14d

• Board Meeting Date: 9/17/2008
• Description: Director's Report - CWCB Director
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

releases from Lake Granby, improvements to the Orchard Mesa Irrigation Project and a variable contract
for a lesser amount of Ruedi water. The Northern Colorado WCD has provided a very innovative
approach for providing water from Lake Granby and on first impression received a favorable response.
Grand River Consultants is now in the process of identifying other parties that may benefit from the full
proposal and such maybe important to the ultimate financing package. As I noted in my report last
meeting, the State under certain conditions made commitments to repayment of a portion of the Ruedi
Reservoir construction costs and those commitment will be considered in the development of a financing
package. I would note that this project and the necessary agreements with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will most likely not be completed by 2009 as provided for in the PBO. Therefore, interim water
agreements to bridge the gap between 2009 and project completion will be required. It appears at present
the easiest option may be extension of the 2012 agreement for Ruedi water. We will continue to keep you
posted on this matter. (Randy Seaholm)
UPPER COLORADO RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM - ASPINALL UNIT RE-
OPERATIONS UPDATE: The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has provided a copy of the Preliminary
Draft Environmental Impact Statement (PDEIS) to the cooperating agencies for review and comment.
Comments of the cooperating agencies were discussed with Reclamation at a cooperating agencies
meeting on September 3'd. I have attached a copy of our comments. (Attachment 14d-09)
Reclamation has not yet identified a preferred alternative and there remains great debate over whether or
not the preferred alternative should be a risk of spill alternative that is preferred by power interests or
alternative B which is considered to provide slightly more benefits to the endangered fish. As with all
modeling it is difficult to model the complexities of actual water operations.
In the Gunnison Basin given the many opposing views and the complexities of how operations occur or
should occur it has been even more difficult. Our staff believes that no matter which alternative is
selected as the preferred alternative, the operational meetings that Reclamation has hosted 3 times per
year over the last 15 or so years have provided an effective means for developing the annual operations of
the Aspinall Unit that provide the best balance of benefits for all resources and interests.
These meetings should continue to be the means for developing Aspinall operations rather than letting a
particular alternative or interest drive the discretionary operations and our comments are structured to try
and achieve that result while also trying to protect the interests of all water users of the State.
Reclamation remains on a schedule to try and complete the EIS by the end of the year. However, given
the competing positions and the introduction of the Selenium issue into the PBO Section 7 consultation
process it is becoming increasingly uncertain whether or not that can be accomplished. (Randy Seaholm)
UPPER COLORADO RIVER RECOVERY PROGRAM - GUNNISON BASIN
SELENIUM ISSUE: The re-operation of the Aspinall Unit to attempt to meet the flow
recommendations for endangered fish is part of the Recovery Program Action Plan (RIPRAP) and is also
hoped to be sufficient to provide for a Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) for the Gunnison Basin.
The PBO would provide the "reasonable and prudent" alternative covering all water uses and a small
increment of new uses in the Gunnison Basin under the ESA. While the US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) could issue a Biological Opinion on Aspinall operations without considering water quality and
selenium concentrations, it does not believe it can do so for a PBO covering the entire basin. The
'~~~ 14 .w
~e
~~