11d ‎(2)‎

• Board Meeting Date: 11/18/2008
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Comments of the cooperating agencies were discussed with Reclamation at a cooperating agencies
meeting on September 3ra. In an effort to remove the continuing differences between power interests and
Reclamation our staff has worked with the power interests on compromise language. The compromise
language has been review with Reclamation and others and appears to be acceptable to Reclamation.
Reclamation has also been respective to Colorado's other comments and we believe Reclamation is now
prepared to release the DEIS by December 1St. The main sticking point in the DEIS process continues to
be the development of a Selenium Reduction Program acceptable to the US Fish and Wildlife Service for
inclusion in the Biological Assessment that will allow the US Fish and Wildlife Service to issue a
Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Gunnison Basin, which all parties desire. Our staff continues to
believe that no matter which alternative is selected as the preferred alternative; the operational meetings
that Reclamation now hosts 3 times per year will continue and provide an effective means for developing
the annual operating plan for the Aspinall Unit that best balances benefits for all resources and interests.
It should also be noted that there was meeting on October 1 St to discuss Colorado's pursuit of a contract
for 200,000 AF of water in Blue Mesa Reservoir, which if completed would impact the amount of water
available in the Aspinall Unit to meet the Gunnison River flow recommendations. (Randy Seaholm)
UPPER COLORADO RIVER RECOVERY IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAM (UCRIP)
- 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 UCRIP -Recovery Action Plan
(RIPRAP) and in conjunction with other elements of the RIPRAP is hoped to be sufficient to allow the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) to issue 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. The Service is insistent
that a "Selenium Reduction Program" (SRP) be part of any PBO. The cost of a SRP will be extremely
expensive, particularly if has to meet the existing standard of 4.6 microgramslliter. The Service maintains
that an SRP is needed in order to achieve recovery of the fish and that failure to reduce selenium levels to
the standard will result in a "take" of endangered fish under Section 9 of the ESA. The Service maintains
that elevated selenium levels prevent survival of larval fish, however, there does not appear to any
conclusive evidence to that affect. The local water users have developed a SRP that recognizes all the
current salinity and selenium reduction efforts and we are supportive of that proposal. Reclamation is
reviewing the SRP proposal and incorporates a monitoring program along with increased funding. With a
few relatively minor modifications Reclamation believes they can incorporate the SRP into their
Biological Assessment. It will then be up to the Service to decide if the SRP is sufficient for the Service
to rely on in order to issue a PBO for the Gunnison Basin. (Randy Seaholm)
COLORADO RIVER WATER USE: As of September 1, 2008, storage in the four major Upper
Basin reservoirs decreased by 516,040 acre-feet and storage in the Lower Basin reservoirs increased by
58,400 acre-feet during August 2008. Total system active storage as of September 2 was 34.535 million
acre-feet (MAF), or 5 8 percent of capacity, which is 1.893 MAF more than one year ago. (Upper Basin
reservoirs increased by 2.535 MAF, and Lower Basin reservoirs decreased by 0.642 MAF.)
The end-of year measure for 2004 California agricultural consumptive use of Colorado River water under the
first three priorities and the sixth priority of the 1931 California Seven Party Agreement was reported as
3.524 MAF; and for 2005, the end-of year measure was 3.581 MAF. The target under the Interim
Surplus Guidelines (ISG) for the end of 2003 was 3.740 MAF, and the target for 2006 is 3.640 MAF,
'~~~ 15 ~N
~e
~~