Binder 8. Gunnison study. TSC and AC. Volume I

(1)

(2)

53

1981

■"t COLORADO WATER RESOURCES &

.s: POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Logan Tower BIdg. - Suite 620, 1580 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80203 303/830-1550

ADVISORY COWITTEE MEETING SUNNARY

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

APRIL 14, 1988

A meeting of the Advisory Committee for the Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study was held at the Bureau of Land Management office in Montrose at 7:00 p.m. on April 14, 1988. The agenda and attendence sheet are attached.

The following items were discussed:

I. INTRODUCTION

Blaine Dwyer provided brief introductory remarks. He asked the consultants to keep their presentations brief and to concentrate more on results than on methodologies. This was done in response to previous input from the Advisory Committee and to allow adequate time for Advisory Committee

comments.

II. GENERAL STUDY UPDATE

Andy Tczap discussed the consultants' current activities and said that the study is approximately two months behind schedule.

III. TASK MEMO NO. 3: DEMAND PROJECTIONS

A. Population Forecasts

Gary Hunt from the University of Colorado Center for Economic Analysis provided an overview of the methodologies used in, and the results of, the population projections. This included a discussion of the three forecast scenarios (baseline, moderate, and high) and their underlying assumptions. Comments, questions and responses regarding the population forecasts included the following:

1. Do the projections recognize the differences between the Uncompahgre and Upper Gunnison areas? In general, the conditions were averaged to obtain a reasonable estimate for the entire study area. However, once the forecasts were disaggregated, differences were evaluated. For example, the development of Montrose as a retirement area, was

(3)

Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

April 14] 1988

Page two

2. Will growth in tourism result in a decrease in agricultural

production? The study has not addressed this explicitly because a

detailed land use study would be required. The issue will be

identified, however, in the Final Report and a qualitative discussion

will be included.

3. For the high-growth scenario, has the effect of growing higher-value

crops been considered? Yes, the forecasts permits change in crop mix

towards higher valued crops, but there is not a listing by specific

crop type. The aggregate crop forecast is based not on physical

quantities, but real dollar values which would increase if

higher-valued crops were more prevalent. The real dollar values would also

increase if prices of all crops, on average, outpaced general

inflation. The forecast includes the potential for a higher value of crop production even if crop volume does not increase.

4. With regard to mining forecasts, alunite related employment was

included in the "other" category in the memo. Data on a proposed mill

in the Montrose area is being collected and will be included in the

Final Report.

5. With regard to tourism, it was suggested that the primary indicator

should be revenues, not user days. As an example, Telluride had an

increase in skiers and a decrease in revenues this year.

B. M&I Water Demand Forecast

Andy Tczap reviewed municipal and industrial water demand forecasts.

The high per capita water use in Gunnison (215 gallons per capita per day)

was questioned. The consultants responded that the latest data that is

available is for 1979 and suggested that the high tourist population may be responsible for the high per capita use. The figure is computed using only the permanent population, no tourists.

C. Agricultural Water Demand Forecast

I

Brent Uilenberg of the Bureau of Reclamation reviewed agricultural

water demand forecasts. Comments included the following:

1. Per Table 4.1 of the report, the average shortage for the Ohio Creek basin is less than the other Upper Gunnison areas. Is this correct? The response was yes in that the figure represented the average

percent shortage. The total shortage in the basin may be greater than

the other areas, but the percent shortage was less. Also, more

accurate data was available for the Ohio Creek than for the other

(4)

Advisory Committee Meeting Summary

April 14, 1988 Page three

2. The increases in irrigated acreage and consumptive use for the high

scenario are not reasonable. The response was that the high scenario

is meant to be an upper bound on what might occur with regard to

agricultural production in the study area.

D.' Demand for Power

Andy Tczap presented an overview of the power demand forcasts

including an explanation of the purpose of providing a forecast as part of

a Phase I feasibility study. Discussion of the demand forecasts included

the following:

1. Potential imports to Colorado from out-of-state have not been

addressed. The possibility of this occurring and thereby lessening

the attractiveness of potential hydropower development in the study

area will be addressed qualitatively in the Final Report.

2. Questions were raised regarding the relatively high growth rates for

the Gunnison County Electric Association and the Delta Montrose

Electric Association shown on Table 5.1. The table was from a 1986

Colorado Public Utility Commission (PUC) report. The data from the

1987 report will be used in the Final Report. It would be beyond the

scope of this Phase I study, however, to independently evaluate each

component of the PUC's demand forecast.

3. Regarding the market value of power, a comment was made that the

negotiated sales agreement for the AB Lateral Project was less than

the avoided cost rates reported in Task Memo No. 3. The response was

that power values vary from project to project depending on a number

of factors. These factors include: size of plant, type of plant

(peaking or baseload), responsiveness (whether the power can be

operated from a central location to meet rapid short-term demand

fluctuations), reliability, and charges for transmitting the power over another utility's transmission lines.

