WSPC183

• File Number: 8200.766
• Description: Colorado River Basin - Gunnison River General Publications-Correspondence-Reports
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 7/23/2001
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Meetings-Conference Calls 2001-2002 - RE-Colorado River Basin - Gunnison River - Aspinall-Management-Biology Committees-Etc - Reviewed-Drafts - 07-23-01 through 09-06-02
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Agenda

002476

catfish to the reservoir. However, catfish could be translocated from the Yampa River
upstream from DNM to Kenney Reservoir, and Modde would continue lethal removal of
catfish from DNM.

There was a lengthy discussion of the study objectives, Objective 1 should be rewritten
as follows: "Quantify escapement of nonnative fishes from Elkhead Reservoir by species
and size." This study is not designed to determine whether the numbers and sizes of
nonnatives escaping from Elkhead are "of concern to native fishes." This should be
determined separately, For the same reason, this study cannot determine if screening is
necessary (Objective 2), since that decision ultimately would be based on a determination
of potential impacts to native species due to escapement of nonnatives from Elkhead.
However, Bill Miller may render an opinion as to the need for screening to provide
guidance to the decision-makers, Mike Hudson does not want to lose Objective 3,
because assessing escapement of translocated fish was a condition of the NNSP variance.
Translocated fish would be marked to differentiate them from fish already resident in the
reservoir. If the number of marked fish captured below the dam exceeds a predetermined
threshold, further translocation activities would be discontinued.

VI. A couple of sentences are needed to explain how the probability of the escapement
will be determined. Under expected results #2, suggest what guidelines could be used for
screening and numbers allowed to escape. > Pat/Gerry will work with N eslerlMiller to
make needed revisions; BC does not need to see again before final.

2. Discussion of whether to continue with Phase II ofthe Gunnison temperature work.

Question was whether to proceed with Phase II on the Gunnison temperature work.
Gerry: Colorado is not present on call but had legitimate concerns about proceeding with
Phase II before uncertainties about NPS water rights and FWS flow recommendations
were resolved. John Carron: For purposes of building and calibrating the model,
historical data would be used and would not be impacted by forecasting under new
operations/scenarios. If the Recovery Program does not develop this tool now, the
Program will not have it available when developing future flow recommendations. Mark
Wieringa: it seems that there is limited capacity to modify temperatures by modifying
flows, That was the conclusion of the Phase I report. Water temperatures reach
equilibrium farther upstream at low flows and farther downstream (below Delta) at higher
flows. Moreover, even during spring runoff, when North Fork and Uncompahgre flows
are high, releases from Crystal have a significant impact on temperature. Phase II would
focus on other options (i.e., temperature control devices) to increase temperatures.

Brent Uilenberg had concern of using proprietary models and that Phase II should be
done in-house. Gerry stipulated that because the Recovery Program is funding this effort,
any model produced in Phase II would become the "property" of the Program. Bill Davis
was concerned that we not go too far without Colorado's input. Gerry remarked that the
only commitment being made is that Amy Cutler and John Carron revise their scopes of
work for discussion and approval at the next Biology Committee meeting (December 4-5,
2001), No commitment will be made until the committee approves a final scope of work.