MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING SUMMARY
11/03/99
MEETING SUMMARY
Meeting: Colorado River Management Committee, Denver,
Colorado
Date: November 3, 1999
Attendees: See Attachment 1
>Assignments are highlighted in the text.
CONVENE: 9:00 a.m.
- Introductions. Review/modify agenda and time allocations
- The agenda was revised as it appears below.
- Approve August meeting summary - The summary was approved
as written.
- Program Updates
- Program web site: Tom Czapla demonstrated the
stocking record information on the Program web
site. Robert Wigington requested that previous
stocking be shown, as well as family lots.
>Tom said he would add those.
- Development of recovery goals - Tom Czapla said
we'll be looking at the upper and lower basins as
separate management units with separate recovery
goals. Rich Valdez will make a presentation at
the next Biology Committee meeting on November 23
in Denver and will meet with the Recovery Team
again on November 29-30 in Las Vegas. >Tom
Czapla will post the Service's distinct
population segment ruling to the web site. Susan
Baker asked Bruce McCloskey about Colorado's
effort to develop recovery goals. Bruce confirmed
that Tom Nesler has been assigned to develop
recovery goals for Colorado, but he didn't know
the timeline. Henry Maddux said he would like to
know how Colorado and the Program can best
exchange information to best further both
efforts. >Bruce will ask Tom Nesler to post an
update on Colorado's effort to the listserver.
- Facilities Needs Plan - Tom Czapla said Grand
Junction can meet the needs for Colorado
pikerninnow and that Wahweap can meet the needs
for bonytails called for in both the Utah and
Colorado stocking plans. Approximately 600 acres
of riverside ponds will be needed in Colorado and
30-40 acres of ponds in Utah will be needed for
razorback sucker growout. Or, if we use hatchery
ponds, about 300 acres of ponds would be needed
in Colorado. The Facilities Needs Plan is under
revision and will be discussed at the next
Biology Committee meeting. Robert Wigington asked
if the plan could be formatted in "real
years" (as opposed to "year 1, year 2,
year 3," etc.) and would address some of the
adaptive criteria in the stocking plans. Tom said
that will be up to the Biology Committee. Henry
said the Program does not have funding to
purchase 600 acres of growout ponds, so we
clearly will have to prioritize implementation of
propagation and stocking, and would adapt
stocking as we went along, but we may not put
this prioritization and adaptation in the
facilities plan. Henry said he hopes the Biology
Committee will address some of these
implementation issues at their next meeting.
Frank said that to some extent, we're already
prioritizing in our current stocking activities.
- Ouray hatchery - Brent Rhees said they've
received recommendations from the engineers to
resolve the operational problems at Ouray (both
the Service and Reclamation concur with these
recommendations): 1) add a UV system in addition
to the ozone system already in place; and 2) add
stages and replace motors on the pumps to solve
the pressure problems. The minimum cost to the
Program will be over $80,000, the maximum cost to
the Program will be $125,000 ($75,000 for the UV
system, $25,000 for engineering; $10,000 for
pumps and motors, and $15,000 for meters and
monitors). These modifications can be completed
by the end of January. Brent Uilenberg said that
if the Service and Reclamation are comfortable
that this is the appropriate technical fix, then
we can find this in FY 2000 funds currently
programmed for Grand Valley Water Management. The
Committee approved expenditures up to $125,000
(from FY 2000 Grand Valley Water Management
funds) to fix Ouray (with the understanding that
Reclamation will do everything they can to
negotiate with the contractor to pay for the
portion for which the contractor is responsible).
- Wahweap - Brent Rhees said that the 14 ponds have
been completed, and there are enough funds left
in account to purchase the needed bird netting
($35,000). >Frank Pfeifer will contact UDWR to
let them know where he got nets for Horsethief
($900 to cover 6 ponds). The pump and motor and
the wellhouse repairs will cost $108,000 instead
of the $60,000 estimate. Utah just planned to
spend what was previously approved, but that
won't provide the wellhouse and piping that's
really necessary. Chris questioned how we
continue to get estimates that are so far off the
mark, and Brent said that the estimates are often
made with minimal information. The Committee
encouraged Utah to hold the cost down on the
pump, etc. as much as they can, but approved up
to an additional $48,000 to complete this work so
that the pump, etc. will operate properly (this
also will come from the FY 2000 Grand Valley
Water Management funds).
- Growout pond leasing update - Dave Soker
distributed a description of the purpose,
provisions, advantages, and criteria for growout
pond leases. The cost is determined by appraisal
(which can be difficult, since it's hard to find
comparables). We've leased one pond so far, it's
in the city of Grand Junction (3 acres, $9,000
for the 5 years [probably one of the more
expensive locations]). In addition, Colorado has
given us 5 ponds to use free (from State Parks).