E. Demand for Recreation and Recreational Water Demand

Tyler Martineau discussed future demands for recreational activities

including national trends, local trends, and factors affecting

recreational area choices. Andy Tczap discussed the forecasted water demands associated with recreational activities. He concluded that,

because the consumptive use is low, the primary impacts are a result of

the timing of the diversions or the need for instream flows. Comments

consisted of the following:

1. Recent studies have shown that the percent consumptive use associated

with snow making is higher than previously thought. Present thinking

is that consumptive use may be as high as 20 to 35 percent with a

considerable time lag for return flows. Demands for snowmaking will

(5)

Advisory Committee Meeting Summary April 14, 1988

Page four

2. Given the comment above, the most critical problem associated with recreational water demand may be water quality problems during low flow periods and minimum streamflows.

3. Ralph Clark's projection showed a decrease in recreation in the future. Mr. Clark responded that the forecast is in draft form and consists of a compilation or summary of other reports or forecasts.

4. Table 7.5 shows each county with the same percent growth rate but Gunnison and Ouray Counties should be higher than Delta County. The Final Report will note that the percent increase is equal for each county, which infers that the Tourist Board has taken a simplified

approach.

IV. APPLICATION OF DEMAND SCENARIOS

Elaine Dwyer discussed an April 4 letter from HDR that was sent to the Advisory Committee with a memo dated April 5. The letter recommended the following:

1. Use the moderate demand forecasts in the hydrologic model when evaluating alternative plans.

2. After the recommended plan is identified, perform hand calculations to assess the impact on the recommended p1an(s) of assuming the baseline

and high demand forecasts instead of the moderate demand forecast.

The result will be an approximation of the difference in availability

of water for out-of-basin transfer after in-basin needs are satisfied under all three demand scenarios.

Comments included the following:

1. Hand calculations should be performed to evaluate all of the alternative plans for the baseline and high forecasts.

2. Scott Fifer, representing the City of Aurora, said that they have no problem with the moderate scenario, but they are not comfortable with the "unrealistic" high scenario.

3. Others felt that high scenario is not unrealistic given the total amount of water associated with the high scenario.

4. A question was asked regarding what was done on other Authority studies to forecast demands. The response was that the approach

varied according to the situation in each basin and to the needs of

each study. The following information, although not presented at the meeting, is included to provide a more detailed answer to the

(6)

Advisory Ccxnmittee Meeting Summary April 14, 1988

Page five

Demand forecasts for the Authority studies performed to date may be categorized as follows:

o On some Phase I studies, no demand forecasts were made because the

projects being investigated were small in relation to potential demands or the projects were configured to meet existing demands.

o For several studies, demand forecasts recently prepared by others

were used.

o On one study, the major demand was for water to be delivered to downstream states as a result of compact entitlements. Therefore, the preparation of in-basin demand forecasts were based on meeting the compact requirements without curtailing present in-basin agricultural use and to allow very limited additional M&I use in

the future.

o For two studies, detailed forecasts were prepared to bracket potential future water demands. Selection of which forecast to use as a target for configuring alternative projects involved picking a

mid-level scenario considering the level to which the water

supplies should be protected during specified droughts and other parameters that affect future water demands.

V. TASK MEMO NO. 4, RECREATIONAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN COMPONEffTS

Tyler Martineau presented an overview including task objectives, improvement categories and techniques, categories of streams and reservoirs, and selected stream and reservoir systems. He said that the specific measures that should be implemented have not been selected as part of this study. The following comments were made:

1. Dallas Creek Reservoir highlights the desire for recreational

facilities and the need for constant reservoir levels. Blue Mesa

Reservoir fluctuations are also undesirable. Reports should depict reservoir fluctuations clearly. Reservoir fluctuations for all major reservoirs will be depicted in the Final Report.

2. A suggestion was made to evaluate the extent to which recreational usage is affected by reservoir fluctuations. Shasta and John Martin reservoirs were suggested as possible data sources. This item will be mentioned in the Final Report as subject that may warrant evaluation

in future studies.

Regarding instream flow improvement, the following comments were received:

1. Instream flow improvement strategies need to recognize the importance

(7)

Advisory Committee Meeting Summary April 14. 1988

Page six

2. The memo identifies desirable flows as something greater than the

state criteria. The Tennant method referenced in the memo is an

office and field method that does not use stream cross sections as

does the state method. Greater flows are being suggested even though they haven't been scientifically justified and low flows have not been demonstrated to be a limiting factor. The response was that the Tennant method is appropriate for a Phase I basin planning study. The results would be refined during a Phase II study for stream systems being considered. The purpose of the effort is to identify flows that

would be desirable if sufficient water is available. In cases where

there are competing uses, decisions will have to be made regarding the degree to which each water use is shorted. The study will provide useful data in making these decisions.

