Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />f.",' <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />30f18 <br /> <br />The Colorado Division of Wildlife and Division 4 Engineer have reviewed the attached <br />documents and have no specific additional comments at this time. <br /> <br />The CWCB Board adopted the staff recommendation by unanimous vote. That <br />recommendation is briefly summarized below: <br /> <br />l. Adherance to a strict interpretation of the 1956 CRSP and 1968 CRBP Acts. It is <br />the position of the CWCB that the 1968 Act did NOT change the authorized <br />purposes of the Aspinall Unit and other projects built under the 1956 CRSP Act <br />except as explicitly provided for in Title V and with the additional caveats <br />described in Title VI of the 1968 CRBP Act. An explanation with supporting <br />language is included in the Board Memo. <br /> <br />2. Continued support of the positions outlined in the CWCB's 1994 letter to the <br />USBR concerning Aspinall Unit operations (attached). <br /> <br />3. Support of the Division 4 Water Engineer's position regarding his ability to <br />protect Blue Mesa storage releases for diversion by the Redlands fish ladder, but <br />not to protect releases for attraction flows below the ladder without a contract. <br /> <br />4. Support ofCWCB staffs recommended changes to the Draft No Action <br />Alternative, as outlined in red in the attachment. The most significant suggested <br />change is to the assumption of future depletions for the No Action Alternative. <br />The CWCB suggests the USBR include the entire 300,000 AF project yield <br />(including the 60,000 AF subordination agreement) or limit the EIS to existing <br />uses. The Board did not exclude the option oflimiling the EIS to existing uses, <br />but did express a strong desire to provide protection for the entire 300,000 AF of <br />project yield. Although not part of the Board motion, staff believes that ifthe <br />existing depletions option is selected, some form of protection would be required <br />for the 300,000 AF to assure that it could be used for future development in <br />Colorado. <br /> <br />5. The USBR is conducting this EIS as part of its involvement in the Upper <br />Colorado River Recovery Program. As stated in its Program Highlights 2003- <br />2004 report and other documents, "the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish <br />Recovery Program is a cooperative partnership created to recover the endangered <br />humpback chub, bonytail, Colorado pikeminnow, and razorback sucker while <br />water development proceeds in accordance with Federal and State laws." In <br />addition, one oflhe authorized purposes of Aspinall under the 1956 CRSP Act is <br />to assist the state in developing its compact apportioned waters. Therefore <br />Colorado has consistently maintained that the project yield in Aspinall should be <br />protected while the UCRRIP proceeds in its efforts to recover the endangered <br />fish. <br /> <br />6. Support of the USBR's recommendation to utilize the "Flaming Gorge approach" <br />to previous Biological Opinions supported in part by Aspinall operations. As <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Financing. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />