BOARD01529

• Board Meeting Date: 7/24/2000
• Description: WSP Section - Colorado River Basin Issues - Ruedi Reservoir - Proposed 1-Year Contract for the Release of 10,825 AF to Endangered Fish in the 15-Mile Reach
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

..

.

.

Agenda Item 21g
July 24-25, 2000 Board Meeting
Page 2 of3

3. Article 7 notes that the Ruedi operations' meeting was held in Basalt in May
of this year.
4. Article 8 notes a new "Categorical Exclusion Checklist" was used this year.
5. Article 12 was added to reference certain "standard articles" that have been
attached in previous years but never referenced in the body of the contract

The proposed contract remains for only one year while negotiations on the long-term
contract continue. The interests involved only supported previous I-year contracts so
long as it was clearly understood that the issues listed below would be addressed during
the negotiation of the long-term contract The major issues include:

. Ruedi Reservoir repayment costs and whether or not the water made available to
endangered fish should be paid for. If payment is required, who should pay and how
should payment be accomplished? Assurances are needed that we are not increasing
costs to other water users with contracts that provide water to the endangered fish.
Progress: In 1998, the Recovery Program, via the Service, paid O&M costs pursuant
to the contract in the amount of $61,919. USBR will provide the O&M costs from
appropriations for the use of the 10,825 AF this year.
. Assurances to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project east and west slope water users and
repayment entities for 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. Progress: Pursuant to the amended biological opinion the
December 1999 Programmatic Biological Opinionfor the Upper Colorado River will
take precedence over the amended biological opinion and thus assure there would be
no loss in project yield
. Are the operating guidelines in Article 7 concerning Ruedi release rates and reservoir
elevations appropriate or should they be revised in order to allow more flexibility to
use Ruedi water? All parties understand that release rates could be more responsive
to biological parameters rather than recreational (wadeability) factors as they are at
present The parties also understand the potential impacts 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. Progress: This matter remains under
discussion, but no operational changes are currently proposed
. Do the contracts for endangered fish releases require site specific NEP A compliance
and possibly mitigation? Progress: This matter is addressed in part by Article 8 of
the contract.
. What is the overall strategy for managing flows in the I5-Mile Reach? How do
releases from Ruedi fit with the CWCB instream flow protections for the 15-Mile
Reach, releases from Green Mountain Reservoir given the settlement in the Orchard
Mesa Check case and with other pieces of the Recovery Program like Grand Valley
Water Management, Coordinated Reservoir Operations and other available water
sources? There is a desire to have a clear understanding of the objectives trying to be
achieved in the '15-Mile Reach. Progress: The December 1999 Programmatic
Biological Opinion for the Upper Colorado fully addresses these issues.
. A process is required to balance the needs between recreational users, water supply
interests and endangered fish during the development of the annual operating plan for