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

, .
needs must be responsive to identifying impacts of alternative action~. Thealternativ~~ should
clearly reflect the hard choices inVolved in allocating limite<:! water supplies between competing
and compatible uses. "

C; Comparative Analysis

EvaluationCriteria/Metbods - Suggestions included methods and, criteria to
comparatively analyze and evaluate the alternatives.

Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; the Colora,~o Mountain Club; CRWCD;
EllA; theNPCA; Commissioner Corey; the Montrose Econqmic Development ,Council; ,
Montrose Partners; the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; the Sierra Club;
UGRWCD. (39 comments) ,

ItemU.

Comments expressed interest inand, suggestions for analyzing and evaluating alternatives upon
which ,selection of a preferred alternative could be based, Gunnison meeting participants, the
Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchailge Agreement, the U,QRWCDand theNPCA all
supported completion and use of the Gunnison Pl~ng Model t9 evaluate the effeyts of contract
rel,eases on water uses throughout the Gunnison Basin. The Colorado Mountain Club and the
NPCA, suggested that the model should be used to simulate how' each alternative would have
, affected historic flows (since 1970) and to qualitatively analyze probable environmental impacts
of the flows, Other technical study needs recommended by the !NPCA were to establish ,the
feasibility of altering operating criteria and to conduct hydrologic analyses. They requested that
high' priority be given for preparation ofa draft hydrologic analysis, and that' it ,should' be sent
to interested parties for evaluatiofl(see also Item 13),

To assess the effectiveness of various actions on protecting natural resources of the Black
c:anyon, the EllA suggested that aquatic "biocriteria" should bedevelbpe<L' The NPCAthought
that we should inventory .and document ,optimum flows needed to protect Black Canyon ,and
Gunnison Gorge values, The Sierra Club was concerned that: analyses would address the
relationship between the quantities of water expected and the reso~rce values for which they are
requested, . The Sierra Club wrote that "alternatives should be evali\ated that mimic natural flow
, regime to the greatest ~xtent possible,,, to meet the needs for aquatic habitat, maint~nanceof
riparian veg~tation,and whitewater and fishing recreation. "

(3unnison participants thought that an equitable unit of measure is needed to balance impacts oil
river and reservoir recreation, and CRWCD suggestedth~ NPS shQuld assess the need for Black,
Canyon flows versus impacts on recreational values at Curecanti on the basis of visitor-daYs.

Benefit/cost analyses suggestions for contract alternatives ranged from the need to identify
"benefits to people" to the need.to identjfy costs associated with lost hydropower revenues. The "
Montrose Economic Development Council generally requested ,research and ,discussion of all
en,:,ironmental and economic cQsts and implications, and Gum\ison and Montrose meeting
participants requested a benefitlcostanalysis which would identify when environmental and

24