Laserfiche WebLink
<br />e. The Colorado Division of Wildlife and US Fish and Wildlife <br />Service, National Ecology Center are doing trout studies in both the <br />Gunnison River and Blue Mesa Reservoir as part.of this effort, <br /> <br />3. The CWCB portion of the, "Hatchery Feasibility Study" is complete. The <br />study evaluated 15 potential endanger species hatchery sites in Colorado, <br />3 of which are in Montrose and Delta Counties. A final presentation of <br />results was made to the Water Conservation Board and Wildlife <br />Commission at there September, 1993 meetings. The Colorado Division of <br />Wildlife continues to evaluate and screen the sites. <br /> <br />C. Section 7 consultations have been completed on two projects which potentially <br />affect operations of the Aspinall Units. Both are participating projects under the <br />Colorado River Storage Project Act. <br /> <br />1. Dallas Creek <br /> <br />2. Dolores <br /> <br />The consultations reserve 148,000 AF to offset depletions from these 2 projects. <br />The CWCB feels this number is to high by about 50,000 AF, Furthermore, current <br />depletions are only about 45,000 AF. This issue will be resolved through re- <br />consultation on these projects as a result of critical habitat designations for the <br />endangered fish. <br /> <br />VI. Aspinall Subordination <br /> <br />A. Implementation of a 60,000 AF. subordination suggested in legislation authorizing <br />the Aspinall Units has historically been handled by treating the Aspinall water <br />rights as the most junior in the basin. This may no longer workable if large <br />contract releases from Aspinall are made which protect flows past senior <br />appropriators. Since Blue Mesa was constructed, senior rights below Crystal have <br />not had to call against any water rights above Blue Mesa. <br />The potential for calls and federal contracting problems related to the Reclamation <br />Reform Act have existing water users and local interests very disturbed. <br />Reclamation, State, and local interests have been developing and evaluating <br />different alternatives but only one viable solution is seen at present. That is to <br />provide a pool in Blue Mesa similar in concept to the pool in Green Mountain. <br />In the interim, Reclamation has agreed not to call its water rights without 6 months <br />prior notice which has bought time to continue to find a solution. While <br />Reclamation provided notice in July, 1994 no calls are expected until July, 1995. <br /> <br />VII. Taylor Park Water Management Agreement -' This agreement further defines how the 2nd <br />fill for Taylor Park will be used in conjunction with the 1975 Exchange Agreement. It <br /> <br />5 <br /> <br />0008{2 <br />