Colorado River: 15-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion
Depletion Accounting Pursuant to Appendix B
Report Period 2001-2005

December 2008

        TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.

Background .......................................................................................... 1

II.

Scope of the 15-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion ...... 1

III. Description of the Proposed Action ................................................... 2
IV. Depletions and Depletion Accounting ............................................... 2
A. PBO Appendix B Accounting and Reporting Procedures ......... 3
V.

Methods ................................................................................................ 5
A. CDSS Water Rights Planning Model (StateMod) ...................... 5
B. CDSS Consumptive Use Model (StateCU) .................................. 7

VI.

Consultations ...................................................................................... 7

VII. Results .................................................................................................. 8
VIII. Conclusions ....................................................................................... 14
IX.

Acknowledgements ........................................................................... 15

Attachment A: Individual Consultations under the Colorado River
15-Mile Reach PBO (PBO Appendix B List)
Attachment B: Summary of September 4, 2008 Technical Group
Meeting

ii

 Colorado River: 15-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion
Depletion Accounting Pursuant to Appendix B
Report Period 2001-2005
December 2008
I. Background
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) as amended directs Federal agencies to work with
State and local agencies to resolve water resource issues in concert with the conservation
of endangered species. In 1984, the U.S. Department of the Interior, the States of
Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, water users, power customers and environmental groups
formed a committee to discuss a process to recover the Colorado River endangered fishes
while new and existing water developments proceed in the Upper Colorado River Basin
in compliance with Federal and State law and interstate compacts. After four years of
negotiations, the Recovery Implementation Program for the Endangered Fish Species in
the Upper Colorado River Basin was initiated.
In order to further the Recovery Program, a Section 7 Agreement and a Recovery
Implementation Program Recovery Action Plan (RIPRAP) were developed (USFWS
1993). The Agreement established a framework for conducting Section 7 consultations
on depletion impacts related to new projects and impacts associated with existing projects
in the Upper Basin. Procedures outlined in the Section 7 Agreement are used to
determine if the Recovery Program is making “sufficient progress” toward the recovery
of the Colorado River endangered fishes to enable the Recovery Program to serve as a
reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and/or
adverse modification of critical habitat. The RIPRAP is reviewed and updated annually.
On March 11, 1996, the Recovery Program’s Implementation Committee directed the
Management Committee to develop a strategy to provide and protect flows in the 15Mile Reach of the Colorado River upstream of the Gunnison River confluence. The
Management Committee formed a workgroup to further identify the issues and
recommend a strategy for their resolution. In late1996, the workgroup recommended
that the issues could be best resolved through a programmatic biological opinion on
Recovery Program activities in and above the 15-Mile Reach. The 15-Mile Reach
Programmatic Biological Opinion (PBO) represents the U.S Fish & Wildlife Service’s
(Service) consideration of Federal actions upstream of the Gunnison confluence
(USFWS 1999).

II. Scope of the 15-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion
The PBO addresses impacts related to water depletions that occur above the confluence
with the Gunnison River and impact critical habitat from Rifle, Colorado to Lake Powell
and the recovery actions designed to offset these impacts. Issuance of the PBO does not
create an administrative priority concerning Upper Colorado River Basin depletions. The
1

 PBO neither prejudices nor determines the amount of depletions allowable under the
Colorado River Compact or in other subbasins of the Upper Colorado River Basin.

III. Description of the Proposed Action
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) projects included in the PBO consultation are
the past, existing, and continued operations of the Colorado-Big Thompson Project,
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Collbran Project, Grand Valley Project, and Silt Project,
and all existing, historical, and authorized depletions associated with these projects. The
PBO also provides ESA compliance for Reclamation’s use of a portion of the additional
120,000 acre-feet/year (AF/yr) of depletions provided for in the PBO. These Federal
projects are operated in accordance with various laws, including the authorizing
legislation for each project, operating policies, operating criteria and principles, and
various court decrees.
Non-Reclamation projects included in the PBO consultation are associated with the
continuation of existing depletions and the 120,000 AF/yr of additional depletions above
the confluence with the Gunnison River which have or are likely to have a Federal nexus
and are anticipated to choose to rely on the implementation of the RIPRAP, which is the
responsibility of all of the Program participants, to avoid the likelihood of jeopardy and
adverse modification of critical habitat. The Federal nexus will likely come in the form
of facility repairs requiring U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) permits, Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) re-licensing, Federal agency authorization of
right-of-ways, or some other Federal involvement. Therefore, the PBO treats all these
projects as interrelated.

IV. Depletions and Depletion Accounting
Pursuant to the PBO, existing depletions, as of September 30 1995, are to be estimated
using Colorado River Decision Support System (CRDSS) models; CRDSS is a part of
Colorado’s Decision Support Systems (CDSS). Model results show existing depletions
are approximately 1 million AF/yr (MAF/yr). This estimate is the approximate average
annual depletion value modeled for water years 1975 to 1991. The minimum depletion
value was approximately 877,000 AF/yr during water year 1973 and the maximum was
approximately 1,228,700 AF/yr during water year 1978, the year following the 1977
drought.
“The 120,000 AF/yr of additional depletions represents the amount of additional water
that the Service believes could be depleted from the Upper Colorado River Basin above
the confluence with the Gunnison River using new or existing facilities (including
depletions that have already occurred since September 1995) and not result in the
likelihood of jeopardy or adverse modification of critical habitat.” This additional
depletion depends in part on the implementation of the recovery actions described in the
RIPRAP producing positive benefits for the endangered fish and their critical habitat.
The 120,000 AF/yr reduction in flows is expected to have the same effect on endangered
fish and their critical habitat whether removed by existing or new projects. However, a
judgment on exactly where this 120,000 AF/yr of additional depletion will come from
2

 cannot be made at this time, but it is anticipated that some will come from facilities that
have yet to be constructed.
In recognition of the extreme variability of hydrology and water use demand patterns, the
120,000 AF/yr of additional depletions will be calculated as a 10-year moving average as
determined by the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) in consultation with
Reclamation and concurred with by the Service. The PBO requires that an accounting of
depletions occurring above the Gunnison River confluence be made every five years
beginning in 2006 for the period 2001-2005 in order to monitor the development or
increase in depletions that is occurring. The purpose of this document is to provide that
accounting.
A. PBO Appendix B Accounting and Reporting Procedures
Appendix B of the PBO lays out the accounting principles and options for determining
changes in water depletions addressed in the PBO. The selected accounting process must
quantitatively measure increases in water depletions as they actually occur and identify
when 60,000 and 120,000 AF/yr of additional depletions have actually occurred. Water
depletions are defined as the reduction in the quantity of water reaching critical habitat
of the Colorado River endangered fishes, more specifically in the 15-Mile Reach
upstream of the Gunnison River confluence. The process identified in Appendix B of the
PBO is as follows:
1)

Every 5 years beginning in 2005, the Service and the State of Colorado will
jointly collect consumptive use data and other data necessary to update either the
State’s CRDSS Consumptive Use Model or the State’s CRDSS Colorado River
Mainstem Water Right Planning Model “C1 run” as described in Appendix F of
the PBO. Data collected would include irrigated acres, climatic data needed to
run the “Modified Blaney-Criddle” consumptive use model, as well as data on
evaporation, municipal and industrial uses, and other consumptive uses identified
in the Bureau of Reclamation’s consumptive uses and losses report. The Service
would also provide a list of projects and new depletions consulted on during each
5 year period. The updated information will be submitted to a “technical group”
(the Water Acquisition Committee of the UCRIP has been identified as the
technical group or TG) for peer review. The TG will determine if the modeling
accurately identifies the depletions that have actually occurred, because only
those depletions which have actually occurred will count against the 120,000
AF/yr of additional depletions provided for in the PBO. Once the TG and any
other interested entity have verified the depletion accounting, the accounting will
be submitted to the Recovery Program for final review and distribution as
appropriate.

2)

Beginning in 2005, the State of Colorado’s CRDSS Consumptive Use Model for
the Colorado Mainstem will be run and a consumptive use and losses report will
be developed. This report would verify the present level of depletions. Pursuant
to the PBO, if it is determined that, with implementation of recovery actions and
3

 an appropriate fish population response, additional depletions of up to 120,000
AF/yr are not likely to jeopardize the endangered fishes or destroy or adversely
modify critical habitat, then additional depletions totaling 120,000 AF/yr will be
permitted. The accounting system for determining when depletions reach 120,000
AF/yr will avoid penalizing entities that implement water conservation and reuse
practices (for example, entities will maintain their present level of demand in the
model). The PBO does not mandate water conservation or reuse. However, if
water conservation and reuse practices are implemented it will take longer to
deplete the additional 120,000 AF/yr. Therefore, if all recovery actions are
implemented and there is an appropriate fish population response, the PBO could
provide Endangered Species Act compliance for a longer period of time. The TG
believes that as actual depletions approach critical accounting thresholds it will
be necessary to run both the State of Colorado’s CRDSS Consumptive Use Model
for the Colorado Mainstem and the State of Colorado’s CRDSS Water Rights
Planning Model for the Colorado Mainstem in order to avoid potential problems
associated with annual fluctuations due to variable climatic factors, as well as
model and data changes.
3)

This provision of Appendix B was not performed for this reporting period. It is
referenced here because it is part of the accounting procedures identified in
Appendix B. The reasons for this provision, and the reasons it was not used for
this reporting period, are discussed in the summary of the September 4, 2008 TG
meeting in Attachment B. When the State of Colorado’s CRDSS Colorado River
Mainstem Water Right Model is used for determining the increases in depletions,
Appendix B of the PBO requires the two model runs described below.
RUN 1.
The C1 scenario will be run for the updated study period (e.g., 1975 to year n,
where year n would be 2005, 2010, 2015, etc.) at the 1995 level of demand for
the entire study period.
RUN 2.
A second model run (C2 ) would be made for the same updated study period using
year n demand levels over the entire period. Comparing the difference between
the long-term averages of the two model runs (C1 & C2 ) will identify the increase
or decrease in depletions over that time period. Model calibration and
verification will be done with each update. There are no “cap” amounts
identified in the process; the trigger is whether or not the difference between the
two model runs exceeds either the 60,000 AF/yr or the 120,000 AF/yr level
identified in this PBO.
The criteria for determining a positive or negative fish population response is
presented in the reinitiation notice of the biological opinion and in Appendix D.
As described in the reinitiation notice, the status of fish populations will be
reviewed prior to new depletions reaching 60,000 AF/yr. This review will begin
when actual new depletion levels reach 50,000 AF/yr or the year 2015,
4

 whichever comes first. Therefore, every five years it will be determined if new
depletions are approaching 50,000 AF/yr.
4)

A report will be prepared documenting the assumptions used and changes in
depletions and other model results. The report will be prepared on a water year
basis, October 1 to September 30. The report will also document any changes
made to the model such as updated demand information.

5)

Reports will be provided on a five-year basis. The report covering the period
2001-2005 will be completed by December 31, 2006. The report covering the
period 2006-2010 will be completed by December 31, 2011. The reason for the
one year lag is to allow the data for the previous year to be reduced and
finalized.

6)

This process as currently envisioned has the potential to become labor intensive
depending on the number of model changes and degree of “backcasting”
involved with the Water Rights Planning Model. Costs or appropriate cost-share
arrangements will be worked out during the development of the Recovery
Program’s annual work plan. A Scope of Work will be prepared for the FY 2005
Recovery Program’s work planning process to fund the development of the
depletion report and model runs. Furthermore, because of cost considerations,
the process identified above is subject to change with the agreement of the
Recovery Program’s participants through the current management process.

V. Methods
As outlined in Appendix B of the PBO there are two different modeling methods in
Colorado’s Decision Support Systems (CDSS) that can be used to evaluate whether there
have been increased depletions over the intervening period since the last accounting
update. The first method is the CDSS water rights planning model, or StateMod. The
second is the CDSS consumptive use model, or StateCU. Both methods share common
elements, e.g., the use of irrigated acreage, crop types, and actual diversions associated
with those irrigated lands. Appendix B is somewhat ambiguous over whether or not
StateMod is required and has preference over StateCU or whether one or the other or
both methods must be used. The summary of the September 4, 2008 TG meeting in
Attachment B discusses this matter in some detail.
A. CDSS Water Rights Planning Model (StateMod) [NOT USED]
This accounting method was considered but was not used in developing the 2005
depletion estimates reported herein. It is discussed here because it is part of the
accounting procedures described in Appendix B of the PBO. The purpose of this section
is to describe certain changes made to StateMod and some of the data limitations
encountered during the consideration of whether or not to use StateMod.
StateMod, the State of Colorado’s Stream Simulation Model, is a water allocation and
accounting model capable of making comparative analyses for the assessment of various
historical and future water management policies in a river basin. It can be run on either
5

 monthly or daily time steps and is designed for application to any river basin with
appropriate input data.
StateMod’s operation, like the stream itself, is governed by its hydrology, water rights,
and the associated structures and operating rules. It recognizes five types of water rights:
direct flow rights, instream flow rights, reservoir storage rights, well rights, and
operational rights. Each of the water rights is given an administration number (rank) and
location in the stream system. The model then sorts the water rights by rank and
simulates their operation by priority using the Prior Appropriation Doctrine (first in time,
first in right). The water right categories are self-explanatory with the possible exception
of the operational rights, which generally pertain to reservoir operating policies,
exchanges and carrier ditch systems. Please see the CDSS website for more information:
http://cdss.state.co.us.
i. Backcasted Demands
For purposes of the PBO accounting, “backcasting” is defined as taking a demand level
for each relevant entity for a certain year, e.g., 2005, and using that demand back in time
in the modeling for the entire study period, which is 1971-2005 in this case. For most of
the water systems involved, the demands for the hydrologic study period are obtained
through an entity’s own records or their own modeling.
Had backcasting actually been completed for this PBO accounting period, backcasting for
the study period for demand levels representative of both 1995 and 2005 would have
been required from the major transmountain diverters. These include the Denver Water
Department (Roberts and Moffat Tunnels), Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (CBT-Adams Tunnel, CBT-Windy Gap), Colorado Springs/Aurora (Homestake
Project, Independence Pass and Hoosier Pass Tunnels), and Southeastern Colorado Water
Conservancy District (Fry-Ark). At this time, backcasted demands are not available for
all of these entities.
ii. Changes in StateMod Since the Original PBO Application
StateMod has been revised since it was implemented in the PBO in 1996. Key changes
include the following:
•
•
•
•
•

The end of the period of record has been extended from 1991 to 2005.
Operations relating to Green Mountain Reservoir and the Blue River decree have
been revised according to the interim agreement.
High-altitude growth coefficients for pasture grass have been incorporated, to
represent the increased consumptive use demonstrated at lysimeters at altitudes
greater than 6500 feet MSL.
Reservoir releases for the endangered fishes are represented more accurately.
A daily model is available (although not required for accounting in the PBO).
iii. Changes in Natural Flow Data

As StateMod is enhanced and updated for more accurate representation of actual gage
flows, diversion records and current conditions, these modifications result in changes to
6

 the natural flow data set, which is calculated from the gage records by removing man’s
effects. For example, diversions and reservoir evaporation are added back to the gage
records, return flows and basin imports are subtracted, and changes in storage are added
or subtracted depending on whether they are a positive or negative change.
StateCU, on the other hand, does not include natural flows as a component of the
modeling process. For the 15-Mile Reach PBO depletion accounting, StateCU provides a
more straightforward procedure to estimate depletions.
B. CDSS Consumptive Use Model (StateCU) [USED]
The StateCU model was selected for use in developing the consumptive use estimates
reported herein. StateCU, the State of Colorado’s consumptive use model, was
developed to estimate/report both crop and non-crop consumptive uses within the state.
It consists of a FORTRAN-based computer program and an associated graphical user
interface. The crop consumptive use methods employed in the program and the interface
are the modified Blaney-Criddle, the original Blaney-Criddle, and the Pochop (for
bluegrass only) consumptive use methods with calculations on a monthly basis and the
ASCE Standardized Penman-Monteith method with calculations on a daily basis. Other
crop consumptive use methods available when the FORTRAN program is operated
independently of the interface include the Penman-Monteith and Modified Hargreaves
methods, operated on a daily time step. Please see the CDSS website for more
information: http://cdss.state.co.us
StateCU performs an historical agricultural consumptive use analysis for the basin using
irrigated acreage, crop types, available water supply via diversion records, and
temperature and precipitation data from neighboring climate stations. For PBO
accounting purposes, the modified Blaney-Criddle method is used on a monthly basis
with the incorporation of high-altitude growth coefficients for pasture grass over 6500
feet. Irrigated acreage is determined from satellite imagery; updates are made
approximately every five years. Potential consumptive use is calculated for the crop type,
effective precipitation is taken into account, and the irrigation water requirement is
calculated. Ditch conveyance loss, irrigation application method (flood or sprinkler), and
soil moisture balance are taken into account in order to determine how much of the
irrigation water requirement is met.
The other non-crop consumptive use components are obtained from other information:
exports and mineral use are obtained from relevant diversion records; municipal and
livestock use is calculated from population estimates and daily water usage estimates; and
stockpond and reservoir evaporation is determined from estimated surface area and
monthly evaporation rates.

VI. Consultations
The 15-Mile Reach PBO covers up to an average of approximately 1 MAF/yr of
historical depletions. If those projects are involved in a federal action (e.g., permit, grant,
contract, right-of-way approvals, etc.) requiring ESA compliance, the project
proponents/owners must sign a recovery agreement in order for the Recovery Program to
be considered the reasonable and prudent alternative (RPA) for the project. Most eligible
7

 projects within this 1 MAF have never been consulted on or underwent consultation prior
to January 1, 1993, and thus, are not reflected in the list of consultations attached hereto
as Attachment A. Attachment A reflects all the projects that have undergone Section 7
consultation since the inception of the Program in 1988.
As shown in Attachment A, since the implementation of the Recovery Program, there
have been consultations on more than 350 new and historical projects in and above the
15-Mile Reach. The Recovery Program and implementation of the Recovery Action Plan
have served as the RPA for the jeopardy opinions issued on these projects. While the list
of consultations reflects more than 49,000 AF/yr of depletions from these projects, the
list is not an accurate reflection of the depletions that are actually occurring. It should be
noted that many of the depletions consulted on have not yet been developed or fully
utilized. Therefore, it should be emphasized that only the impacts of actual depletions are
shown in the accounting.
The Service has also consulted on over 331,000 AF/yr of historical or pre-Recovery
Program projects (since 1988). Additional information about Section 7 consultations can
be found at the following website: http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/crrip/index.htm

VII. Results
This accounting update only reports the consumptive uses and consumptive use trends
indicated by the StateCU approach for several reasons. First, the StateCU model is
somewhat simpler to set up and run for consumptive use accounting purposes than the
StateMod modeling scenarios. Second, preliminary runs with the StateCU model
indicated that total depletions in the Upper Colorado River Basin during the 2001-2005
accounting period were overall slightly lower than the long-term average. Furthermore,
difficulties were encountered in obtaining backcasting demand levels for various entities
for the StateMod application. The preliminary StateCU results were shared with the
Water Acquisition Committee of the UCRIP, which was identified as the Technical
Group (TG) for peer review. The TG had no significant concerns with using only
StateCU for this accounting update. StateCU shows that the present level of depletions
has remained relatively constant or is slightly less when compared to consumptive uses in
previous years and over various time periods.

8

 Figure 1 illustrates the total consumptive uses and losses (CU&L) computed from
StateCU for the period 1971-2005. The different components of CU&L are shown on the
figure. As can be seen on the graph, the two largest components of depletions in the
Colorado River Basin are irrigated agricultural consumptive use and exports, which
account for over 90 percent of the total CU&L. Please note that the agricultural CU&L
value includes incidental losses of water associated with irrigation, e.g., phreatophytes
that receive tailwater from irrigated fields. In StateCU, incidental losses are currently
estimated to be 10 percent of agricultural CU.
The average total CU&L for the 1971-2005 time period, for the Colorado River Basin is
1,029,000 AF/yr. The values vary between 877,000 AF/yr in 1973 and 1,228,700 AF/yr
in 1978.

Figure 1
Annual Consumptive Uses and Losses
Colorado River Basin in Colorado - 1971 to 2005
1400.0
1971-2005 average for total of all
CU&L categories: 1029 KAF/yr
1200.0

Exports
Municipal

800.0

Mineral
Stockpond/Livestock
Irrigation+Inc.Loss

600.0

Reservoir Evap

400.0

200.0

9

20
05

20
03

20
01

19
99

19
97

19
95

19
93

19
91

19
89

19
87

19
85

19
83

19
81

19
79

19
77

19
75

19
73

0.0
19
71

Thousand Acre-Feet/Year

1000.0

 Figure 2 illustrates the total CU&L by year for the 1996-2005 time period. The average
total CU&L for the 1996-2005 time period is 1,010,500 AF/yr. The 1996-2005 average
is slightly less than the longer term 1971-2005 average of 1,029,000 AF/yr. The average
for 2001-2005 is 987,200 AF/yr, and each of the last four years of the period, 2002-2005,
have had total depletions less than the long-term average, presumably the result of the
drought that began in 1999. The results noted in Figures 1 and 2 clearly illustrate that the
total CU&L has not increased in the 10 years from 1996 to 2005.

Figure 2
Annual Consumptive Uses and Losses
Colorado River Basin in Colorado - 1996 to 2005
1400.0
1996-2005 average for total of all
CU&L categories: 1010.5 KAF/yr

1971-2005 average for total of all
CU&L categories: 1029 KAF/yr

1200.0

Thousand Acre-Feet/Year

1000.0
Exports
Municipal

800.0

Mineral
Stockpond/Livestock

600.0

Irrigation+Inc.Loss
Reservoir Evap

400.0

200.0

0.0
1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

10

2002

2003

2004

2005

 Figure 3 takes a closer look at the CU&L resulting from irrigated agriculture. The 19712005 CU&L from agriculture averaged 478,100 AF. The 1996-2005 average is 463,100
AF, and the 2001-2005 average is 428,400 AF. There were two years since 1996
(522,500 AF in 1996 and 531,800 AF in 1998) that notably exceeded the 1971-2005
CU&L average. Aside from these two years the agricultural use of water from 1996-2005
is below average, again presumably in part because of the drought conditions, but it may
also be partly in response to the reduction in irrigated acres caused by urban
development. Irrigated acreage estimates have been made by CWCB from satellite
imagery for the Colorado River Basin for 1993 (271,000 acres), 2000 (238,000 acres) and
2005 (209,000 acres).Clearly there has been a significant decrease in irrigated acreage
during recent years.

Figure 3
Agricultural Consumptive Uses and Incidental Losses
Colorado River Basin in Colorado 1971-2005
1400.0

1000.0

800.0
1971-2005 ag. CU
average: 478.1 KAF/yr
600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0
19
71
19
72
19
73
19
74
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05

Thousand Acre-Feet (KAF) per Year

1200.0

11

 Figure 4 takes a closer look at exports, or transmountain diversions. The transmountain
diversions between 1971 and 2005 averaged 490,500 AF, ranging in value from 365,700
AF in 1987 to 649,500 AF in 1978. The average for 1996-2005 is 483,800 AF, and the
average for 2001-2005 is 497,000 AF. There is no apparent trend in transmountain
diversions since 1971, but there is much variability, the extent of which has not changed
noticeably through the time period. This variability is a function of hydrologic conditions
and demands on the east slope and hydrologic conditions on the west slope. For example,
if it is wet on the east side of the continental divide, there may be less water than average
diverted even though it is available on the west side, because there is no vacant storage
on the east side. And if it is dry on the west side, there may not be enough water available
even though there is demand and storage available on the east side. Also, the degree to
which new development on the east slope is being offset by conservation measures
cannot be easily quantified.

Figure 4
Exports
Colorado River Basin in Colorado 1971-2005
1400.0

1000.0

800.0
1971-2005 exports
average: 490.5 KAF/yr
600.0

400.0

200.0

0.0
19
71
19
72
19
73
19
74
19
75
19
76
19
77
19
78
19
79
19
80
19
81
19
82
19
83
19
84
19
85
19
86
19
87
19
88
19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05

Thousand Acre-Feet (KAF) per Year

1200.0

12

 Figure 5 illustrates the mean monthly flows at the Colorado River near Palisade gage for
the period 1990 to 2005. This figure is included to help address the question of whether
or not diversions above the 15-Mile Reach were increasing even though consumptive
uses may not be increasing. This figure shows that base flows remain fairly constant at
between 500 and 600 cfs. It also shows that actions taken to try and meet flow
recommendations seem to be working and have been able to maintain approximately 500
cfs or more in the 15-Mile Reach. The flows were considerably less than 500 cfs in 2002
and 2003 because of the extreme drought conditions that existed in those years. Flows
significantly less than the minimum flow recommendation of 580 cfs would likely not be
sustainable if the depletive impacts were increasing even if the overall CU&L were
remaining fairly constant.

Figure 5

13

 VIII. Conclusions
a. No increase in consumptive uses during 2001-2005
This report only accounts for the consumptive uses and consumptive use trends indicated
by the StateCU model. The StateCU results show that average depletions above the 15Mile Reach have not increased in recent years when compared to the average depletions
for a longer period of record. Figures 1 through 4 above illustrate there has not been an
increase in the consumptive uses and losses in the Colorado River Basin upstream of the
Gunnison River confluence during the period 2001-2005 when compared to the uses
between 1971 and 2000. Particularly with respect to transmountain diversions and uses
by irrigated agriculture, the two major components, there were no significant increases or
decreases. The average total consumptive use for the 2001-2005 time period was 987,200
AF/year, while the average for the 1971-2005 period was 1.029 MAF/year, and the
average for 1971-2000 was 1.0359 MAF/year.
b. Only actual uses, not conditional uses or consultations, are reflected in this
report and the StateCU computations
Since the implementation of the Recovery Program, there have been consultations on
more than 350 actual projects in and above the 15-Mile Reach. The list of consultations
in Attachment A was developed consistent with the specific requirements described in the
PBO. Many of the projects consulted on have not yet been developed or fully utilized and
therefore that tabulation is not reflective of the actual depletions and consumptive uses
reported herein. Because the amounts consulted on in the future may significantly
outpace actual depletions the PBO provides for a reinitiation process (see pages 75-77 of
the PBO). That process triggers a review of the status of the endangered fish in 2015 or
when actual depletions reach 50,000 AF/yr, whichever occurs first. This process helps
factor the potential disparity between the two into the PBO accounting process so that the
amounts consulted on do not so significantly outpace actual depletions that both the
consultations and the 120,000 AF/yr of additional depletion provision become
meaningless.
c. September 4, 2008 Technical Group Meeting
There were several ambiguities identified during the development of this report. The TG
discussed these ambiguities and the meeting summary in Attachment B records the
various understandings and interpretations of what was intended. It is critical that this
meeting summary be reviewed and considered during the development of the next
accounting. Perhaps the most important discussion involves obtaining “backcasted”
demands so that StateMod can be run to determine depletion increases in accordance with
Appendix B of the PBO.

14

 IX. Acknowledgements
This report was prepared by Randy Seaholm and Andy Moore with the Colorado Water
Conservation Board.
The Upper Colorado River Recovery Program – Water Acquisition Committee served as
the Technical Peer Review Group. In particular, the authors would like to acknowledge
the review and input of the following individuals:
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Robert Muth
George Smith
Jana Mohrman
Angela Kantola
Water User Representative
Tom Pitts
Environmental Representative
Dan Luecke
Colorado River Water Conservation District
Ray Tenney

15

 ATTACHMENT A
Individual Consultations under the Colorado 15-Mile Reach PBO
(PBO Appendix List)

Muddy Creek
Trans-Colorado Gas Pipeline
Dowler Pipeline
Wilcoxson Water Supply
Cason Irrigation Pipeline
Hastings Pipeline
JQS Pit Reservoirs
Taylor Grazing Pond
Vasten Homestead Waterfowl
Jolly-Potter
Schenk Water Tank
Greenhorn Stock Pond
North Northwater Spring
Clough-Alber Ponds
New Castle Water Tank
Jolley Irrigation
Rocky Mt. Natural Gas
Jerry Creek/Ute Water/BLM Land Exch.
Ute Water Pipeline
Wolford Mtn. Resv.

Trans-Colorado Gas Pipeline 2

BLM

Project Name

BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM
BLM

Federal
Agency

CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

State

Colorado

Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

River

No. of
Projects

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
18-May-98

7-Feb-90
30-Nov-92
27-Aug-93
27-Sep-93
13-Jan-94
28-Jan-94
22-Feb-94
22-Feb-94
22-Feb-94
3-Mar-94
7-Apr-94
7-Apr-94
31-May-94
31-May-94
31-May-94
31-May-94
27-Sep-94
15-Apr-97
2-Feb-98
4-Mar-98

7

2,7
2,7
7
2,7
7
7
7
2,7
2,7
7
7
7
2,7
2,7
7
2,7
2,7
7

Date Opinion
Finalized
Footnote

$1,712.44

$80,324.00
$149.00
$0.00
$0.00
$169.00
$0.00
$31.00
$16.00
$79.00
$0.00
$0.00
$31.00
$20.00
$16.00
$0.00
$0.00
$108.00
$0.00
$14,555.74
$79,670.00

Depletion
Charge

Rec.
Agr.

$187.74

$126.00

107.82
$14,893.02
$79,670
?$17,777.88?
$1,712.44

19-Feb-97

29-Mar-94

18-May-94
23-Dec-98
07/31/1998
& ?4/5/01?
27-Aug-98

Date Paid
Amount Paid
06/01/1992 $8873.4 &
& 10/20/92 $79860.6

Category 2 is defined as all new depletions up to 120,000 acre-feet/year; this includes all depletions not included in Category 1 that occur after 1995 regardless of
whether section 7 consultation has been completed. This category is further divided into two 60,000 acre-feet/year blocks of depletions.

Category 1 depletions associated with existing facilities may be transferred to other facilities and remain in Category 1 so long as there is no increase in the amount of
total depletions attributable to existing depletions. However, section 7 consultation is still required for Category 1 depletion projects when a new Federal action occurs
which may affect endangered species except as provided above under “Individual Consultation Under the Umbrella of this Programmatic Biological Opinion.”
Reinitiation of this consultation will be required if the water users fail to provide 10,825 acre-feet/year on a permanent basis.

Category 1 depletions consist of: a) existing depletions, both Federal and non-Federal as described in the project description, from the Upper Colorado River Basin
above the confluence with the Gunnison River that had actually occurred on or before September 30, 1995 (average annual of approximately 1 million acre-feet/year);
b) depletions associated with the total 154,645 acre-feet/year volume of Green Mountain Reservoir, including power pool (which includes but is not limited to the all of
the 20,000 acre-feet contract pool and historic user’s pool), the Colorado Big-Thompson replacement pool; and c) depletions associated with Ruedi Reservoir
including Round I sales of 7,850 acre-feet, Round II sales of 6,135 acre-feet/year as discussed in the Service’s biological opinion to Reclamation dated May 26, 1995,
and as amended on January 6, 1999, and the Fryingpan Arkansas Project replacement pool as governed by the operating principles for Ruedi Reservoir, but
excluding 21,650 acre-feet of the marketable yield. Category 1 depletions shall remain as Category 1 depletions regardless of any subsequent change, exchange, or
abandonment of the water rights resulting in such depletions.

For purposes of any future reinitiation of consultation, depletions have been divided into two categories:

* An asterisk in the "Federal Agency" column denotes a consultation added or information modified in the last quarter.

The 15-Mile Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion covers up to 1 million acre-feet of historic depletions whose project proponents sign a recovery agreement. Most
eligible projects within this 1MAF have never been consulted on or underwent consultation prior to January 1, 1988, and thus, are not reflected in this list.

Every 5 years, beginning in water-year 2005 (this was delayed until 2007), Colorado will report to the Program estimated average annual volumes of depletions from the
Colorado River basin in Colorado.

APPENDIX B LIST: Projects consulted on after Recovery Implementation Program Initiation (January 1988) which are eligible to participate in the 15-Mile
Reach Programmatic Biological Opinion.

124

1054
5769

9

2.55
1.61
1.28

2.55
1.28
6.38

14

7716
13

670
4628

446.22
393

125
30.4

44

29
0.55

Avg. Annual Depletion (af) Cited
in Individual Project Opinion
NOT a depletion accounting
New
Historic

Updated
through 6/30/2008

 Federal
Agency
BLM
BLM
BLM
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
BR
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE

Project Name
Palisade Water Pipeline Replacement
America Soda Nacholite Mine
Ute Water Pipeline Reinitiation
Collbran Project Amendment
Grand Valley BLM Stk Ponds
Ruedi Rsrvr Round 2 Water Sale
Basalt Water Consv. Water Sale Contr.
West Divide Consv. Water Sales Contr.
Green Mtn. Resv. Water Service Contr.
Silt WCD Diversion Replacement
GVIC Fish Screen
DeBeque Growout Ponds
Grand Valley Fish Passage & Screen
Town of New Castle
Colorado DOW Crystal Hatchery
Bluestone/Roan Creek
Everist Gravel
Snowmountain Ranch
Frei & Sons
Indian Meadows
Snowmountain Amend
Eagle Golf Course
Colorado DOT
Flannery Reservoir
Pat.-Jacobson Ditch
Clifton Diversion
Evans/McKenzie Ponds
West Pond
Palmer Creek
Dry Hollow Creek
Town of Granby
Avon Metro
Upper Eagle Diversion
Cotton Ranch
City of Glenwood Emerg. H2O Intake
Highline Dam Maintenance Project
Maryland Creek Gravel Mine (Everist)
Silver Creek Golf, Lodge, & Housing
CDOW Deep Spring Creek Project
Eagle Ranch Development Project
Jouflas Ranch Golf Course
The Summit Golf & Res. Dev. Project
Park E. Subd. Pumping Station Project
Red Sky Ranch Golf Course Project
Summerset Land Group Project
Upper Eagle Reg'l Water Auth. Intake
Dr. James Bolen F&W Pond Project
Stillwater Ranch Dev., Carruth Properties
Eagle Co. School Cross Creek Diversion
Swan River Water Diversion Project
CDOW Kelley Springs Pipeline Project
Michael Berkeley Pond Project
Jack Bestall Maryvale East Dev. Project

State
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

River
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

No. of
Projects
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

Date Opinion
Finalized
Footnote
25-Feb-99
2,7
22-Jun-99
2,7
12-May-00
7
29-Jun-92
2,7
10-Nov-93
7
26-May-95
7
13-Feb-97
7
11-Feb-97
7
7
2-Sep-98
2,7
4-Feb-02
2,7
18-Apr-02
7
6-Nov-02
2.7
27-Jul-90
14-Nov-90
2
11-Mar-91
31-May-91
15-Jun-91
16-Aug-89
24-Mar-92
3-Jun-92
4-Sep-92
8-Dec-92
2-Jul-93
7
29-Jul-93
2,7
2-Sep-93
2,7
1-Nov-93
7
13-Jan-94
7
28-Mar-94
7
4-Apr-94
7
11-Apr-94
2,7
31-May-94
2,7
26-Jul-95
7
19-Sep-95
2,7
17-Sep-96
2,7
4-Sep-96
2,7
15-Apr-97
2,7
3-Sep-97
2,7
2-Oct-98
2,7
1-Oct-98
2,7
14-Jun-99
2,7
11-Apr-00
2,7
11-Apr-00
2,7
15-May-00
2,7
21-Jun-00
7
30-Jun-00
7
21-Aug-00
7
15-Nov-00
2,7
10-Oct-00
2,7
3-Nov-00
2,7
9-Nov-00
2,7
16-May-01
7
17-Jul-01
7
Depletion
Rec.
Charge
Agr. Date Paid
Amount Paid
$2,232.54
$0.00
Y
$30,744.76
$30,744.76
Y 31-Jan-00
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
Exempt
$0.00
$0.00
Y
Exempt NA
Exempt
Y
$22.00
29-Sep-92
$24.15
$21.00
29-Sep-92
$21.97
$21,820.00
25-Nov-91
$21,820.00
$45.00
18-Sep-92
$47.15
$908.00
22-May-91
$907.71
$3,881.00
$1,599.00
$64.00
23-Jul-92
$64.00
$2,702.00
15-Sep-92
$270.25
$36.00
9-Mar-93
$40.25
$1,598.00
12-Dec-93
$1,598.13
$0.00
$0.00
$5.00
$2.00
27-Jan-94
$1.97
$12.00
$28.00
29-Oct-93
$27.55
$0.00
$14.00
8/4/94? $13.50?
$7,664.00
Y 10-Aug-95
$7,664.13
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Y
$1,657.14
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00 NA
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
NOT a depletion accounting
New
Historic
158
190
1095
2141
746
21
17000
1000
200
1000
2400
58515
58
62508
2
2
2000
4
83
388
139
6
235
3
133
103
994
0.39
0.16
0.94
2.3
41
1.1
38.3
603
250.3
450
620
272.7
399.2
797
809
202.39
173.18
115.4
80.7
1.6
43
1.9
1290
9.3
26
72
5.6
3.56

