WSPC183 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0024G6 We believe the Program has already supported the premise that suitable spawning habitat is present through its previous decisions. In 1996 the Biology Committee approved the biological merits of fish passage at Hartland Diversion. They did this because they believed spawning RBS would use the habitat that exists above the diversion. For 2002, the Program guidance requested a scope of work to evaluate the spawning success of RES in the Gunnison river. The Service does not believe we need to wait until this work is conducted prior to implementing the flow recommendations. However, this information will be available prior to completion of the EIS for Aspinall re-operation. 3) Overbank flows primarily to provide floodplain habitat for razorback sucker (issues principally related to Gunnison River, rather than the Colorado River). Minority proposal: overbank flooding should be considered only in the wettest 10% of the years. Service recommendation: Overbank flows occur now under 30% of hydrologic conditions (wet and moderately wet), The flow recommendations were intended to improve conditions for razorback sucker. Rolling back to 10% frequency is a step in the wrong direction. The Service's recommendations call for these flows for a longer duration, but we recognize that the duration may not be achievable in all years in these categories. 4) Peak-flow recommendations for driest hydrologic categories. Minority proposal: no peak flow recommendations should be made for dry, moderately dry, or average dry years. Service recommendation: The Service has reviewed its justification for peak flow recommendations in all hydrologic categories and believes these recommendations are justified to provide at least some scouring of spawning bars and spawning cues in all years, Minority counter proposal: We continue to believe that the peak flow recommendations for dry, moderately dry and average dry years are s~~essive, One need only to look at what happened during runoff in 2001, 2001 wanrfi~Herately dry year under which a 2-day peak of at least 7000 cfs and a 2-day shoulder of 6300 cfs would have been required. Blue Mesa did ~t fill this year and in fact was approximately 18 feet short of full or about 155,000 acre- feet. During the Aspinall operations meeting, the only entity that publicly stated a peak flow was desirable ~h~~r was the U~~'1 Reclj.lJl1ation made a small bypass of storage, approximately , acre-feeF,d~ I)~'~at generated a I-day peak at Delta of 3900 cfs and near Grand Junction of 5050 cfs. The 2-day peaks were 3860 and 4975 cfs, respectively, The 2-day shoulder flows were approximately 3595 and 4555 cfs, respectively, These peak flows were significantly less than the flow recommendations sought~This demonstrates the excessive nature of the moderately dry year peak flow recommendations and the need to at least reevaluate the dry, moderately dry, and average dry peak flow recommendations if not eliminate them. 3