Laserfiche WebLink
<br />lnthe Executive Summary, the Executive Cornnlittee recommended the <br />following two alternatives for spring peak-flow. augmentation: I) maximize <br />Coordinated Reservoir Operations (CROPS) as the primary means of <br />augmenting the spring peak (i.e., bypass storable inflows at participating <br />reservoirs in a way that does not impact a reservoir's water-supply yield) and <br />encourage increased participation in the CROPS process; 2) augment the <br />spring peak by using up to 20,000afof stored water in addition to. CROPS (the <br />amount of water released from storage would depend on the size of an . <br />"insurance pool" of water designated by the Service from existing <br />"environmental pools" for the purpose of ensuring that releases of stored water <br />would not jeopardize a reservoir's water-supply yield). In addition to these <br />two recommendations, the Executive Committee recognized that the CFOPS <br />study identified a mainstem reservoir alternative just downstream from Rifle, <br />Colorado (i.e., Webster Hill Reservoir) that could have multiple benefits and <br />provide greater certainty of in stream flow augmentation (both peak-flow and <br />base-flow augmentation). Options for such a multi-purpose reservoir may be <br />evaluated through a feasibility study conducted by the water users independent <br />(funded outside) of the Recovery Program. Dan Luecke has emphasized that <br />we should not lose sight of the fact that. all this replaces the instream flow <br />water rights that were to have been part of Colorado's contribution to the <br />Recovery Program. Luecke has called the reconilllendations "an exquisite <br />compromise" and said the environmental groups support, but still have issues <br />with, two of the options: 1) the environmental pool as insurance; and 2) the <br />Webster Hill site which would involve construction within the upper -5 miles <br />o[critical habitat (consequently they have insisted that the Service provide a <br />set of environnlental questions and criteria to be addressed in such a feasibility <br />. study). At its July 2003 meeting, the Management Committee approved the <br />Executive Committee's recommendations. The final report and appendices <br />should be out by early September 2003. <br /> <br />· The Recovery Pr<?gram, Bureau of Reclamation, and the Colorado Water <br />Conservation Board (Board) completed negotiations in June 2003 and signed <br />an agreement on June 24, 2003, to enter into an interim, long-term contract for <br />the unsold portion of the regulatory capacity remaining in Ruedi Reservoir <br />following Round II water sales. This Recovery Program action is a component <br />of the reasonable and prudent alternative identified by the Service in the <br />amended Ruedi Round II water sales Biological Opinion dated January 6, <br />1999. Pursuant to the Final Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Upper <br />Colorado River, dated December 1999, the 21,650 affrom Ruedi may be <br />reduced by one-half when water users provide the other 10,825 af from other <br />sources. . The water users (Denver Water and Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District) approved interim agreements with the Service and the <br />Board in April 2000 to provide that 10,825 .af. Thus, Ruedi water contracts <br />between Reclamation and the Service were reduced by 10,825 af for <br />endangered fish in 2000,2001 and 2002 as provisions of the Colorado PBO <br />were implemented. <br /> <br />4 <br />