Laserfiche WebLink
<br />of water for Aspinall Unit putpOses. The need for contract alternatives to clearly defme the <br />amount and priorities for releases is further discussed in Item 9. <br /> <br />Item 8. <br /> <br />Accountability: Meet and Balance Goals - Contract alternatives should account <br />for releases to meet the goals of involved agencies and provide balance between <br />competing uses of water. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose and Delta meetings; Arapahoe County; the City of Colorado <br />Springs; Congressman Campbell; CRJIDA; CRWCD; CWCB; the NPCA; the Montrose <br />Economic Development Council; Montrose Partners; the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 <br />Exchange Agreement; UGRWCD. (37 comments) <br /> <br />Several respondents expressed these ideas in various forms. They urged the agencies to seek <br />a viable balance between competing uses of water and to somehow balance the benefits. In <br />accounting for the releases, the agencies were urged to use the same water to satisfy as many <br />purposes as possible. Specific comments regarding balancing between competing uses included <br />being able to satisfy recreational demands between the Gunnison River and Blue Mesa Reservoir, <br />between trout and endangered fish, and satisfying upper, lower, and transbasin water uses. They <br />asked that the releases made for downstream competitive uses be made in such a manner as to <br />benefit the recognized resources below the dams. The analysis should also defme the <br />relationship between flows provided for endangered fish as a result of the current process and <br />past agreements to mitigate other projects with Blue Mesa stored water. Project activities should <br />be coordinated with the endangered fish recovery program and, when possible, water released <br />for the fish should also satisfy the Black Canyon's needs. It was also stressed that releases from <br />the Aspinall Unit to satisfy various uses, such as 300 cfs instream flow, be made in. such a <br />manner as to minimize "calls" on the river and prevent "stacking" of releases (refeno Item 5). <br /> <br />Item 9. <br /> <br />Release Priorities, Quantities, and Patterns - Contract alternatives should <br />address priorities, quantities, timing, duration, and ramping of releases. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison and Montrose meetings; the NPCA; Ms. Kiefer; the Sierra Club. (22 <br />comments) <br /> <br />Several suggestions and cOmments were made that will assist in defining flow operations in the <br />contract. The timing and volume of releases should be considered. Timing of peak flows can <br />harm trout fisheries downstream; ramping recommendations of the Colorado Division of Wildlife <br />recommendations should be included in alternatives to help protect the fisheries. The "windows <br />of opportunity" when flushing causes the least impacts on the fIShery should be defmed. The <br />releases should be timed to meet as many needs as possible. There was concern expressed that <br />during dry water years, shortages should be shared among the various needs and that the <br />contract should specifically spell out how shortages and priorities would be handled. <br /> <br />Alternatives and contract language should be based on runoff forecasts. In addition, the <br />contract should better defme how reserved water rights downstream (i.e. in the Black Canyon) .1 <br /> <br />20 <br />