Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />" <br /> <br />Agenda Item 26 <br />January 27-28, 2004 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 of9 <br /> <br />the hydrologic modeling of existing and future water uses and how those uses fit with the flow. <br />recommendations, the proposed Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park quantification and other <br />factors, The most recent meeting concerning the Gunnison PBO was on May 28, 2003 and a summary of <br />that meeting is attached, <br /> <br />Discussion <br /> <br />One of the recommendations out of the May 28th meeting was that the PBO cover only existing <br />depletions, but no future depletions, except those authorized and presently covered by the Dallas Creek <br />Biological Opinion. ESA compliance for future depletions would be done pursuant to the Section 7 <br />Agreement for the Upper Colorado Recovery Implementation Program (UCRIP), Currently, the U.S. Fish <br />and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has determined that the UCRIP provides ESA compliance for projects <br />depleting up to 4,500 AF\year, based on the USFWS sufficient progress determinations. The UCRIP also <br />covers projects depleting more than 4,500 AF\year, but those require separate evaluations to determine if <br />the UCRIP would in fact provide the reasonable and prudent alternative for these larger projects, <br /> <br />The debate over this recommendation from the Gunnison Basin Water Users is whether or not the PBO <br />should cover the "marketable yield" of the Aspinall Unit as well. The clear-indication from the Gunnison <br />Basin water users is that it should be handled separately except to the extent such development is <br />accomplished under the 4,500 AF\year provision, <br /> <br />This matter is being brought to the Board for discussion because the state will need to take a position on <br />the baseline conditions that the U,S, Bureau of Reclamation should use in their EIS on the re-operation of. <br />the Aspinall Unit during the scoping process, Tom Pitts and I have worked with Reclamation and the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District to develop' the attached "Memorandum of Understanding <br />Regarding Re-operation of the Aspinall Unit and Endangered Species Act Compliance for the Gunnison <br />and Dolores River Basins" (MOD). The MOU outlines the EIS and PBO processes and notes that the <br />projects and level of depletions in the Gunnison basin to be included in the EIS baseline will be identified <br />during the scoping process, The PBO on the other hand would include existing depletions, but no future <br />depletions, in the Gunnison Basin, except those authorized and presently covered by the existing <br />biological opinion on the Dallas Creek Project. The PBO would also cover depletions by the Dolores <br />Project and leaves the door open for covering depletions in the Dolores basin if Reclamation, the State <br />and USFWS should subsequently agree, The PBO portion of the MOU takes no position on the <br />"marketable pool" or the unused portion of the 60,000 AF subordination, except to the extent such new <br />depletions therefrom would fall under the current "sufficient progress" determination, <br /> <br />Tom Pitts, on behalf of the water users, and representatives from Reclamation and the USFWS may be <br />present to assist with this discussion, <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Given the controversy with the potential utilization of the Aspinall Unit "marketable pool," this is a <br />reasonable approach and staff supports entering into the MOU. <br /> <br />Attachments <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />