Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,. <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Agenda Item 32 <br />March 22 - 23,2005 Board Meeting <br />. Page 5 of 13 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />existing uses but not consider ANY futUre depletions. The Gunnison PBO effort was then put on <br />hold and will resume after the completion of the Aspinall EIS. <br /> <br />The current draft ofthe No Action Alternative also includes the April 2003 agreement between the <br />CWCB and the Department of Interior regarding instream water rights for the Black Canyon of the <br />Gunnison. The USBR wishes to include it because it is an existing agreement affecting operation <br />of the Aspinall Unit. Others have suggested it not be included in the No Action Alternative, but be <br />included as part of ALL Action Alternatives for reasons stated above regarding full impact <br />analysis. Some environmental groups have requested it be removed from consideration pending <br />the outcome of the current litigation. <br /> <br />5. Dallas Creek Proiect and Dolores Proiect Biolo2ical Ouinions: The Dolores Project is <br />depleting approximately 81,800 AF, but assessed a depletion charge of 131,000 AF in the <br />Biological Opinion, an amount with which we disagree. To offset the depletion, water may be <br />released from either the Dolores Project or from other projects that regulate flows in the Colorado <br />River Basin. <br /> <br />Similarly, the Dallas Creek project is estimated to deplete 17,200 AFannually. To offset the <br />depletion, water may be released from either the Dallas Creek Project or from other projects that <br />regulate flows in the Colorado River Basin. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />As mentioned in Section S.5 of the Flaming Gorge Biological Opinion, re-operation of Flaming <br />Gorge to achieve the flow recommendations for the Green River offset language in Central Utah <br />Project Biological Opinions and we would support similar language and concepts be used in the <br />Aspinall EIS to offset the conditions in the Dolores and Dallas Creek Projects. <br /> <br />Recommendations <br /> <br />Staff recommends: <br />1. Adhering to a strict interpretation of the Acts <br />2. Continued support of positions in the CWCB's 1994 letter <br />3. Support of the Division 4 Water Engineer's position regarding storage releases to the <br />Redlands fish ladder <br />4. Support recommended changes to the No Action Alternative contained in Attachment A <br />5. Support utilization of the Flaming Gorge approach to previous Biological Opinions. <br /> <br />Attachments <br />A: Draft Description of the "No Action" Alternative with suggested Staff changes <br />B: CWCB November 22, 1994 letter on Aspinall Operations Matrix <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Flood Protection. Water Project Planning and Finance. Stream and Lake Protection <br />Water Supply Protection. Conservation Planning <br />