Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda item 15 <br />September 13-14.2005 Board Mecting <br />Page 4 of5 <br /> <br />Questions were raised about the potential need to modify the Long-Range . <br />Operating Criteria. <br />b. How interim are the shortage criteria'! ~eed a committee to discuss. <br />.t. The stales will need future letters of understanding and formal agreements on how to <br />accomplish the items outlined in the letter similar in nature to those used for the Interim <br />Surplus Guidelines. <br /> <br />Next Meeting <br /> <br />September 2th in Albuquerque (Colorado River Conference is in Santa Fe the next day) <br /> <br />Colorado Rinr Annual Ooeratint! Plan (AOP) Me-ctint! 8/23 <br /> <br />The entire AOP for 2006 was reviewed in detail by sections with the usual modifications to <br />proposed reservoir operations and the descriptions orIast year's operations. \Ve also received a <br />good briefing about operations at the Colorado River Basin River Forecast Center from NOAA <br />and the Nation Weather Service. <br /> <br />The discussions on the 2006 AOP. which took the majority of the time, focused on the following: <br />I. 602(a) storage and whether or not it was set at elevation 3630 in Powell for the duration <br />of the Interim Surplus Guidelines or \.vhcther it was the greater of either elevation 3630 <br />in Powell or the total storage volume in the primary CRSP units computed using the <br />602(a) storage algorithm. It was eventually concluded that elevation 3630 in Powell . <br />would most likely control operations in 2006. <br />2. Whether or not there should be a mid-year review of the AOP as provided for in the <br />Secretary of Interior's letter dated May 2, 2005. The Lower Basin was adamantly <br />opposed 10 any mid-year review and indicated that they would challenge any inclusion <br />of a mid-year review through any and all means. There was considerable discussion <br />about allowing a mid-year review under certain conditions. but such review would have <br />to look at conditions basinwide, not just at Lake Powell. The question was raised as to <br />why the Interim Surplus Guidelines allowed for a mid-year review but the same <br />approach couldn't work in this instance. No conclusion was reached during the <br />meeting. Reclamation is currently discussing language that would provide for a mid- <br />year review under certain reservoir conditions. such as those encountered in Lake <br />Powell during September 200.t (the low point in the current drought). <br /> <br />Highlights from the AOP (Entire AOP is a,,'ailable on the USBR website) <br />. The drought monitor indicates a significant decrease in the intensity of the drought as <br />compared 10 I-year ago. <br />. Powell storage increased from 33% of capacity on April 8th 2005 to 52% of capacity <br />(12.2 mat) on July 1.t1h. an increasc of slight more than 50 feet in elevation. <br />. Unregulated April to July inflow into Lake Powell was 111% of average do mainly to <br />1.t8% of average innow from the San Juan. lnnow into Flaming Gorge on the Green <br />River was 93% of average and innow into Blue ~1esa. which was projected to be over . <br />100% at the end of May. was only 82% of avcrage. The most probable innow into Lake <br />Powell for the 2006 WY is presently forecasted to be 11.5 Olaf or 95% of average. <br /> <br />An.>oJ Prott'l:bOfl . Wat..r Pwj.xt Pl.mnmg and FUloU1("t' . SfTNm and L.tJ,.l' ProtL'"lif'O <br />WalLorSurrl)' Prott'Ctlon. Con~n..atlOn PI.1nrung <br />