Laserfiche WebLink
<br />economic costs are too high. UGRWCD suggested that impacts on Blue Mesa storage levels <br />caused by alternative "accounting scenarios" for contract releases to the Black Canyon and <br />endangered fish be analyzed. Gunnison participants requested that the "cost" to Blue Mesa <br />ReseIVoir and upstream users and uses be identified. Delta participants asked us to identify the <br />pr.nnnrnlf" V~ lnp-_ nf UJ~tp_r lnd for fnhlrp rnlnrnnn flpvplnnmpnf <br />--------&._ .___ ~& ,._~_& &~...~ &~& ._._a_ __a_.___ __. -.....ra&&_&&.. <br /> <br />We also received suggestions for criteria to use in comparing and selecting a preferred contract <br />alternative. Gunnison participants were concerned that economic impacts would be the sole <br />criteria. Corey wrote that the purposes of the three-darn unit must be the first priority <br />recognized in the delivery contract to the Black Canyon to realize full benefit (storage, flood <br />control, power generation, improving water quality, fish and wildlife enhancement, and <br />recreation) of the Aspinall Unit. The Sierra Club suggested that even though alternative flow <br />patterns may reduce revenue produced by hydropower generation, the senior land use allocation <br />of the Black Canyon, under the terms of the NPS Organic Act, dictates that an equitable <br />allocation of water resources be made. Gunnison participants, CRWCD, and UGRWCD thought <br />that priority should be given to alternatives which have the least amount of impact (or don't <br />impact) water rights and historic uses of water in the entire basin. Constraints thought necessary <br />to protect interests in the Upper Gunnison Basin were that the contract should not result in: <br />downstream senior calls and the curtailment of Upper Gunnison Basin water supplies; instream <br />rights; the 1975 Exchange Agreement between Blue Mesa and Taylor Park ReseIVoirs; adverse <br />economic impacts on Upper Gunnison Basin ranching, recreation and tourism; and adverse <br />environmental impacts on the Upper Gunnison Basin. Montrose Partners suggested that we <br />should favor development and selection of an alternative which would allow AB Lateral to <br />generate a reasonable amount of power, preseIVe winter generation of power for sale through <br />W AP A, and yet give the NPS control over a major block of water. <br /> <br />Gunnison citizens also suggested that the selected alternative for the contract should not have <br />adverse impacts on the Gold Medal Trout fishery, should balance water needs of endangered fish <br />with those of ranchers, and should, in general, balance gains, benefits, and losses. <br /> <br />m. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT/ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES <br /> <br />A. Hydrologic Resources <br /> <br />Item 13. <br /> <br />Water Supply, Uses and Quality and Water Rights Administration - The <br />analysis should identify effects on water supply, existing uses and development <br />of Colorado's Compact entitlement, administration of water rights, and water <br />quality. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison and Montrose meetings; Arapahoe County; CREDA; the NPCA; <br />Commissioner Corey; Montrose Partners. (66 comments) <br /> <br />25 <br /> <br />00176~ <br />