Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ....'oJ <br /> <br />~ <br /> <br />Colorado River Biological Opinion Discussion Group <br />May I, 1998 <br />Page 4 <br /> <br />o Opposition to instream flow filings: Will there be a limit on filing of statements of <br />opposition or reopening of issues that have been settled in pre..;ous filings. (2.A.10) <br />(FWS will draft a proposed agreement.) <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />o Consistency with applicable federal and state laws and project authorizing legislation: <br />Language needs to be drafted regarding the consistency issue. <br /> <br />CROSS <br /> <br />1, The CROSS runs are needed to clarify 1) the potential for additional depletions from Ruedi <br />and Green Mountain, 2) benefits to the IS-mile reach of the Check Settlement only, 3) <br />benefits to the IS-mile reach of the Grand Valley Water Management Plan, 4) identification of <br />water available to the IS-mile reach in ex~s of canal capacity, S) impact of Category 1 <br />depletions, and 6) impact of Category I plus Category 2 depletions. <br /> <br />2, The technical work group needs to define 1) how depletions in the IS-mile reach will be <br />measured, and 2) what is the reasonable hydrolgic period for measuring depletions? <br /> <br />3, Review role of CROSS model and administration of biological opinion. <br />. Reopening ofbiolomcal opinion <br /> <br />1. Define provisions for reopeners, including impacts of" significant decline in population," <br /> <br />2. Need to make distinction between reopening of programmatic opinion vs. reopening of <br />individual Section 7 consultations, (2.C. and 3.0,) <br /> <br />General asshmments <br /> <br />I, Long term funding legislation: FWS needs to detennine if it wants to reinstate a date <br />certain for passing legislation as Category 1 RP A. <br /> <br />2. Block of depletions for Category 2. Need to resolve differences in proposals. <br /> <br />3. Nonnative control and fishery management plan for Colorado River: Water users need to <br />integrate proposal. <br /> <br />4. Stocking of endangered fish as Category 2 RP A: Water users need to make more specific <br />proposal re: stocking. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />5. Permanent delivery of 10,825 acre-feet of water: Water users propose "up to 10 82S acre- <br />feet depending on need." Need to clarify any differences with FWS proposal. <br /> <br />6, Flooded bottomIands: Not included water users' proposal; FWS will reevaluate need for <br />3,500 acres. <br />