F=7 EE: B-27-2 THU 1 .4 2Ei PUEBLO El 0 PI f;: COLORADO -DEPT OF NAT R TEL No .303-866--21j.5
OF' WATEIR 1,4K
Feb 27,92 11:49 No.013 P.02
STATE OF COLORADO ROY ROMER. overnor
DEPARTMENT
OF
NATURAL
RESOURCES
Ken Salazar. ExeGutive Director
1a13 Sherman SL, Room 718, Denver, Colorado 80203 866-3311
TO:
FROM: Ken Salazar, Executive Director
DATE: February 25, 1992
SUBJECT:
MM 0 R_ANDIJII
Parties to the CTU V. Wjan Lawsuit
saS,
Geological Survey
Board of Land Commissioners mlnod Land Reclamation Oivon of Mines
Oil anti Gas Conservation Comm 'Won Division of Parks & Outdoor Recrairrion Soil Conservation Board
Water ConservatiOA EWAN
Division nf Weser
Retoumes-Division of wildlife
Proposal to Address the Arkansas River Issues
"21: 101'2
The CTU lawsuit succeeded in focusing the attention
of state and
federal agencies on issues that affect the fishery of the Upper
Arkansas River. A recent meeting of these agencies reinforced
their interest in proceeding with a Water Needs Assessment
that
should help resolve the issues that triggered the
lawsuit. In
addition, the Division of Wildlife recently drafted
the fishery
study design initiated as part of our earlier settlement
talks.
DNR agencies have agreed to an approach that relies
heavily on
these efforts to address the issues.
The attached draft proposal outlines the steps we
believe will
provide needed fishery information and establish a process
for
making future flow management decisions. I invite you
to review
this plan in anticipation of future discussions.
I will arrange to meet separately with Trout
Unlimited and the
Outfitters as soon as possible. After those meetings,
it may be
advisable or necessary for all of the parties meet
together,
again as soon as possible. The purpose of these
meetings will be
to: (1) discuss a flow recommendation for the 1992 season;
and
(2) seek agreement on studies and other actions to
address
important substantive and procedural issues.
please contact Steve Norris if you would like
attached proposal or the suggested meetings.
I look forward your cooperation in addressing
resource policy issue. Thank you.
attachment
cc. Perry Olson, Laurie Mathews, Hal Simpson,
monahan
to discuss the
this important
AMMIIMMIMMIMIMMMMIMMIMIMMOMMOIMMM F"EB-27-51.2 THU 1.4:27 PUEBLO BOARD OF WATER WK R.OZ
COLOPDO -DEPT OF NAT R TEL No .303-866-2115 Feb 27,92 11:49 No.013 P.OS
DNR PROPOSAL TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTE OVER UPPER
ARKANSAS RIVER BUMMER PLOW AUGMENTATION
FEBRUARY 25, 1992
The Department of Natural Resources (DNR)
recommends the
following steps to resolve issues
that led to Colorado Trout
Unlimited (CTU) filing suit in Federal District
Court last year. We feel strongly that the studies
and procedures described below
are responsive to the concerns of
CTU and others, and that they
provide a framework for sound and accountable
decision making in
the future.
The Division of Wildlife (DOW) recently
completed a draft fishery
study design for the Upper Arkansas
River. It incorporates
studies of the upper reservoirs and Pueblo
Reservoir, as well as
of the river itself. The study plan reports
that additional
flow-related data are not required for
an analysis of the
relationship between instream flows and
brown trout growth.
However, further studies are needed to
determine the effects of
water level fluctuations on the fishery of
the upper and lower
reservoirs. This is an important
distinction. It has influenced
our approach to the substantive and procedural
issues.
DNR's proposal reflects two additional
factors. First, the
broader analysis proposed for the
Water Needs Assessment will add
to our understanding of the impacts
caused by a variety of
water-related variables to the fishery
and other important Values.
Second, the 1991-92 flow management
program has been successful
in providing winter and spring flows
that support the brown trout
fishery. Year-long flow management
programs need to continue and
their benefits need to be considered
along with their costs.
With this in mind, DNR's proposal
is:
1. The parties agree to recommend that
flows be augmented
during the 1992 summer season (July 15 through
August 15) at the 700 cfs level provided adequate Water is available
and
provided that evaporative losses are replaced
by the DPOR.
DNR understands that summer flow augmentation
impacts brown
trout growth and some fishing recreation,
but continues to
believe that those impacts are outweighed
by the benefits
from such augmentation. In future years,
DNR will consult
with the Citizens Task Force and
others, .and will evaluate
the full range of positive and negative
impacts associated
with flow management options before making
its
recommendation to the Bureau of Reclamation
(OR).
2. DOW this spring will release
its assessment report on upper
Arkansas fisheries and water management.
The report will
identify flow-related impacts to brown
F-C-13-2?-91 2 THU 14:27 PUEBLO BOARD OF WATER WI<
COLGR2DO-DEPT OF NAT R TEL No.303-866-2115
0-4
Feb 27,92 1149 No.013 P.04
be used to identify mitigation options. While recognizing
that other variables, including water quality, also affect
brown trout populations, DNR recommends that all
parties
consider the findings of this report in their
subsequent evaluations and decisions.
3. Reservoir studies, including those proposed by DOW,
will be
incorporated into the joint Water Needs Assessment.
Reservoir levels may need to be manipulated,
consistent with
Fry-Ark operations, to assure a viable study
within the
assessment period. Such manipulation may affect
instream
flows below the reservoirs. If necessary, such
flow
management will be determined by the Water Needs
Assessment
team (BLM, BOR, DNR and possibly the USFS)
in consultation with interested parties.
4. In general, impacts attributable to flow
manipulation must
be viewed in the context of the river's significant
water
quality problems. The parties should support
existing and
proposed water quality studies. For example,
the Water
Needs Assessment will evaluate the impacts of
flows and
reservoir levels on water quality. water quality
studies
are being conducted by the USEPA and others.
DOW has
requested federal funding for a major study of the
effects
of heavy metal water pollution on fish. DNR
further
recommends that all interested parties join in pushing for
cleanup activities that improve the fishery in the
river and its reservoirs.
5. DNR recommends that all parties agree to the
annual
discussion of flow management options suggested
by BOB. All
parties and others interested in the issue
should have an
opportunity to provide input to BoR prior
to its making
annual flow management decisions.
Not included in these five steps is a resolution
of legal and
liability issues. The parties will need to
address several
matters relating to the status of the lawsuit,
recovery of the
cash bond, claims for attorneys fees and damages, and future
legal rights. DNR believes that agreement on the
broader
substantive and procedural issues will facilitate
agreement on these more specific concerns.
