BOARD01572

• Board Meeting Date: 3/26/2001
• Description: WSP Section - Gunnison River Basin Issues and Policy Resolution
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

-

Gunnison River Basin Issues and Policy Resolution
March 26-27, 2001

Agenda Item 2Sf

NPS argues that the base flow of 300 cfs is necessary to protect the fishery and that the
shoulder flows ramping up to the peak and the peak flow are necessary to preserve the
natural conditions of the canyon by scouring away recent debris flows into the river and
preventing vegetative encroachment on the channel.

The potential impact of this quantification is illustrated in the NPS graphs attached to the
application. The proposed peak flows would exceed the combined power plant and river
outlet capacities at all three reservoirs (8,000 cfs at BM, 6550 at MP, and 4,000 at
Crystal). In addition, such releases could contribute to flooding problems in the Delta
and Grand Junction areas if made to coincide with peaks on either the North Fork or
Uncompahgre.

A Statement of Opposition needs to be filed by 03/31/2001. Pursuant to the Board's
direction in January, the Attorney General's office will be filing a statement of opposition
on behalf of the CWCB, the DWR, and possibly the DOW. A copy of the proposed
Statement of Opposition will be provided to the Board members at the meeting.

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Flow Recommendations to Protect Critical Habitat on
the Gunnison & Colorado Rivers

At the July 24, 2000 Board meeting, staff described the proposed USF&WS flow
recommendations for the Gunnison and the potential impacts of those recommendations
on water users and Colorado's ability to develop it's Compact apportionment. In order to
achieve the Gunnison River flow recommendations, it will be necessary for the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation to reoperate the Aspinall Units. Staff is working with the Bureau
of Reclamation and Recovery Program participants to obtain a better understanding of
how the Bureau will reoperate the Aspinall Unit to meet the flow recommendations and
proposed NPS quantification.

Furthermore, it appears that the USF&WS flow recommendation, for the Gunnison and
Colorado below the Gunnison confluence do not complement one another. In other
words, the Gunnison flow recommendations when added to the flow recommendations
for the IS-mile reach do not yield the flow recommendations for the Colorado below the
Gunnison confluence. Also, the criteria for determining what type of water year is
occurring and what flows will be necessary at certain times ofthe year are contradictory.

Staff is preparing a letter to the FWS requesting they prioritize flow recommendations
within the Colorado River Basin, since it appears that meeting one set of
recommendations may make it impossible to meet recommendations on another section
of the river.

Gunnison Basin Pro1!rammatic Biolo1!ical Opinion (PBO)

On January 31,2001 the first meeting for the PBO was held in Montrose. The USBR
will be preparing a water demand study detailing reasonably forseeable future water use
and depletions in the Gunnison Basin. The demand study should be completed by May

2