Laserfiche WebLink
<br />(::.: <br /> <br />needs must be responsive to identifying impacts of alternative actions. The alternatives should <br />clearly reflect the hard choices involved in allocating limited water supplies between competing <br />and compatible uses, <br /> <br />C. Comparative Analysis <br /> <br />Item U. <br /> <br />Evaluation CriteriaIMethods - Suggestions included methods and criteria to <br />comparatively analyze and evaluate the alternatives, <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; the Colorado Mountain Club; CRWCD; <br />EPA; the NPCA; Commissioner Corey; the Montrose Economic Development Council; <br />Montrose Partners; the Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; the Sierra Club; <br />UGRWCD, (39 comments) <br /> <br />Comments expressed interest in and suggestions for analyzing and evaluating alternatives upon <br />which selection of a preferred alternative could be based, Gunnison meeting participants, the <br />Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement, the UGRWCD and the NPCA all <br />supported completion and use of the Gunnison Planning Model to evaluate the effects of contract <br />releases on water uses throughout the Gunnison Basin, The Colorado Mountain Club and the <br />NPCA, suggested that the model should be used to simulate how each alternative would have <br />affected historic flows (since 1970) and to qualitatively analyze probable environmental impacts <br />of the flows, Other technical study needs recommended by the NPCA were to establish the <br />, feasibility of altering operating criteria and to conduct hydrologic analyses. They requested that <br />high priority be given for preparation of a draft hydrologic analysis, and that it should be sent <br />to interested parties for evaluation (see also Item 13). <br /> <br />To assess the effectiveness of various actions on protecting natural resources of the Black <br />Canyon, the EPA suggested that aquatic "biocriteria" should be developed. The NPCA thought <br />that we should inventory and document optimum flows needed to protect Black Canyon and <br />Gunnison Gorge values. The Sierra Club was concerned that analyses would address the <br />relationship between the quantities of water expected and the resource values for which they are <br />requested, The Sierra Club wrote that "alternatives should be evaluated that mimic natural flow <br />regime to the greatest extent possible... to meet the needs for aquatic habitat, maintenance of <br />riparian vegetation, and whitewater and fishing recreation," <br /> <br />Gunnison participants thought that an equitable unit of measure is needed to balance impacts on <br />river and reservoir recreation, and CRWCD suggested the NPS should assess the need fOT Black <br />Canyon flows versus impacts on recreational values at Ctirecanti on the basis of visitor-days, <br /> <br />Benefit/cost analyses suggestions for contract alternatives ranged from the need to identify <br />"benefits to people" to the need to identify costs associated with lost hydropower revenues. The <br />Montrose Economic Development Council generally requested research and discussion of all <br />environmental and economic costs and implications, and Gunnison and Montrose meeting <br />participants requested a benefit/cost analysis which would identify when environmental and <br /> <br />24 <br />