Dave asked that if anyone knows of suitable ponds
in the Grand Valley or around Vernal, to please
let him know. Dave said he's looking at 7 more
ponds (-14 acres) in the Grand Valley area and 7
in Utah. If low appraisal costs are preventing us
from leasing important ponds, then Program
participants would like to look into ways of
offering higher leases. >Brent Uilenberg,
Bruce McCloskey, Bruce Snyder, Henry Maddux,
Robert Wigington, Frank Pfeifer, Tom Pruitt, and
Dave Soker will meet and look into creative ideas
for growout ponds.
- Price-Stubb FERC license - Brent Uilenberg noted
that Reclamation had distributed a newsletter
update on Price-Stubb and Grand Valley Project
fish passage. The date for a decision on the FERC
license for Jacobsen Hydro is unknown. The
Service's draft biological opinion on the FERC
license is in the Regional Office for signature.
Brent said he still believes that selective
removal of nonnatives fishes is possible at Grand
Valley (although maybe less convenient).
- Long-term funding legislation - Tom Pitts reported on the
House hearing. Panel members testifying were: David Hayes
(DOI), Dan Luecke, Kathleen Clarke, Leslie James, and Tom
Pitts. OMB has raised some issues about the
non-reimbursable annual funding, and Bob Faber
(subcommittee staff) thinks the funding should come from
the Service, so we still have those concerns to address.
The committee chairman said he would have some written
questions for the panel. The Senate hearing will be early
next year. Congressman Hansen came to the hearing and
gave an opening statement. WAPA is doing some analyses of
the impact on the Treasury of non-reimbursable annual
funding for DOI. >Chris Karas will post a copy of
David Hayes' final written testimony to the listserver.
Robert Wigington asked about the recommendation to remove
the language giving Reclamation the ability to carry over
funding from one year to the next. Both Chris and Brent
assured the Committee that only the amount that we
actually spend will be counted against the ceiling.
- Section 7 Consultation
- 15-Mile Reach programmatic biological opinion -
Tom Pitts reported the opinion is moving toward
closure: the Service issues a final draft at the
end of October. Water users and others met a
couple of days ago and identified some remaining
issues regarding: 1) language about the 20KAF
from coordinated facilities operations; 2)
language in the recovery agreement about
participants signing within 90 days (not enough
time for those who have to go to boards); 3) the
need to modify language in Section 7 agreement
that addresses PBO's and how Program will cover
existing depletions in other basins; and 4) use
of Ruedi water. Tom will meet with Henry in the
next couple of days to resolve these. Everything
is on track to get a final opinion by Christmas.
Dan said that CWCB is having a workshop for Board
members and the public on November 19 in Denver
from 1-3 p.m. >Dan will post that to the
PBO listserver.
- Yampa River programmatic biological opinion -
Gerry Roehin distributed a draft outline of the
Yampa Management Plan. He and a small work group
are working to flesh out this outline and present
it to the larger work group in early December.
The synthesis report also will be finalized and
distributed before the next meeting. The most
difficult issue is administration of the Yampa
River (some water users believe that
administration would result in taking more water
rather than less from the river). Dan McAuliffe
of CWCB is chairing the Yampa River PBO working
group.
- Addendum to Section 7 Agreement to address
programmatic biological opinions - Henry Maddux
noted that the current agreement doesn't address
PBO's. David Hallford and Margot Zallen and he
have been exchanging draft language, but haven't
reached agreement yet. In addition to the 15-Mile
Reach and the Yampa River, the River District
believes PBO's are needed for the Gunnison,
White, and Dolores rivers, and the mainstern
below the 15-Mile Reach. The District wants all
existing uses plus a measure of future depletions
in each basin to be covered as they are in the
15-Mile Reach PBO, and this will be a condition
of them taking the 15-Mile Reach PBO to their
Board for approval. Robert recommended that the
Section 7 agreement be modified so as to be
flexible enough to include all the options.
>Susan, Henry and Margot will meet with the
River District to try to iron out their
differences and then bring something to the
Management Committee. A Management Committee
conference call may be needed.
- Options for providing regulatory certainty for
existing tributary depletions - Henry Maddux
provided 3 options for the Committee's
consideration. Tom Pitts expressed concern with
the part of option #2 that implies manufacturing
recovery actions for each tributary whether those
actions are a priority or not.
