Laserfiche WebLink
Under the No Action Alternative, Recovery Program timeframes would not be met and the <br />Program would not serve to offset impacts of water development and use on endangered species. <br />This could harm permitting of future water activities and /or lead to more stringent requirements <br />on existing water uses. <br />The fish passageway will have no direct effect on river flows, water rights, or water uses. <br />Provision of flows under the interim agreement, however, will have effects on river flows and <br />could have effects on water uses. Water rights will not be affected, although the water supply <br />historically used by these rights could change. <br />As indicated previously, water users on the Gunnison River have benefitted from the operation <br />of the Aspinall Unit which has increased streamflows in periods of high water demand. Under <br />the interim agreement, 300 cfs will be protected and delivered to the reach of the river below <br />the Redlands Diversion Dam from July through October in most years. In other words, storage <br />water will be released from the Aspinall Unit and this water will be protected from diversion. <br />If this were occurring in a low flow period, the Redlands Diversion Dam (or other senior right) <br />might not have sufficient water to legally divert their total water need and they could request a <br />call on the river. With a call on the river, junior water rights upstream (for example in the <br />Upper Gunnison Basin or along the North Fork of the Gunnison) would be reduced or shut down <br />and the Redlands Diversion Dam water supply would increase. This call could also occur <br />without the protection of flows for endangered fish, but it could occur more frequently with the <br />interim flow agreement as presented in Alternative C. <br />During public meetings and water agreement negotiations open to the public, this was the <br />greatest concern expressed - -will existing water uses be affected? In response to these concerns, <br />and following a review of assignment contracts and authorizing legislation of the Aspinall Unit <br />and other factors, two alternatives (described on page 9 as Alternatives A and B) have been <br />developed. Operations of the Aspinall Unit would be planned to provide historic supplies as <br />much as possible considering water availability - -in essence the benefits that have indirectly gone <br />to water users over the past 30 years would continue. Under Alternative C, Aspinall Unit <br />operations would not consider downstream users as in the past and impacts would occur to <br />existing water uses. <br />Tables 1, 2, and 3 summarize river changes by showing what would happen to average monthly <br />flows at three points on the Gunnison River under Alternatives A, B, and C in wet, normal, dry, <br />and very dry water years. Tables 1 and 3 show that Alternatives A and B provide increased <br />flows -above the - Redlands -in portions of-dry years. - This provides for the-planned fish flows-and <br />protects existing water uses. With the interim agreement in effect, there will be changes in river <br />flows and in Blue Mesa Reservoir. Morrow Point and Crystal Reservoirs, which have smaller <br />capacities, would not be affected. Table 4 shows end -of -month storage in Blue Mesa in wet, <br />normal, dry, and very dry water years as projected under Alternatives A, B, and C. Changes <br />in Blue Mesa storage are minor except in a dry year such as 1990 which was preceded by a dry <br />yam• <br />16 <br />