BOARD00612

• Board Meeting Date: 7/13/1998
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Ruedi Reservoir Round II Contracts and Annual Contract for Endangered Fish
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

July 13-14, 1998 Board Meeting
Agenda Item 26k
Page 4 of 8

/

2. ISSUE: Assurances to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project east and west slope water users and
repayment entities in all Section 7 consultations on the Project that there will be no loss to
them in water yield from the Project nor any increase in Project repayment or operating
costs. There is no apparent loss in yield to either west or east slope water users unless the
Service desires to permanently retain some portion of the 21,650 AF currently unsold (no
more than this is possible under the proposed revisions or the proposed Programmatic
Biological Opinion). If the Recovery Program pays 0 & M, only the outstanding issues
of long term repayment and interest remain. As noted above, this would need to be
addressed in the Interim Agreement.

r
.

3. ISSUE: Are the current operating constraints placed on Ruedi release rates (maximum
release of250 cfs) and reservoir elevations (95,000 AF on September I and 85,000 AF on
October I) appropriate, or should they be revised to allow more flexibility for use of Ruedi
water. All parties understand release rates could be based more on biological parameters
than the current recreational (wadeability) factors. The parties also understand the potential
impacts such could have to the local economy of the Fryingpan Basin and continue to look
for win-win solutions to this issue. Any changes to the environmental commitments
already made, or substantial changes to the preferred alternative discussed in the Record of
Decision could create the need for supplemental NEP A compliance measures. The
revisions discuss no changes to the constraints identified in the Final EIS, preferred
alternative or Record of Decision.

4. ISSUE: Do the contracts for endangered fish releases require site specific NEPA .
compliance and possibly mitigation? The proposed revisions contain no specific .
provisions. Reclamation would however go through the NEP A checkoff list.

5. ISSUE: What is the overall strategy for managing flows in the 15MR? How do releases
from Ruedi fit with the CWCB instream flow protections for the 15MR and
releases from Green Mountain Reservoir given the settlement in the Orchard Mesa Check
case and other pieces of the recovery program like Grand Valley Water Management and
Coordinated Reservoir Operations. Tbere is a desire to have a clear understanding of the
objectives that are trying to be achieved in the 15 MR. Hopefully, the forthcoming
Programmatic Biological Opinion for the 15 MR will address these issues. The general
overall strategy is for the Service to make flow recommendations as they have done for
the 15 MR, and then with the flow related RPA's identified in the Biological Opinions,
strive to maintain or meet the flow recommendations as best as possible with those RP A 's
depending on the hydrology in any given year.

6. ISSUE: Tbere will also need to be a process in place for balancing the needs between
recreational users, water supply interests and endangered fish during development of the
armual operating plan for Ruedi Reservoir so that people have a clear understanding of what
to expect in any given year. We have Annual Operating Plan meetings, Coordinated
Reservoir Operation meetings and a variety of other forums. We simply need to combine
them or designate one to satisfy this purpose,

.