 FERC

COE
COE
COE
COE
*COE
DOE
DOE
DOE
EPA

COE

COE

COE

COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE

COE

COE

COE

COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE

Federal
Agency
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE
COE

Gross Reservoir Hydro. - Denver Water

Project Name
Michael Short Pond Project
Ashback Sheep Mountain Estates Pond
Hamilton Creek Metro Water Supply
Traer Creek Village @ Avon Project
Town of Eagle Water Line Project
Roaring Fork Res. Mamm Cr. Sand/Grav.
Breckenridge Sawmill Gulch Reservoir
Christopher Smith Pond Creek Diversion
Resource Eng. Roaring R. Ranch Div.
Bill Hegberg Wildcat Ranch Pond
Columbo Lakoda Canyon Ranch Golf
Course
New Castle Water Line, Well, & Diversion
Rendevous Colorado West Mountain Proj.
Gypsum Partners Golf Ponds
Kremmling Emergency Water Diversion
Vail Assoc. Vail Mtn. Snowmaking
Town of Silt Water Intake
Tom Backhus 4 Eagle Ranch
Sam Gary Jr. Mt. Powell Ranch Pond
David Garton Poark Partners Buckhorn
Valley Irrigation
CDOW Lake Christine Dam
Reconstruction
Brush Creek Dev. Co. LLC Snowmass
Base Village & Fanny Hills PUD
Kummer Dev. Co. Frost Creek Residential
Subdivision
Brightwater Club Golf Course
City of Rifle Water Intake
Lewerenz Saddle Ridge Golf Club Ponds
Orvis Shorefox Dev.
David Beine Pond Project
EnCana Oil and Gas Parachuute Creek
Dam and Well Pads
Lafarge North America Mamm Creek
Gravel Pit
Craig Meyers for Intra West Placemaking
Landscape Pond
Galloway Inc's Blue Valley Ranch Stream
& Wetland Restoration Proj.
Eagle Park Reservoir
KIWA Associates Vines @ Vail
High Lonesome Ranch Restoration
WER Lake Creek Pond Project
Uranium Mill Tailings - Rifle
Uran Mill Tailings-Grnd Jnctn
Naval Oil Shale Res #3
Ginn Battle North Superfund Site
CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO

CO

CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO

CO

CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

State
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

Colorado

Blue
Eagle
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Eagle

Fraser

Colorado

Colorado

Eagle
Eagle
Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

River
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

No. of
Projects

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1

1

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

12-Oct-00

27-Mar-07
15-Oct-07
15-Oct-07
14-Dec-07
8-May-08
14-Aug-89
10-Jan-92
1-Jun-94
29-Aug-07

27-Mar-07

14-Mar-07

24-Jan-07

27-Sep-05
14-Dec-05
21-Dec-05
22-Dec-05
21-Jun-06
5-Dec-06

29-Jul-05

11-Feb-05

7-Jan-05

15-Apr-03
22-Aug-03
24-Feb-04
13-Jan-04
27-Apr-04
8-Jul-04
21-Dec-04
29-Oct-04
27-Jan-05

2,7

7
2,7

2,7
7
7
2,7
7

7

7

7

7
7
2,7
7
2,7
7

7

7

7

2,7
2,7
2,7
7
7
2,7
2,7
7
7

Date Opinion
Finalized
Footnote
13-Dec-01
7
28-Dec-01
7
21-Dec-01
7
17-Dec-01
2,7
4-Jan-02
2,7
15-May-02
7
11-Apr-02
2,7
5-Sep-02
7
28-Feb-03
7
19-Feb-03
7

$83,474.68

$0.00
$21,953.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,150.00
$209.00
$60.00
$0.00

$0.00

$4,017.00

$0.00

$0.00
$1,790.36
$0.00
$0.00
$5,651.13
$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

Y

Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

Y

NA

Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y

$208.73
$60.10
$77,167.57
$8,109.14

4/18/2005
6/14/05

$1,750.62

$2,043.50

Amount Paid

27-Dec-91
22-Jun-94

19-Dec-05

Depletion
Rec.
Charge
Agr. Date Paid
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$2,043.50
Y
9-Jul-02
$2,417.12
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y
$0.00
Y

5813

1.17
215
18
4.87
82

1234
8.56

233
0.49

107.4
66
70
339
0.48
26.3

37.74

22.3

11.65

19.6

82
2

19.63
78.8
27

22.36

48

84

29.38

233

350

1.42

603
40

246
400
126

NOT a depletion accounting
New
Historic
28.8
0.53
16
135.3
126
134
158.5
6.16
0.12
1.61
0.265

 Snowmass Ski Devel
ChemStar Lime CO
Rudolph Irrigation Ditch
Carbondale Water Trtmt.
Yampa Ranger District
White River NF 5 SUP's (Summit Co.)
White River NF SUP's (Pitkin, Eagle Co)
Winter Park Water & San. District SUP
Maryland Creek Ranch Ditches Project
Twin Lakes Reservoir & Canal SUP
Arapahoe Ski Basin Expansion Project
Glenwood Municipal Water Line Repair
Grand Co. Water & San. District #1 Proj.
Will Source Exploration Well 1-13 Proj.
Mun. Subdistrict NCWCD Easement
Warren Lakes Reclamation Project
Werhonig & Gardner Resv. Rehab. Proj.
Ashcroft Nordic Center Project
Buttermilk Ski Snowmaking & Domestic
WRNF Silvers ... Campground Projects
WRNF Battlement Reservoirs Project
WRNF Multiple Applicants Project
Copper Mtn. Resort Kokomo Lift
WRNF Spring Creek Fire Supression
WRNF Thompson Creek Fire Sup.
CSUtil. Aurora Homestake Otero Exp.
26 Batched EA's, Rocky Mtn. Region
Seismic 21 Inc. Trace Energy Svcs.
Seismic Testing
Robert F. Levine Casteel Creek Ranch
Brereton Ditch
Copper Mountain Resort Trails & Facilities
Imp.

FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS

FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS
FS

FS

FS

FS

Routt Oil & Gas
Vidler Tunnel
Smith-Ermele Pipe
Overton to Terrell Ditch
7 Natl Forests Small Dep
Alsbury Res. Enlargement
Porter Ditch
Lapadakis Special Use Permit

FERC
FHWA
FS
FS
FS

Project Name

Denver Williams Fork Reservoir
Williams NW Pipeline Parachute Lateral
Williams NW Pipeline Co Skinner Ridge
Meter Sta
CDOT I-70 to MM 147 Project
White Banks Alabaster
Wolf Creek Gas Wells
White River Oil & Gas Lease

FERC
FERC

Federal
Agency

CO

CO

CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO
CO

State

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

Colorado
Eagle
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colo,
Yampa
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

River
Williams
Fork
Colorado

No. of
Projects

1

1

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

1
1
1
1
1

1
1

8-Jul-04

6-Jul-04

25-Nov-03

10-Feb-95
24-May-95
12-Oct-95
12-Dec-95
8-Dec-97
16-Jun-98
18-Sep-98
19-May-99
24-Sep-99
26-Jul-99
30-Aug-99
23-Sep-99
19-Apr-00
29-Jun-00
18-May-00
12-Jul-00
16-Oct-00
1-Dec-00
5-Mar-01
8-Aug-01
17-Oct-01
19-May-02
21-Jun-02
3-Sep-02
9-Dec-02
3-Apr-03
14-Oct-03

8-Mar-93
6-Jul-93
2-Aug-93
5-Aug-93
7-Sep-93
10-Feb-94
15-Aug-94
13-Jan-95

9-Aug-07
21-Jul-05
24-Jul-92
9-Sep-92
2-Feb-93

7-Jul-06
18-Aug-06

7

7

7

2,7
2,7
2,7
2,7
7
2,7
2,7
2,7
2,7
2,7
7
2,7
2,7
7
2,7
7
7
7
7
2,7
7
2,7
7
7
7
2,7
7

4
2,7
2,7
2,7
2,7
2,7
7
2,7

4

7
7

2,7
7

Date Opinion
Finalized
Footnote

$0.00

$0.00

$0.00

$1,218.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$3,797.75
$0.00
$0.00
$1,835.77
$0.00
$0.00
$1,500.32
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$2,937.00
$1,641.00
$5,553.00
$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$12.00
$30.00

$0.00
$0.00

Depletion
Charge

Y

Y

Y

Y
Y
Y
Y
NA
Y
Y
Y
NA
NA
Y
NA
NA
NA
Y
NA

Y

Y
NA

Y
Y

Rec.
Agr.

