Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Item 23f <br />May 20-21, 2002 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 of4 <br /> <br />1. Article 7b will be revised to reflect that the Ruedi operations' meeting will be <br />held in Carbondale in May of this year and that the September and October <br />targets will be the same for 2001. <br />2. Article 8 notes a new "Categorical Exclusion Checklist" was used this year. <br /> <br />The proposed contract remains for only one year. Formal negotiations on the long-term <br />contract will begin on July 2, 2002 in Carbondale. The interests involved have supported <br />the previous I-year contracts so long as it was clearly understood that the issues listed <br />below would be addressed during the negotiation of the long-term contract. The major <br />issues include: <br /> <br />. Ruedi Reservoir repayment costs and whether or not the water made available to <br />endangered fish should be paid for. If payment is required, who should pay and how <br />should payment be accomplished? Assurances are needed that we are not increasing <br />costs to other water users with contracts that provide water to the endangered fish. <br />Progress: In 1998, the Recovery Program, via the Service, paid O&M costs pursuant <br />to the contract in the amount of $61,919. USBR provided the O&M costs from <br />appropriations for the use of the 10,825 AF in 2000 and 2001, and will again this <br />year. <br />. Assurances to the Fryingpan-Arkansas Project east and west slope water users and <br />repayment entities for all Section 7 consultations on the Project that there will be no <br />loss to them in water yield from the Project nor any increase in Project repayment or <br />operating costs. Progress: Pursuant to the amended biological opinion the <br />December 1999 Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Upper Colorado River will <br />take precedence over the amended biological opinion and thus assure there would be <br />no loss in project yield. <br />. Are the operating guidelines in Article 7 conceming Ruedi release rates and reservoir <br />elevations appropriate or should they be revised in order to allow more flexibility to <br />use Ruedi water? All parties understand that release rates could be more responsive <br />to biological parameters rather than recreational (wadeability) factors as they are at <br />present. The parties also understand the potential impacts to the local economy of the <br />Fryingpan Basin and continue to look for win-win solutions to this issue. Any <br />changes to the environmental commitments already made, or substantial changes to <br />the preferred altemative discussed in the Record of Decision could create the need for <br />supplemental NEP A compliance measures. Progress: This matter remains under <br />discussion, but no operational changes are currently proposed. A draft <br />Environmental Assessment (EA) for the long-term contract that will run through the <br />year 2012 has been prepared and circulated for public comment. CWCB staff has <br />provided comments on the draft EA and will be a party to the negotiations of the <br />long-term contract. Staff anticipates working closely with affected interests to assure <br />that these issues and others are satisfactorily addressed. <br />. Do the contracts for endangered fish releases require site specific NEP A compliance <br />;j!p--1 .__~~~1...1u ._~-4-~__-4-~_._C) nu__u~___ 'T'L:'LJA\~-t-:..r-f v _JJ__~___J.:u ___u_'_ 1___ ,L.___.:_1_ 0 _L' <br /> <br />, - <br /> <br /> <br />L'-- <br /> <br />- <br /> <br />-: _ _.Jl,J <br />