WSP07175

• File Number: 8200.766
• Description: Gunnison River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Gunnison
• Water Division: 4
• Date: 3/1/1993
• Author: DOI-BOR
• Title: Scoping Report for the Gunnison River Contract - Water from Blue Mesa Reservoir through the Black Canyon and the Gunnison Gorge
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

of water for Aspinall Unit purposes. , The need for ccmtract alternatives to clearly defme the
amount and priorities for releases is further discussed in Item 9: ,

ACC9untability: Meet and Balance Goals - Contnict alternatives should account
for releases. to meet the goals of involved agencies! and provide balance between
competing ,Uses ,of water.

Refer to: Guntiison, Montrose and Delta meetings; Arapahoe County; the City of Colorado
Springs; Congressman Campbell; CREDA; CRWCD; CWCR; the NPCA;' the Montrose
Economic Development Council; Montrose Partners; the Non~Federal Parties to the 1975.
Excl)ange Agreement; UGRWCD. (37 comments)

Item 8.

Several respondents expressed these ideas in variousfonns. Theyurged the agencies to seek
a viable balance between competing uses of water and to somehow balance the benefits, In
accQunting for the releases, the agencies were Urged to use the same water to satisfy as many
purposes as possible. Specific comments regarding balancing between competing uses included
beingableto satisfy recreational demands between the Gunnison Rlver and Blue Mesa Reservoir,
between trout.and endangered fish, and satisfying upper, lower"and transbasin wateruses. They,
, asked that the releases made for downstream competitive uses be, made in such a manner as to
benefit the recognized resources below the dams. the ana\ysis, should also define the
relationship between flows provided for endangered fish asa res\llt of the current process and
past agreements to mitigate other projects with Blue Mesa, stored ~ater. Project activities should
be coordinated with the endangered fish recovery program and, when possible, ~ater released
for the fish shoul!! also satisfy the Black Canyon's needs. It was also stressed that releases from
the Aspinall Unit to satisfy various uses, such as 300 cfs instream flow, be made in such a
manner as to minimize "calls" on the river and prevent "stacking'~ of releases (refer to Item 5),

Item 9.

, , '
" Release Priorities, Quantities, and Patterns -, Contract alternatives should
address priorities, quantities, timing, duration, and ramping ofreleases.

. .
Refer to: Gunnison and Montrose meetings; theNPCA; Ms. Kiefer; the Sierra Club, (22
comments) ,

Several suggestions and comments were made that will assist in defming flow Qperations in the
contract., ' The timing and volume of releases shOUld be considered.T4ning of peak flows can
hann trout fisheries downstream; ramping recommendations ofthe:Colorado Division of Wildlife
recommendations should be included in alternatives to help protect the fisheries. The "windows'
of opportunity" whenflusbing causes the least impacts on the flsheryshould be defined. The
releases should ,be timed to meet as many' needs as possible. There was, concern expressed that
during dry water years, ,shortages should be sh~ among the, various needs and that.the
contract should specifically spell out how shortages and priorities would be handled,

Alternatives and cOntract languageshoul.d be based on runoff :forecasts, ' In. addition, the
contract shOUld better defmehow reserved water rights downstream (i.e. in the Black Canyon)

20