$1,684.07

18-Oct-02

30-Sep-00

$5.06

Amount Paid

$1,660.90

$1,835.77

01/27/94, $1218.40,
9/30/94 & $866.27 &
5/19/98 $1186.00

Various
20-Jul-95

11-Aug-92

Date Paid

44.10

7.91

0.02

0.75

7.4
1.0
0.02

62

34.5
16
0.34
48

33
0.125

106.18

129.92

275

70

245
133
450

62

0.03
0.02
1
3
1

4.9

29538

1521

107

18779

450
58

700.97
95.67
5.83
546
201.7

14
250
1785.2
295.5

260.3

2000
0.2
48.1
1085
13

27475

NOT a depletion accounting
New
Historic

 State of CO & CO/Eagle river basin totals:

OSM

FS
FS
FS
FS
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
NRCS
OSM
OSM
OSM

FS
FS

FS

CO

CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO

CO
CO

CO

CO

Intrawest/Winter Park Phase I Master Plan
WRNF/Eagle & Holy Cross RD Sunnyside
Cattle & Horse Allotment
MB-RNF Ditch Bill Easements (for 2 ditch
facilities)
WRNF-Eagle/Dillon RD Various Projects
Eagle R. Water & San. Dist. Black Lake #1
Enlg.
WRNF Tea Cup Well, Vail Ski Area
WRNF Rifle RD Four Pit Ponds
WRNF No Name Water Treatment Plant
Tom Phillips Pond Project
Neil Guard Marsh Project
Glenwood Irrigation Ditch Co. Headgate
Ken Hambel Wildlife Ponds Project
Nancy & David Orient Wildlife Pond
Armstrong Wildlife Pond Project
Ed Neilson Pond Project
Fred Strothman Pond Project
Munger Canyon Mine
Munger/McCane Mine
Salt Creek Mine
Snowcap Coal Co. Roadside & Cameo
Mines

FS

FS

FS

State
CO
CO

ARNF Grand Co. Water & Sanitation Dist. CO
ARNF Williams Peak Ranch & Climax
Molybdenum Co. Ditch Bill Easements (for
7 ditch facilities)
CO
WRNF/GMUG Ditch Bill Easements (for
184 ditch facilities)
CO

Project Name
Routt NF/Yampa RD Krauss Dom Water
GMUG Numerous Mineral Dev. Projects

FS

Federal
Agency
FS
FS

Colorado

Eagle
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado
Colorado

Colorado
Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

Colorado

River
Colorado
Colorado

7

1

382

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

2
8

1

1

4-Jan-07

19-Mar-07
20-Sep-07
11-Dec-07
26-Dec-07
3-Oct-00
18-Jan-02
9-Apr-02
24-Dec-02
4-Feb-03
18-Dec-03
12-Nov-04
14-Oct-04
8-Aug-89
16-Apr-92
2-Jun-92

12-May-06
31-Oct-06

11-May-06

19-May-06

12-Apr-06

29-Nov-05

23-Jun-05

2,7

7
7
7
2.7
7
7
2,7
7
7
7
7
7

2,7
2,7

7

2,7

2.7

7

7

Date Opinion
Finalized
Footnote
1
20-Dec-04
7
1
25-May-05
7

184

No. of
Projects

$398,573.16

$0.00

$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$20.00
$40.00
$40.00

$0.00
$0.00

$0.00

$2,192.11

$0.00

$0.00

$2,053.80

Y

Y
Y
NA
Y
Y
Y
Y
NA
Y
Y
NA
Y

NA
NA

NA

Y

NA

Y

Y

30-Dec-92

Depletion
Rec.
Charge
Agr. Date Paid
$0.00
Y
$0.00 NA

$41.93

Amount Paid

51,038.78

4.5
1.35
3.6
25
0.9
2
4
3.5

1.1
3.15

2.24
1.00
0.23

2.00

0.00

131.50

0.00

126.00

335,004.68

22.1

1625

80.25

2573
3516

0.5

3.5

99858

1179

58

NOT a depletion accounting
New
Historic
0.09
25.00

 ATTACHMENT 
Summary of September 4, 2008 Technical Group Meeting

Water Acquisition Committee Meeting Summary
September 4, 2008
(Summary revised and made final on October 27, 2008)
Participants: Dan Luecke, Jana Mohrman, Robert Muth, Angela Kantola, Andy Moore, Tom
Pitts, Randy Seaholm, and Ray Tenney.
Assignments indicated by a > and at the end of the document.
Convene: 9:00 a.m.
1. 15-Mile Reach PBO Depletion Accounting Report, 2001-2005 (including discussion of
future depletion accounting) – CWCB has revised the draft report based on comments
provided by Tom Pitts and Dan Luecke. Tom said he would like an opportunity for water
users to review a draft revised after this meeting. Any remaining comments on this draft are
due to Randy Seaholm by September 17; Randy will provide a revised, final draft by
September 30. Committee members will send that final draft out to their colleagues for
review, with final comments due back to Randy and the Committee by October 15. Randy
will finalize the report and provide a pdf version to the Recovery Program to post on the web.
>Angela will send the revised consultation list (through June ’08) to Andy Moore for
inclusion in the report.
Tom noted that in several places in the report, it’s not made clear that we’re talking about
new, net depletions (which account both for reductions in depletions and additional
depletions [whether they are consulted on or not]). Dan agreed, but suggested that the report
use the exact language in the PBO to reflect that. The group agreed. >Tom will find the
appropriate language in the PBO and provide that to Randy.
With regard to recommendation b, Tom noted that this report answers the question about
what’s been consulted on versus what’s actually being depleted. Dan asked how to address
the situation that may be developing where the 60,000/yr depletion ceiling is not reached in
terms of actual depletions until considerably more depletions have been consulted on (and
projects permitted). For example, what if 150,000 – 200,000 af/yr of new depletions are
permitted (but not actually depleted) before we reach 60,000 af/yr of actual depletions? Tom
pointed out that one safeguard is that the review of the status of the fish will begin when
actual depletions reach 50,000 or the year 2015, whichever comes first (see pages 75-77 of
the PBO). This addresses the concern raised in the initial discussions of the PBO re:
depletions occurring which are not consulted on. These are the depletions accounted for in
the 5 year PBO depletion report. >Angela will split out the consultation table by opinions
occurring on or before September 30 1995 (all of which are Category 1 depletions) and those
after (which are Category 2 and whose actual depletions will be included in the 60,000 and
120,000 AF ceilings). > Randy will reference the reinitiation clause and Appendix B where
the report talks about the depletion accounting.
Ray Tenney asked how the population assessment contemplated in the PBO differs from the
Service’s population assessment as part of the annual sufficient progress assessment. Bob

 Muth said it may not differ much at all, and would be based on the Program’s ongoing
population monitoring efforts.
Ray revisited the issue of depletions vs. demands discussed at the last meeting: demands are
what is expected or otherwise allowed or permitted to occur. When ample water is available
on the East slope, depletions (diversions from the West slope) should be less than the actual
needs or the uses allowed or permitted. When the demands are modeled, they may vary
considerably, resulting in more or less depletion. Therefore, as we get better information, we
need to look at both the demands or actual needs and the actual amount of transmountain
diversion required to meet those needs or demands, rather than assuming that transmountain
diversion depletions equal their demands. Andy said that demand (e.g., in the case of Denver
Water) is demand at the tunnel. Ray said all we have at this point are tunnel diversion
records; as more information is available on actual use, that information needs to be reflected
in back casting to historic hydrology (as our modeling tools improve)
Dan expressed concern about the language “two methods may be used,” which is not what
the PBO says. Tom suggested revising the report to say something like “In this case, only
the CU model was used since it showed there was no significant or identifiable increase in
depletions. In fact it showed there was a small decline. As actual new depletions approach
the 50,000 AFY target in the PBO, the need to run both models will be required…” >Dan
will provide recommended language to the group by the end of the week. (Note: Dan
provided suggested report language, which Randy did not fully incorporate into the report.
The report as revised by Randy left open the question of when it would be necessary to run
StateMod for depletion accounting.
>Randy also will revise the recommendations at the end of the report, since they’ve been
addressed in these discussions.
2. Future depletion accounting
a. Review Appendix B; update as appropriate: The group agreed that it was not
appropriate to revise or update Appendix B. This meeting summary will serve to
answer the questions raised about the procedures described in Appendix B of the
PBO.
b. PBO, Appendix B, Paragraph 1, 2nd to last sentence: Should this sentence be
modified to also reflect that the Technical Group (TG) will review the accounting
report for consistency with the procedures spelled out in Appendix B and for
accuracy? As discussed in item 2a above, this was deemed inappropriate and
unnecessary. The report should describe exactly what the TG did in its review and
this certainly should be part of that review.
c. Clarify in Appendix B which model will be used, the consumptive use model
(StateCU) or the CRDSS Colorado River Mainstem Water Right Planning Model
(StateMod). It is unclear whether or not both must be run for each reporting period
or if only one or the other can be used. Are there circumstances under which only

 one needs to be run? What if sufficient data cannot be obtained from the entities or
otherwise to run a model? Dan is still concerned about the need for data from all
transmountain diverters, thus he wants to be sure the report does not imply that they
are not required to provide the data and as noted above will provide recommended
language. Tom suggested appending this meeting summary to the report. The
Committee agreed. >When Jana posts the summary to the Water Acquisition
Committee, she will ask for comments on the meeting summary by a date certain,
after which the summary will be finalized so that it can be appended to the report.
>By the September 17 report comment deadline, Dan Luecke will propose language
for this report regarding the models, and also propose how we deal with this in the
future. (Note: Proposed language was received and incorporated in the report.)
d. Should the USFWS require an annual report from a permitted project describing
progress in development and use to assist in assessing actual depletions by new
projects? Is the water to be used a new depletion or a change of existing use? The
group agreed that NO such report should be required. The group again made
reference to discussions in item #1 above regarding “net depletions” and the “reinitiation process”.
e. Consider a contingency provision in each Section 7 consultation, such as; This permit
is being issued after 60 KAF of new depletions have already been previously
consulted on, pursuant to the PBO and _____, you many be asked to curtail uses if
depletions consulted on previously exceed 60,000 AF and ___. The group agreed that
NO such contingency was necessary and again referenced the “Net Depletion” and reinitiation language and process discussed in item #1.
f. If the model accounting costs become too high would the Recovery Program’s
participants make changes? Perhaps increase monitoring of transmountain
diversions and other M&I projects and uses as opposed to obtaining increased back
casted demands for the StateMod approach. Can the Service, in consultation with the
Management Committee, make changes to Appendix B through that process? As for
increased accounting costs, the group agreed to wait and see how the modeling
process goes in future years. As for modifying Appendix B, again the group agreed
the answer should be NO.
g. How do we factor the New Depletions into the accounting process in the future? The
significance of the number of new depletions that have been consulted on is
recognized. What happens if more than 60,000 AF is consulted on but that 60,000 AF
of depletion doesn’t materialize for a number of years and as a result consultations
continue and become significantly more than 60,000 AF and then all are
subsequently developed resulting in depletions to the 15-Mile Reach significantly in
excess of 60,000 AF? While the accounting procedures have been followed, the
opportunity for problems in the future may be significant. The group again agreed
that this is addressed in the PBO and more specifically in the re-initiation provisions.

 h. Consider double checking the New Depletion accounting system for duplications.
The Group again agreed this was NOT necessary. Project proponents identify
whether a depletion should be considered new or historic. The Service will review
the information provided, but usually the consultation is based on the information
provided to them. Randy said that if a project proponent has identified the
depletions as new depletions but the project is in fact relying on an augmentation plan
that is utilizing historic (pre-1988) water rights, then the depletions should not be
considered new but rather should be identified as historic. The group agreed that
there is no reference to augmentation plans in the PBO. The group agreed it’s the
responsibility of the project proponent to describe historic and/or new depletions in
their project description in accordance with the definitions in the 15MRPBO. The
Group recognizes that the Service’s Section 7 Consultation List (which explicitly
states it is “NOT a depletion accounting” in the heading over the average annual
depletion columns) is not an accounting of actual or current project depletions. It is a
listing of depletions consulted on that may be depleted by the project at full
development, whenever that occurs.
3. The Yampa PBO states we are required to "quantify annual water demand from the Yampa
River Basin in Colorado and Wyoming, and estimate average annual depletions."
Specifically, Appendix D of the PBO (which may be found at http://www.fws.gov/mountainprairie/crrip/doc/yampa/YPBOAppendixD.PDF) says: "Every 5 years, beginning in wateryear (WY) 2010, the States of Colorado and Wyoming will report to the Program estimated
average annual volumes of depletions from the Yampa and Little Snake rivers and their
tributaries. The reports are to be completed by July 1 every 5 years beginning in 2010.
Currently there is no mention of this in a scope of work. >By September 30, Randy will
amend CWCB’s FY 09 CRDSS scope of work to address the work that will begin on this
task in FY 09. (Note: Wyoming’s quantification and reporting may still need to be
addressed. Need to bring this up with John Shields and define how this will be done. If a
scope of work is needed for Wyoming portion, need to state here, like Colorado.)
4. Next meeting: The Committee will need to meet or hold a conference call or web conference
in mid-February to provide comments on draft FY 2010-2011 Program guidance, RIPRAP
revisions, and RIPRAP assessment. >Jana will work with Committee members to schedule
this meeting after the beginning of the year.
Adjourn: 12:00 p.m.
ASSIGNMENTS
1. Angela Kantola will split out the consultation table by opinions occurring on or before
September 30 1995 (all of which are Category 1 depletions) and those after (which are
category 2 and whose actual depletions will be included in the 60,000 and 120,000 AF
ceilings). Angela will send the revised consultation list (through June ’08) to Andy Moore
for inclusion in the report.

 2. Tom Pitts will find the appropriate language in the PBO to refer to “additional depletions”
and provide that to Randy.
3. Where the report talks about the depletion accounting, Randy Seaholm will reference the
reinitiation clause and Appendix B.
4. Dan Luecke will provide recommended language to the group regarding use of the two
modeling approaches by the end of the week. By the September 17 report comment
deadline, Dan Luecke will propose language for this report regarding the models, and also
propose how we deal with this in the future.
5. Randy Seaholm will revise the recommendations at the end of the report, since they’ve been
addressed in these discussions.
6. When Jana Mohrman posts the meeting summary to the Water Acquisition Committee, she
will ask for comments on the meeting summary by a date certain, after which the summary
will be finalized so that it can be appended to the report.
7. By September 30, Randy Seaholm will amend CWCB’s FY 09 CRDSS scope of work to
address the work that will begin on this task in FY 09.
8. Jana Mohrman will work with Water Acquisition Committee members to schedule the next
meeting (or conference call or web conference) for mid-February.