8001 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

able and prudent alternative contained four major ele- ments: 1. Refinement of the operation of Flaming Gorge so that flow and temperature regimes of the Green River more closely resemble historic conditions. 2. Conduct a five-year research program to allow for potential refinement of the flows during the spring and winter seasons. 3. Determine the feasibility and effects of releasing warmer water during the late spring/summer seasons and investigate the feasibility of increasing spring releases by retrofitting river bypass tubes to include power generation. 4. Legal protection of Green River flows from Flaming Gorge Dam to Lake Powell. The Service expects to finalize the biological opinion on Flaming Gorge in the fall of 1992. The Aspinall Unit is a series of Reclamation dams on the Gunnison River in Colorado. Beginning in 1992, Reclama- tion agreed to reoperate the dams to provide flows that more closely resembled historic conditions. The change in operations is being conducted as part of a five-year research program to evaluate the effects of the operation of the Aspinall Unit on endangered fish in the Gunnison and Colorado rivers. The reoperation of the Reclamation dams to benefit the endangered fish has not been without controversy. Con- cerns have arisen about the effects of reoperation on hydropower production, recreational boating (rafting), reservoir recreation and fishing, and the gold medal trout fisheries in the tailwaters below the dams. All of these issues will be addressed by Reclamation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. To date, major impacts of reservoir reoperation on the tailwater trout fisheries have been avoided. In fact, releases from Ruedi may have actually improved the trout fishery in the Frying Pan River, according to the Colorado Division of Wildlife. High releases in the spring have the potential of adversely affecting brown- and rainbow-trout reproduction in the Gunnison; however, it appears that these impacts can be avoided by timing releases to avoid major conflicts. It is important to note that native trout evolved along with the endangered fish and are adapted to high flows in the spring. It may be that the high releases, while being an inconvenience to fisherman in the spring, may actually enhance tailwater trout fisheries by providing flushing flows and rejuvenating invertebrate production. Instream Flow Acquisition, Appropriation, and Protection The Recovery Program relies upon state instream-flow programs and laws to provide for legal protection of instream flows. Water rights will only be acquired from willing sellers and administered pursuant to state law. The Conservation Board is expected to file for a 581 cfs appro- priation in the 15-mile reach of the Colorado River in the fall of 1992. In addition, the Service has entered into a short-term agreement to purchase approximately 2,000 acre feet of water from Steamboat Lake to enhance late summer/early fall flows in the Yampa River. A proposal also is being evaluated to acquire the Juniper-Cross Mountain water rights on the Yampa River for instream flows. These water rights, if acquired, would protect the natural-flow regime of the Yampa River, which is consid- ered critical to the survival and recovery of the razorbacks and other endangered fish in the Green River basin. However, to date, efforts to acquire and appropriate water or water rights for the endangered fish have pro- ceeded slowly. To expedite water acquisition and flow- protection activities in Colorado, several facilitated meet- ings were held with members of the Recovery Program. These meetings focused on resolving the legal, institutional, and policy issues which were identified as impediments to timely and effective instream-flow protection for the endangered fish. Some of the specific issues/questions that were identified included: 1. How does the state of Colorado proceed with protect- ing instream flows for the endangered fish in light of the uncertainty about how it will develop its entitlement under the interstate Compacts of 1922 and 1948? A fundamental pretext of the Recovery Program is that instream-flow protection is to be accomplished "in a manner that does not disrupt state water-rights systems, interstate compacts and decrees that allocate rights to use Colorado River water among the states." This, coupled with the fact that instream-flow appropriations are prohibited "from depriv- ing the people of the state of Colorado from water available pursuant to interstate compacts," apparently puts limits on the amount of water available for instream flows to recover the fish. A fundamental question is, "How much water from each major tributary of the Colorado River needs to be delivered for Interstate Compact purposes?" With the exception of the Yampa River, from which Colorado must deliver an average of 500,000 acre feet annually, the amount of water to be delivered from each sub-basin is undetermined. 2. How does the state of Colorado proceed in light of technical uncertainty about the precise flow requirements of the fish? How does the "minimum" standard in the state statute relate to instream-flow protection for the endan- gered fish? As discussed above, the technical basis for the Service's flow recommendations has been questioned by a number of the Recovery Program participants. Given the state of knowledge about these fish and the difficulty in developing a clear cause-effect relationship between 50