Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board <br />Department of Natural Resources <br />721 Centennial Building <br />131 3 Sherman Street <br />Denver, Colorado 80203 <br />Phone: (3031 866-3441 <br />FAX: 13031 866.4474 <br /> <br />STATE OF COLORADO <br />~ <br />WI <br /> <br />Roy Romer <br />Governor <br /> <br />MEMORANDUM <br /> <br />lames S. Lochhead <br />Executive Director, DNR <br /> <br />DarlesC. Lite, P.E. <br />Director, eWeB <br /> <br />To: Colorado Water Conservation Board Members <br /> <br />From: peterEvan~~ <br /> <br />Peter H. Evans <br />Acting Director, CWeB <br /> <br />Date: September 20, 1998 <br /> <br />Re: September 21-22, 1998 Board Meeting- <br />Agenda item 20i - IS-Mile Reach ESA Section 7 Consultation - Status Report <br /> <br />Discussions among Recovery Program participants are still continuing in an effort <br />to reconcile water supply plans and flow protection recommendations for the Colorado <br />River Mainstem above Grand Junction. At this time, it does not appear that Board action <br />is warranted. However, there are several recent developments that may interest you. The <br />first is a letter (copy attached) from the Fish and Wildlife Service ("FWS") indicating <br />their reasons for withdrawing support for your 1995 endangered fish recovery water right <br />applications in the IS-Mile Reach. Since the Board has indicated it plans to address that <br />issue again at the November 1998 meeting, I won't elaborate on this matter. The second <br />recent development is a plan to conclude our evaluation of certain Green Mountain <br />Reservoir issues in the next three months. <br /> <br />Background. These discussions started in early 1996, soon after the Board filed <br />its 1995 water right applications for the base flow and recovery flow rights in the IS-Mile <br />Reach. You may recall that the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) was reviewing permit <br />applications for the proposed realignment and enlargement of the Ute Water Conservancy <br />District pipeline in Plateau Creek in late 1995 while the Board finalized its IS-Mile <br />Reach water right applications. In early 1996, we leamed that the Service did not <br />consider progress made by the Recovery Program to be sufficient to meet the regulatory <br />needs associated with the Ute District's existing depletions, let alone its new depletions. <br />This raised major questions about the Section 7 Agreement we entered into with other <br />Recovery Program participants in 1993. Seeking a more reliable vehicle to establish the <br />relationship between our Recovery Program efforts and the ESA section 7 regulatory <br />requirements, we agreed that a "programmatic biological opinion" should be explored. <br /> <br />Progress-to-Date. During the last two years, the large, diverse group of water <br />users and other Recovery Program participants in these discussions has agreed on many <br />important issues, while a few -~_.~:~ "-,,.-- .,,"~ ".'- ..' '., --:')us. First, we have <br />agreed to pro nose a "progr~ .~ > c' more reliable <br />