FLOOD02168

• County: Gunnison
• Community: Uncompahgre Valley
• Basin: Gunnison
• Title: Uncompahgre Valley Reclamation Project - Hydropower - Part 4 - Scoping Report Gunnison River Contract
• Date: 1/1/1990
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Project

C1arification is needed as to how the CWCB's acceptance of the Nature Conservancy's donated
300 cfs right, for conversion to an instream right, will interact with Aspinall storage rights and
the delivery of water to the Black Canyon and/or endangered fish habitat under the contract.
The Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement and Montrose meeting participants
expressed confusion with paragraph 5.e. of the Preliminary Working Draft for a contract, which
discusses water releases under direct flow, instream flow, and storage rights. The City of
Colorado Springs suggested that participation by the CWCB is premature since conversion of
the donated right to an instream flow right has not yet occurred in water court. The City of
Colorado Springs asked if CWCB would honor its pledge not to "stack" the right on top of any
Federal reserved right. Montrose participants asked if the CWCB will seek protection of an
instream flow below Grand Junction.

Item 6.

Endangered Fish - The FWS should be involved in tbe NEPA compliance and
contract negotiation processes to assist in the recovery of endangered fish of the
Colorado River Basin.

Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Arapahoe County; Congressman Campbell;
the City of Colorado Springs; CREDA; CRWCD; CWCB; FWS; the NPCA; Mr. Jorgenson;
Commissioner Corey; Mr. Miller; Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; the
Sierra Club; UGRWCD. (30 comments)

Some respondents were concerned about the relationship and need for an impact analysis of our
providing test flows for ongoing Section 7 consultation studies. These studies will identify the
effects of Aspinall operations on endangered fish, and conclude with a "Biological Opinion" with
recommendations on how the Aspinall Unit should be operated to assist in the recovery of the
endangered fish.

Montrose meeting participants and Arapahoe County questioned why the Aspinall Unit should
provide flows to endangered fish, as part of this contract effort, when habitat for endangered fish
exists downstream of both the Black Canyon and the Gunnison Gorge. Gunnison participants
asked if there are other ways to provide for downstream flooding over the banks as a fishery
enhancement measure. CRWCD and UGRWCD commented that while it is appropriate to
consider requests of the FWS for flows during the process, the contract must be limited to
serving the legitimate needs of the Black Canyon, and that the amounts of water requested by
the NPS and FWS require separate and distinct justifications. A Montrose meeting participant
was concerned that the primary purpose of the contract (i.e. to protect resources of the Black
Canyon) would be lost, with endangered fish being the deciding factor.

The Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement recommended that the 148,000 acre-
feet of CRSP water needed to satisfy recommendations of the Biological Opinions for the
Dolores and Dallas Creek Projects be specifically addressed in the contract as well as be
coordinated with the pending Section 7 consultation. CREDA requested a decision as to if and
how a Biological Opinion for the contract and for the ongoing Aspinall operations would be
combined, including NEPA compliance activities. Montrose and Delta meeting participants,

17