Gunnison Basin Water: No Panacea for the Front Range

Home Browse Search

Moving Blue Mesa's Marketable Yield: A Myth pattern, of the Gunnison, including spring peak flows and winter-time base flows. This natural flow system will benefit all life phases of these fish and their habitat and have related benefits to other fish and wildlife species. The recommended flows are tied to six different "types" of water years in the basin: dry, moderately dry, average dry, average wet, moderately wet, and wet. Meeting these flows will require a new way of operating the Aspinall Unit. The Bureau awaits the outcome of the USFWS flow recommendations to begin an Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") to analyze re-operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet the flows. The timeframe for completing this process is uncertain. In a related effort, beginning in 2000, the FWS and many other stakeholders in the basin began the process of Section 7 consultation for all existing and potential future water development projects under the umbrella of a Programmatic Biological Opinion ("PBO"). This PBO, another part of the larger Recovery Program for endan- gered fish, is designed to recover the four endangered fishes in the Upper Colorado River basin while providing ESA compliance for existing and some future water depletions in the Upper Colorado basin. Though it will be a daunting task, water users hope to wrap a large number of water development projects into a single "con- sultation" package, thereby streamlining the approval process for any single develop- ment. Similar efforts have been launched on the Upper Colorado River and South Platte. PBO efforts in the Gunnison, however, were postponed in June 2001, due to the fact that much uncertainty surrounds the expected re-operation of the Aspinall Unit to meet the water rights for the Black Canyon of the Gunnison and the Recommended Flows for Endangered Fish. The PBO process will resume when these other processes are further along. A trans-mountain diversion would constitute a new depletion of significant magnitude. Certainly in the absence of a PBO, and perhaps even with an approved PBO, a proposal of this magnitude would require individual consultation with FWS and an additional Biological Opinion, perhaps similar to the ones for the Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects. This is because, after the 2000 Union Park II decision, any pro- posed trans-mountain diversion would need a contract with the Bureau to use water stored in Blue Mesa Reservoir. Such a contract from the Bureau qualifies as a federal action, thus triggering ESAs Section 7 consultation. The above commitments related to federally endangered fish currently require releases and soon may require additional releases from the Aspinall Unit. Before we can assess the quantity of any marketable yield, these release obligations must be sat- isfied. To meet future endangered fish needs, the Aspinall Unit will be re-operated from the current status quo. This re-operation will include releases of water beyond the capacity of hydroelectric turbines and may alter the standard "summer high, win- ter low" storage paradigm. The result of the re-operation scenarios currently being considered will dip further into any existing marketable yield. Gunnison Basin Water • 25 •