Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Reservoir could be very efficient in dry years. While this idea is not incorporated into the <br />interim contract, it is not precluded. <br /> <br />Concerning repayment, ~clamation's commitment to reduce the needfor administrative calls <br />by downstream Gunnison River 1IU1instem users senior in priority to the Aspinall Unit is not <br />intended to create a payment obligation, nor does Reclamation envision this to be the case. <br />Reclamation will keep this mat1er in mind and study it during the term of the interim agreement <br />in anticipation of preparing the long-term water supply contract. <br /> <br />The term of the agreement is for no more than 5 years or unrilthe conclusion of the Endangered <br />Species Act consultation on the Aspinall Unit and issuance of a final biological opinion by the <br />Service, whichever occurs first. Thus the mechanism is in place to 1IU1intain the fishery flows <br />until a final solution is found. The interim agreement will cover the July through October <br />period, the time when the water is most needed for fish movement. Coverage for additional <br />months will be considered for the long-term contract. <br /> <br />The signatory parnes to the agreement have not been changed. Reclamation was included due <br />to their responsibility for managing water stored in Blue Mesa Reservoir. The Service was <br />included because they are performing the biological studies on the endangered species, and the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board was included because they are responsible for the waters <br />of the State of Colorado. <br /> <br />Related Projects <br /> <br />One reviewer wrote that the EA was flawed because it overlooked headwater storage projects <br />as an alternative to protect endangered fish during drought cycles. Other reviewers asked what <br />the effects would be of other planned projects on the endangered fish, and the relationship with <br />ongoing salinity control projects. <br /> <br />The EA was not revised to consider headwater storage project alternatives because they are not <br />in existence and thus not a reasonable alternative to fUrnishing water at this time. If these <br />headwater projects ever progress to the environmental impact statement stage, they will address <br />their ability to protect endangered fish. The EA does address effects on other planned projects <br />in the section of Chapter 3 dealing with "River flows, water rights, and water use. " <br /> <br />Under the Colorado River Salinity Control Program, Reclamation and the Uncompahgre Valley <br />Water Users Association have discontinued winter stock water flows through canals and laterals <br />and replaced the supplies through private municipal suppliers. Reclamation and the water users <br />are also studying plans to line or place in pipe laterals and canals in the Uncompahgre Valley. <br />These projects are not directly related to the endangered fish proposals although they will <br />improve water quality in the Gunnison River itself. <br /> <br />48 <br />