Kantola or myself, or the appropriate coordinator, <br /> <br /> <br />cc: Management Committee and Consultants <br />(with lI!! scopes of work) <br />Recovery Program Staff (with all scopes of work) <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.