BOARD01711

• Board Meeting Date: 5/21/2001
• Description: WSP Section - Gunnison River Basin Issues
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Memo

Agenda Item21(e)
May 21-22. 2001 Board Meeting
Page 2 of4

3

"", ',1

.

natural conditions of the canyon by scouring awaylrecent debris flows into the river and
preventing vegetative encroachment on the channelj
,

.\.

The potential impact of this quantification is illustrated in the NPS graphs attached to the
application, The proposed peak flows would exceljd 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, i

The Board, Division of Water Resources, and Divi~ion of Wildlife filed a joint Statement
of Opposition to the application on 03/31/2001. On May 2nd, state representatives met
with the NPS and representatives from the U,S, Illureau of Reclamation, U,S, Fish and
Wildlife Service and the U,S, Bureau of Land Management. The meeting resulted in the
establishment ofa Technical Team that will meet to discuss a number of technical i8sues
surrounding the application and outlined in the statements of opposition, Kent Holsinger
was designated the primary point of contact for tl).e state, Technical representatives are
being designated from each entity involved, Prior to the technical representatives
meeting, the venue issue and conditions of the sta~(e.g, trial in 36 months ifnot resolved,
discovery delayed for 24 months, all data will b~ shared in advance, ete,) to allow the
technical work to go forward must .be agreed too~ The NPS will be present at the May
meeting to discuss this matter with the Board,

.

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

,
At the July 24, 2000 Board meeting, staff de$cribed the proposed USF&WS flow
recommendations for the GUIU1ison and the poten:tial impacts of those recommendations
on water users and Colorado's ability to develop i~' 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 Aspin~ll Units, Furthermore, a number of
technical and policy issues with the flow recommfndations have been identified and staff
is working with the U,S. Fish and Wildlife Servicf and Recovery Program participants to
resolve these issues prior to Recovery P~ograms concuning with the flow
recommendations. The technical issues identifiedl are as follows:
1. Justification for recommended peak flow thresholds,
2, Is it necessary to provide habitat for allUfe stages of razorback sucker and Colorado
Pikeminnow in the Gunnison River? i
3. Are overbank flows primarily to provide t100qplain habitat for razorbacks necessary?
4, Are peak-flow recommendations for driest hy~rologic categories appropriate?
5, Are flow recommendations tc benefit humpba,ck chub justified?
6, What is the relative importance of flows versus removal of baniers to recovery of
endangered fish populations in the Gunnison?1 .
!

The policy issues identified were:

.

2

J