Laserfiche WebLink
<br />002409 <br /> <br />B. Flow vs. Barriers: <br /> <br />Minority proposal: add language that absence of nonnative predators is beneficial, and that is <br />the rational for selected passage of native fish species into the Gunnison. <br /> <br />Service recommendation: agree to add requested language <br /> <br />C. Fish entrainment at Redlands. <br /> <br />Not an issue at this time. <br /> <br />D, Need for uniform standards (e.g. number of hydrologic categories) for flow <br />recommendations. <br /> <br />Minority proposal: If the flow recommendations for a reach of river overlap with the flow <br />recommendations for a reach of river downstream, then the hydrologic categories should be <br />the same in each recommendation <br /> <br />Service recommendation: The Service agrees to do so when we develop flow <br />recommendations in the future. <br /> <br />Minority CounterorolJosal: While we sincerely appreciate the USFWS willingness to <br />address this issue in the future, that does not eliminate the conflicts between the Gunnison <br />and the Colorado mainstem downstream of the Gunnison confluence. While the <br />prioritization below helps, it does not provide the clear guidance that flow recommendations <br />should. Weare unconvinced that revising one set of recommendations or the other at this <br />time is an extraordinary effort, <br /> <br />E. Prioritizing upper Colorado River subbasin rivers or river segments. How will <br />apparent conflicts among flow recommendations for the various rivers or river <br />segments be handled? <br /> <br />Minority proposal: prioritize flow recommendations for interdependent reaches, such as the <br />I5-mile reach, I8-mile reach, Gunnison River, and Colorado River at Cisco. Which reach <br />takes precedence over other reaches? <br /> <br />Service recommendations: The Service will expand its discussion of operational guidelines to <br />reconcile flow criteria for interdependent river reaches (e.g., I5-mile reach, Gunnison and <br />Cisco). Flow recommendations would not change but their implementation would consider <br />coordinating operations in different sub-basins to achieve them, based on year-specific <br />hydrology, fish status and antecedent conditions, <br /> <br />Minority Counteroroposal: The expansion of operational guidelines is certainly a step in the <br />right direction. But, this still leaves the Service in the position of taking its pick in any given <br /> <br />6 <br />