PROJ01852 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

CDM Camp Dresser & McKee lne. T. Crumpton (9/5/95) Page Number 4 Evans indicated that this is not relevant under the RIPRAP provided the return flows get to the Colorado River and Keith Rose indicated this is a new issue that has not been dealt with previously. A major conclusion of the meeting was that all parties preferred continuation of an informal consultation process where reasonable and prudent alternatives could be developed and described in the BLM's Biological Assessment (BA). This approach would simplify the formal consultation process, but everyone agreed that Ute Water, the applicant, must be willing to be a constructive participant in the process for it to be successful. USFWS (August 8. 1995) - A meeting with Keith Rose of the USFWS immediately followed the August 8 BLM coordination meeting. The same individuals involved in the BLM meeting attended the USFWS meeting in addition to Keith Rose. Keith provided a copy of the 1993 Section 7 Consultation, Sufficient Progress and Historical Project Agreement which discusses the Section 7 process and interaction with the RIPRAP. Keith expects the Ute Pipeline consultation to follow very similar guidelines and the approach as outlined in the 1993 Agreement. As long as the recovery program goals continue to be met, historical depletions are intended to be addressed under the RIPRAP. As soon as the USFWS has a preferred alternative, they will formulate opinions and options to consider. It is important that final demands and alternatives be contained in the project description submitted to USFWS and it is helpful if the project proponent identifies acceptable methods for offsetting impacts. Options which might address impacts were discussed with Keith. From the USFWS perspective, protection of the flows within the 15 mile reach are critical (the minimum desired flow in the 15 mile reach is 1500 cfs. Options such as habitat enhancement and additional funding are not much help because funding is either already available or cannot be earmarked. Of the hard water options available, water rights acquisition is fairly ineffective due to inability to maintain seniority during transfer. No additional water is presently available from Ruedi. This leaves the Collbran Project and Green Mountain federal contract water as the only obvious options. Suggestions by Ute Water included the possibility of buying Grand Valley Canal shares for return to the Colorado River or leaving portions of the existing pump back rights Ute Water owns within the Colorado River. Provided that delivery of flows can be protected under either of these scenarios, both options sound acceptable to USFWS especially since it provides water directly to the 15 mile reach. It was determined that it would be appropriate to hold another meeting with USFWS once depletions have been reviewed with the USFWS hydrologist and Ute Water has had time to consider other possible water options. A meeting will be scheduled by the BLM for September 5, 1995 and the BOR and possibly Peter Evans of CWCB will be invited. USFWS (August 24. 1995) - A meeting was held between Tom Charles and Joe Stibrich of CDM and George Smith of the USFWS on August 24, 1995. George Smith is the senior hydrologist with the service located in Denver. The preliminary depletion calculation