Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Agenda Item 15 <br />September 22-23, 2003 Board Meeting <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />considerable discussion about foreseeable future water uses and depletions in the <br />Gunnison Basin, but no resolution on any value. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />With the release of the flow recommendations, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation has <br />indicated that it will initiate an EIS process for the, re-operation of the Aspinall Unit to <br />meet the flow recommendations or a reasonable alternative to them by the end of 2003. <br />It was generally agreed that CDSS would be used for the hydrologic modeling of existing <br />and future water uses and how those uses fit with :both the flow recommendations, the <br />proposed Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Park quantification and other factors. <br />The most recent meeting concerning the Gunnison PBO was on May 28, 2003 and a <br />summary of that meeting is attached. ' <br /> <br />DiScussion <br /> <br />One of the recommendations out of the May 28th l,1leeting was that the PBO cover only <br />,existing depletions, but no future depletions, except those authorized and presently <br />covered by the Dallas Creek Biological Opinion. ESA compliance for future depletions <br />would be done pursuant to the Section 7 Agreement for the Upper Colorado Recovery <br />Implementation Program (UCRlP). Currently, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service <br />(USFWS) has detennined that the UCRlP proVides ESA compliance for projects <br />depleting up to 4,500 AF\year, based on the USFWS sufficient progress determinations. <br />The UCRlP also covers projects depleting more than 4,500 AF\year, but those require <br />separate evaluations to determine if the UCRlP is in fact providing the reasonable and <br />prudent alternative for these larger projects. ' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />The debate over this recommendation from the Gunnison Basin Water Users is whether <br />or not the PBO should cover the "marketable yield" of the Aspinall Unit as well. The <br />clear indication from the Gunnison Basin water users is that it should be handled <br />separately except to the extent such development is accomplished under the 4,500 <br />AF\year provision. <br /> <br />This matter is being brought to the Board for discussion because the state position on this <br />issue will be part of the baseline conditions that t4e U.S. Bureau of Reclamation will use <br />in their EIS on the re-operation of the Aspinall U:nit. Tom Pitts, on behalf of the water <br />users, will be present to assist with this discussion~ <br /> <br />Recommendation <br /> <br />Given the controversy with the potential utilizalion of the Aspinall Unit "marketable <br />pool," this is a reasonable approach. <br /> <br />Attachment <br /> <br />. <br />