BOARD00034

• Board Meeting Date: 5/23/2005
• Description: CWCB Director's Report
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

.,

. Chuck McAda gave' a presentation on the USFWS flow recommendations for the Gunnison
River.

.

.

The USBR and cooperating agencies continued discussing the No Action Alternative. CWCB
staff submitted the comments and recommendations regarding the No Action Alternative as
approved by the board at its March 23, 2005 meeting. Residents of the Upper Gunnison basin
expressed their strong disagreement with the CWCB's request to protect the entire project yield
in the Aspinall Unit for future Colorado use by including full development of that project yield in
the No Action Alternative. Representatives of the CRWCD also expressed some concern,
although they have indicated some agreement with the CWCB's position in previous years.
Representatives of the Upper Gunnison basin have requested that the No Action Alternative
include the entire 60,000 AF of project yield available to them under the subordination
agreement but do not desire inclusion of the remaining proj ect yield. The Upper Gunnison
currently depletes approximately 8500 AF under the subordination agreement. Other parties in
the basin argue that neither full development of the 60,000 AF subordination agreement nor full
development of the remaining project yield of the Aspinall Unit falls under the definition of
"reasonably foreseeable" for the purposes of this EIS.

CWCB staff continue to discuss the No Action Alternative with the USBR.

Also discussed was a statement from the USFWS that the obligations of the Dallas Creek and
Dolores Project biological opinions are not.being met. The USFWS implied that since the flow
recommendations are not being met and have not been met in the past, the obligations of the
Dallas Creek and Dolores Project biological opinions are not being met. Most of the other
cooperating agencies and other interested parties obj ected to the USFWS statement. The
objections are summarized as follows:
1. The Aspinall Unit cannot be deemed out of compliance with the biological opinions due
to not meeting the flow recominendations in the decades pdor to the adoption of the flow -
recommendations. .
2. The flow recommendations are not the appropriate measure of whether the Aspinall Unit
is offsetting the effects of the depletions of the Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects. When
the USFWS authored the flow recommendations and submitted them for approval by the
Upper Colorado River Recovery Program, they stressed that these were only
recommendations. Further, the USFWS stated it would not consider water availability
when making such recommendations, that water availability should be considered during
implementation phases, and that the USFWS understood it might not be possible to meet
the flow recommendations.
3. Operations of the Aspinall Unit have provided flows below Redlands, experimental peal,
flows, bundling of excess water into peak flows, and improved base flows for the benefit
of the endangered fish. These operations should be considered offsets to the depletions
of the Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects.
4. Actual annual depletions of the Dolores Project are 50,000 AF less than calculated in the
biological opinion. No reservoir operations are required to offset the 50,000 AF of
annual depletions that were calculated but have never occurred.

The USBR is hopeful that the USFWS will deem the outcome of the Aspinall EIS process sufficient and
allow the biological assessment of Aspinall reoperations to supercede all exisiting biological opinions_

25