- Section 7 consultation list -
Narrows: Henry noted that he posted the RPA and conservation
recommendation from the draft Narrows biological opinion to the
listserver. The conservation recommendation portion is
non-binding and recommends collecting more information on the
flow requirements for Colorado pikerninnow in the Price River. It
was put in a conservation recommendation to avoid having Section
7 drive biological priorities. >Chris Karas will send the
project description and the RPA to the Management Committee for
comment. >Committee members will get comments back to
Reclamation within two weeks of the date when it is sent out.
Barry said that this underscores the need to complete the
research on the importance of tributaries as well as the recovery
goals so that we're not recommending flows that are not essential
to recovery,
Angela Kantola distributed the most recent Section 7
consultation list and Tom Pitts distributed the companion tables.
- FY-99 capital funds outcome - Brent Uilenberg distributed
a table outlining FY 2000 capital funds. They've been
asked to absorb $500,000 in underfinancing from this
Recovery Program. The list also shows the projects for
which Reclamation has requested authority to carry over
FY 99 funds. Reclamation will let the Committee know as
soon as they know what they're authorized to carry over.
Brent feels that we'll be okay even with the
underfinancing because he anticipates that the maximum we
can spend on Grand Valley Water Management is $1-1.7
million. Dave Soker asked if Reclamation can make land
acquisition a higher priority to improve our performance
in that area. >Chris Karas and Brent Uilenberg will
look into options to accelerate land acquisition (such as
using Service appraisers) and get back to the Management
Committee by December 3.
- Tracking:
- Sample output from a simplified Program tracking
system - Angela Kantola distributed the reports
due list and demonstrated the tracking system.
The tracking system will be used and maintained
by all the Program coordinators to track due
dates. Beginning in December, it will be loaded
weekly on the Program web site
(www.r6.fws.gov/crrip/) in a couple of different
sort orders. A downloadable Excel version and a
comment form also will be on the web page. Bruce
McCloskey suggested that when the coordinator
sends an electronic reminder of an upcoming due
date, they also copy the agency's Management
Committee representative. Henry agreed.
- Reports due list - covered under item a.
- Capital projects schedule/tracking - Brent
Uilenberg distributed a spreadsheet schedule for
the major items in the capital funds budget
(eventually all capital items will be included).
Bruce recommended that original versus actual due
dates can be shown in some way. Brent said he and
Bob would try to figure out how to work that in
by showing the RIPRAP date (the original complete
construction date). The Committee agreed that it
makes sense to keep this tracking separate from
the other system. >Bob and Angela will figure
out how to publish this to the Program web site.
- Review of action items from recent meetings - The
Committee reviewed the most recent action items list.
Brent Uilenberg recommended that we wait until February
to make a decision on Tusher Wash screening, because the
amount of water that can be legally diverted may be less
than what is currently being taken and that would have a
significant impact on the cost of the screen. If the
legal question hasn't been settled by February, then we
may have to decide to go ahead and screen for the maximum
amount. Henry said that he thinks the Service is leaning
away from an HCP as a way of preventing take at Tusher
Wash, and would likely handle it with consultation on the
FERC license, instead.
- Management Committee Chair - The Committee re-elected
John Shields as their chairperson for the upcoming year.
- Next Management Committee meeting - February 23-24 at
Utah Department of Natural Resources in Salt Lake City,
10 a.m. on the 23 d through 4 p.m. on the 24h. >Barry
Saunders will arrange a meeting room. The ad-hoc long
term legislation group needs to meet again in the very
near future. >Henry will talk to Wayne Cook and set a
meeting date.
ADJOURN - 3:30 p.m.
Attachment 1
Colorado River Management Committee,
Denver, Colorado
November 3, 1999, Meeting Attendees
Management Committee Voting Members:
Brent Uilenberg and Chris Karas Bureau of Reclamation
Bruce McCloskey State of Colorado
Tom Pitts Upper Basin Water Users'
Barry Saunders Utah Department of Natural Resources
Robert Wigington The Nature Conservancy
John Shields State of Wyoming
Shane Collins Western Area Power Administration
Susan Baker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Nonvoting Members:
Henry Maddux Recovery Program Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Dave Mazour Colorado River Energy Distributors Association
Recovery Program Staff:
Angela Kantola U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Debbie Felker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Tom Czapla U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dave Soker U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Others:
Brent Rhees Bureau of Reclamation
Gerry Roehm U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ray Tenney Colorado River Water Conservation District
Frank Pfeifer U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Gene Shawcroft Central Utah Water Conservation District
Bob McCue U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Dan McAuliffe Colorado Water Conservation Board
TOP OF PAGE