Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. ~,~..""", , <br /> <br />:Jn1528 <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, cont. <br /> <br />~-LS;~~~L. , <br /> <br />.,,'., <br /> <br />J3b. GREENO+; p.12,'I2. (Issue M. Water Supply, cont) <br />4) Upstream Water Riehts <br />a) How will each of the contract alternatives affect current upstream water users <br />(particularly in dry years)? <br />b) How will the proposed contract affect potential uses~ <br /> <br />2. GREENO + ; pJO, '12. Recreation and fish 'and wildlife uses should be treated as primary purposes <br />of the Aspinall Unil. In the 1991 Union Park Decision, Judge Brown decided that the 1968 Colorado <br />River Basin Project 'Act "make recreation and fish and wildlife uses [along the Gunnison River <br />downstream as well as on the reservoirs] primary purposes of the CRSP reservoirs" (page 23). He also <br />held that hydropower generation is only an incidental purpose (page 28). Judge Brown's fmdings <br />clearly direct the Bureau of Reclamation to empbasize fish and wildlife and recreation uses over power <br />generation in the negotiation of the proposed contract. <br /> <br />la. GREENO+; pI0,'I3. The April 1992 Public Information Packet says "a major operational objective <br />of the Aspinall Unit is to maximize water releases through the powerplant outlets at each dam" (page <br />8). 1bis statement appears to conflict with the Union Park Decision's holding that hydropower is only <br />an incidental purpose. How can it be justified under the Union Park Decision and will power <br />production be allowe({to overshadow other concerns in the contract negotiations? <br /> <br />14a. <br /> <br />GREENO+; pJO,'I4. Issue K. Curecanti National Recreation Area - The EIS should consider the <br />consequences 'of alternative July 3l and December 31 target elevations for Blue Mesa Reservoir <br />including impacts on fishing and aesthetic qualities and other recreational values within Curecanti <br />National Recreation Area. <br /> <br />;'):V./:~ <br />, ..'.... <br /> <br />:,~\/:;. <br /> <br />11. GREENO+; pJO, '15. Issue L. Aspinall Unit Ooeratine Criteria - The EIS should consider a full <br />range of Blue Mesa Reservoir target elevations from those that would maximize downstream <br />environmental values to those that would maximize hydropower revenues. Other operating criteria aJso <br />should be identified, described, and analyzed in the EIS.' The Bureau of Reclamation needs to be <br />flexible in order to assure that all feasible ways to improve flows are studied. <br /> <br />13a. GREENO+; plO,'I6., Issue M. Water Suoolv - The most critical aspect of the proposed contract <br />will be the assurance of an adequate water supply. The most demanding element of tbe EIS will be the <br />clear presentation of tbe current water supply situation and of the likely water supply consequences of <br />each alternative. <br /> <br />13a. GREENO+; pll,'12. (Issue M. Water Supply, cont.) <br />I) Current Situation <br />a) How many acre-feet per year currently flow into Blue Mesa Reservoir on average <br />and what is the range of variability? <br />b) In an average year, how many acre-feet flow through the Gunnison Tunnel to the <br />Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association (UVWUA)? <br />c) In an average year, how many acre-feet of the water diverted by the Redlands <br />Dam is supplied by the Aspinall Unit? <br />d) Is the existing 300 cfs minimum flow right through the Monument and Gunnison <br />Gorge sufficient to cover the water needs of all senior water right holders in the lower <br /> <br />50 <br />