Laserfiche WebLink
1 <br />1 <br />r <br /> <br /> <br />F <br />A <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />1 <br />f <br />4. Recreation Impacts <br />Although it is not possible to project the exact structure of the modified ALP project, one <br />plausible scenario is that the loss of Phase II will result in the Southern Ute Reservoir not <br />being built. This will result in a consequent loss of recreation expenditures within the <br />region. The ALP study (USDOI, 1995) reports an estimate of $1.69 million annually that <br />would be generated by the Southern Ute Reservoir. <br />C. The Direct Impacts <br />As water is a scarce commodity, there are many parties/projects competing for the use of this <br />unappropriated water. 15 In the case of the San Juan River 163,400 AF/yr is available for <br />development when species protection is taken into consideration. There are four credible <br />projects on the drawing board that lay claim to water from the San Juan: the Navajo Indian <br />Irrigation Project, blocks 9-11 (NIIP), Animas La Plata Phase I and II (ALP), the San Juan- <br />Chama Project (SJC), and the San Juan-Gallup Pipeline (SJG). Together these projects would <br />entail 278,145 AF/yr in depletions. Because there are more credible projects than there is water <br />to complete them, some water development will have to be foregone. It is not known with <br />certainty which projects would be allowed to continue and which would not. In choosing the <br />scenario for the impact analysis it was assumed that: 1) any project having already undergone <br />successful section 7 consultation would be allowed to proceed; 2) higher-valued uses of water <br />(M&I) would be preferred over low-value uses (Agriculture)." Table 5-C-1 details impacted <br />water projects under the WF scenario. <br />15 As in the previous study, this study does not address the aboriginal vs. non-native water rights issue. <br />Throughout the study, we assume that there is no preference towards meeting trust responsibilities to the tribes first. <br />In this sense, any impacts will be the worst-case scenario for the tribes. <br />16 It should be noted that this represents just one of many possible scenarios using the various project <br />features and depletions as of May 1996. <br />36 <br />