BOARD00259

• Board Meeting Date: 1/12/1998
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Issues - San Juan Recovery Program and Section 7 Consultation for the City of Durango
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.

.

.

r

Colorado Water Conservation Board
Department of Natural Resources
721 Centennial Building
1 313 Sherman Street
Denver, Colorado 80203
Phone: [phone]
fAX: [phone]

STATE OF COLOMDO

-

MEMORANDUM

Roy Romer
Governor

Ji'lmes S. Lochhead
Executive Director, DNR

DariesC.liJe, P.E.
Director, CWeB

TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:

Colorado Water Conservation Board Members
Randy Seaholm \1\;).(
January 20, 1998
Agenda Item 29i, January 28-29, 1998, Board Meeting--
San Juan Recovery Program and Section 7 Consultation for the City of
Durango

INTRODUCTION

The City of Durango has plans for a new intake structure on the Animas River. This
intake structure is also a feature of the Animas-LaPlata Project. However, the City needs
to move forward with this part of the Project in a more accelerated manner in order to
meet their needs. A draft biological opinion for the Durango intake has been prepared by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in Region 2 and was distributed for
comment on December 19, 1997. The biological opinion finds that impacts from the
1,051 AF of new depletions may affect the endangered fishes and their habitat in the San
Juan River in Colorado, New Mexico and Utah. The San Juan River is covered under the
Recovery Implementation Program for the San Juan River (program), for which Region 2
of the USFWS is the lead.

The biological opinion determines that the City of Durango must pay $50,000 and
reduce the yield of the Animas-LaPlata Project (ALP) by 1,100 AF. This appears to
contradict the Program's guidelines for new and historic depletions. If the biological
opinion is based on a reduction in yield to ALP, historic depletions would be covered by
the Program and new depletions would be covered by the biological opinion for ALP. As
a result, there should be no additional charge to the City, as all of the depletions are
covered by the Program guidelines or the existing biological opinion for ALP.

Alternatively, the biological opinion could treat the City's request as a new project that
would deplete an additional 1,051 AF from the basin. A reasonable and prudent
alternative for this depletion would be to charge the City a one time fee of $50,000,
similar to the manner in which the USFWS treated Red Mesa in their recent biological
opinion. It does not seem appropriate to additionally reduce the yield of ALP in this
scenano.