WSPC02244 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Clarification 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 ,:>ovnr,;o""o.rI ronnh.("lnn l:u;th n"l'l":llTr.::ronh '" po nf th"" 1>rP.limln!JIn/ Wnr1..-ina nrnft for ~ rnntn.ct which ....I>'t'..""......"-'U ....."'.1..1.....""......"... n"...... 1'-.......0.....1'.... 0.1..... ........ ...u........ ...............................; .. .......~..O ____ ___ - -'---- .-.'-, 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 in stream flow below Grand Junction. Item 6. Endangered Fish - The FWS should be involved in the 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 lJ 9'/ " (' ') -f.:. its.'.,_"