Laserfiche WebLink
discussion further. It was agreed that it may be appropriate to evaluate the sensitivity of <br />this aspect of modeling assumptions. <br />The Technical Subcommittee meeting summary was clarified to indicate that the <br />priority of the five potential sources of flow - related benefits has not been agreed upon <br />(item number 3). The Technical Subcommittee needs to address this question of priority, <br />recognizing that there appears to be a natural (institutional) sequencing of availability. It <br />was suggested that the Technical Subcommittee consider setting those priorities on a <br />monthly or seasonal basis. It was also agreed that the various Ruedi Reservoir <br />components need to be separated in order to give them individual priorities. The <br />Technical Subcommittee was also asked to consider how Grand Valley checkback water <br />can be accounted for. It was also agreed that, although we would like to assume that any <br />protection issues related to the delivery of surplus water stored in Green Mountain <br />Reservoir can be overcome, the Technical Subcommittee should review model runs with <br />and without full protection via hydropower releases. <br />The rest of the Technical Subcommittee report was reviewed without controversy. <br />(See the Summary for the Technical Subcommittee for further details.) However, it was <br />agreed that the quantification of new depletions during the 1992 -1995 water years need to <br />conform with the structure of the 1974 -1991 data set. This is because the 1992 -1995 <br />depletions may need to be backcast into the existing data set. This probably means that <br />we need monthly data sets from the water users that can show a significant increase <br />during this 1992 -1995 time period. The FWS indicated that they would like to see <br />CRDSS model results in a format that allows comparison with the flow recommendations <br />for the 15 -Mile Reach. <br />With respect to the draft working proposal, the 15 -Mile Reach Strategy <br />Workgroup reviewed two major changes at its April 17 meeting. The first change <br />included in the latest draft (memo dated April 14, 1997) involves a specification of two <br />RIPRAP items to complete the reasonable and prudent alternative for current depletions. <br />These were added in response to FWS reservations identified at the previous meeting and <br />include an agreement on a long -term funding proposal and the development and FWS <br />acceptance of interim recovery objectives. In response to questions, it was clarified that <br />this proposal would not represent an implicit commitment that the recovery <br />implementation program would achieve the recovery objectives, just implementation of <br />the RIPRAP items. <br />The second change in the latest draft working proposal indicates that <br /># implementation of RIPRAP items must be maintained into the future in order to sustain <br />the viability of the reasonable and prudent alternative. However, it was clarified that this <br />is intended to be the only reopener for future biological opinions covered by this <br />programmatic Section 7 consultation. The FWS recognized this would constitute a <br />significant change with respect to the broad reopener provision in use today. This may <br />raise legal questions which need to be explored, but the proposal was presented based on <br />the assumption that FWS is not likely to take existing water supplies away from existing <br />