Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I, <br /> <br />1'1::" 60S <br />'......;...- .'..,. <br /> <br />Public Seeping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, cont. <br /> <br />,'. .n,. <br /> <br />.::::;:,:.::'Y~~ <br /> <br />..,..,. . <br /> <br />13b. ARAPAHOE; p6, '2. In addition, as the BUREC is well aware, the case concerning the Union Park <br />Reservoir Project is currently on appeal before the Colorado Supreme Court. Therefore, the public <br />information packet which specifies that the Colorado Water Court clarified water rights and water <br />availability in the Gunnison Basin is Dot accurate since that decision is currently on appeal. <br /> <br />11. ARAPAHOE; p6, '3. (Alternatives) In analyzing the alternative of utilizing minimum stream flows <br />from the Union Park Reservoir Project in conjunction with existing CWCB flows in the future, BUREC <br />should consider cooperating with Arapahoe in its efforts to construct the Union Park Reservoir Project <br />rather than opposing it. It allows Colorado to utilize a portion of its Compact entitlement with very <br />little effect on stream flows. Currently, there are approximately 1. 8 million acre feet per year leaving <br />the Gunnison Basin, and Union Park proposes to divert approximately 100,000 acre feel. ,This is only <br />approximately 5 % of the flows from a tributary to the colorado River, and represents an important <br />alternative available to Colorado to utilize a portion of its apportionments under the Compact. <br /> <br />19b. ARAPAHOE; p6, '3. <Alternatives) In analyzing the alternative of utilizing minimum stream flows <br />from the Union Park Reservoir Project in conjunction with exist.ing CWCB flows in the future, BUREC <br />should consider cooperating with Arapahoe in its efforts to construct the Union Park Reservoir Project <br />, rather than opposing il. It allows Colorado to utilize a portion of its Compact entitlement with very <br />little effect 0.0 stream flows. Currently, there are approximately 1.8 million acre feet per year leaving <br />the Gunnison Basin, and Union Park proposes to divert approximately 100,000 acre feet. This is only <br />approximately 5 % of the flows from a tributary to the Colorado River, and represents an important <br />alternative available to Colorado to utilize a portion of its apportionments under the Compact. <br /> <br />.... <br /> <br />11. ARAPAHOE; p6, '4. B.3. (Alternatives) Channel Imorovements - BUREC sbou'ld analyze <br />improvements which can be made to the habitats desired within the Monument. The proposed Contract <br />makes no reference as to what specific needs would be satisfied by releases from the Aspinall Unit. <br />However, once those n.eeds are identified, BUREC should explore alternatives to satisfy those needs by <br />means other than water releases. Such improvements could include channel. improvements, habitat. <br />modificati,ons, and fish stocking. <br /> <br />::..:<>.)) <br /> <br />":~',:'.. ..." <br /> <br />6. ARAPAHOE; p6,'5. In defining goals to be met by water releases, BUREC should take into <br />consideration that the Monument is not a priority stream reach for any endangered fish species, as ' <br />identified in the Recovery Implementation Program. <br /> <br />10. ARAPAHOE;p7,' 1. In summary, Arapahoe believes that any contract entered into between <br />BUREC and the National Park Service should consider carefully the amounts of flows necessary for the <br />Monument and the effect of any given flow regime on the ability of Colorado to utilize its Compact <br />apportionments. However, if the correct flow regime is chosen, there should be enough water for the <br />Aspinall Unit, the Monument, and additional depletions in the Gunnison River Basin by Colorado <br />interests. Arapahoe looks forward to participating and cooperating in the NEPA process. <br /> <br />~ ;. <br /> <br />28 <br />