3. Desirable flows for boating should be determined considering the percentage of time that the flows are met. The flows appear to be too high. The response was that the flows were obtained considering input from guides. In general, guides are not always familiar with the

flows in numerical terms, however, in this case, at least one of the

guides is knowledgeable of the gaged flows and is considered to be

reliable. See discussion above regarding purpose and competing uses.

4. Structural modifications were suggested to allowing boating during

lower flows.

(8)

COLORADO WATER RESOURCES

&

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

^

Logan Tower BIdg. - Suite 620, 1580 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80203

303/830-1550

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY AGENDA - ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

April 14. 1988

I. Introduction

I

II. General Study Update

III. Task Memo No. 3, Demand Projections

Introduction

Population Forecasts

M&I Water Deriand Forecast

Agricultural Water Dexiand Forecast

Demand for Power

Recreation Water Demand Demand for Recreation

IV. Application of Demand Scenarios

V. Task Memo No. 4, Recreational and Environmental Plan Components Overview of Recreation Improvements

Overview of Existing Resources

Identification of Potential Improvement Areas Instream Flow Improvement

(9)

4^

H-i-isyr/

x,|3|

^1P>1 p^"\

|j

*1'^ •--'^V^l^.orw^^vv^

-■

tPsmnv JO'Xns

' '

J^iW3 nyg'

"if

"ff

vwo-3 f2p»-v-r

'

■

^0 O"/^

"

Qon^O

"-'Mo>i op2

. - ^ ^

A

~3CW

fTO^^u-nrKg

f)

'j/ycy ucyi^opyo^

'

?^d^e/cV

'<7'^

^ //

'-t/'-7]Y^'^'^

J-Jyi"^^ ^-'X

<2/

oiL^^y

^ ndj:^) y

Xy^

X

^

^-wvionnp^ ^r^/rr^c^

klT^o<^ ncs\nfrspi:^

_il—

>

(j';/

-v^

-X^' /^/

" -^//V^

^

*a ^

yoH

r

'^7'y^'fj ^'opjp

jp

■--^■^'■71

)P^"^'/'-~^ l^'py-

"yzP

;&

'2 /

^'

^

(10)

1 1 _

'TB/yi

-tollman

^SlLs^-'.-'NK - --

v\ JT./^

9^:.: ._

I

/H>

0 c/i.^o^

„1hyA

. O

^

G>-'0/-? j O,/:j.

^

[Z^/Ori /O

)

y /

(11)

TRENDS IN OUTDOOR RECREATION

• NATIONAL TRENDS

-

OUTDOOR RECREATION GROWING AT 3-4% ANNUALLY

-

COLD WATER FISHING PROJECTED TO GROW AT

1.4 -

1.9% ANNUALLY

• LOCAL TRENDS

- TOURISM REVENUE IN THE SIX COUNTY AREA IS

PROJECTED TO HAVE A 5%

CAGR FROM 1987-90

-

COLORADO FISHING LICENCE SALES ARE PROJECTED

TO HAVE A CAGR OF 3.6% FROM 1986 -

2000

-

WHITEWATER RAFTING GREW AT A CAGR OF 12%

BETWEEN 1976-85

- RVD'S AT PUBLIC CAMPGROUNDS IN THE STUDY AREA

INCREASED AT A CAGR OF 4.8% BETWEEN 1983-86

- USFS PROJECTS 2.7% INCREASE IN VISITATION AT THEIR

FACILITIES THRU YEAR 2000

H 0 M

(12)

FACTORS AFFECTING

RECREATION AREA CHOICES

RANK _ATTRIBUTE

NATIONAL BEAUTY

AMOUNT OF CROWDING

RESTROOM FACILITIES

AVAILABILITY OF PARKING

INFORMATION AVAILABILTY

PICNIC AREAS

CULTURAL EVENTS

FEES

CONCESSIONS

ORGANIZED SPORTS

H 0 R AprH, ItM

(13)

POWER DEMAND ANin

MARKET VALUE FORCASTS

• BASED ON REVIEW OF EXISTING FORECASTS

• PROJECTED STATEWIDE POWER DEMAND;

THROUGH 1995 -

3%

CAGR

1995 -

2035 -

2.5% CAGR

I I

• NEW GENERATING CAPACITY NEEDED BY 1997

• PEAKING POWER NEEDS:

300 -

500 MW AROUND YEAR 2000

l)i}^

• CPVC AVOIDED COST RATE USED FOR BASELOAD

:

$17.84 PER KW-MONTH

$1.54 PER KWH

• MARKET VALUE OF PEAKING POWER UNDEFINED

AT PRESENT

H 5 R AprN, IfSa

(14)

TASK NO.

5 FISHERY AND RECREATION

H D R

(15)

FISHERY AND RECREATION STUDY OBJECTIVES

1. IDENTIFY A BROAD RANGE OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING FISHERIES AND

RECREATION

2. IDENTIFY OPPORTUNITIES FOR IMPROVING PUBLIC ACCESS FOR FISHING AND

RECREATION

3. THE PURPOSE OF THE FISHERY AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS IS TO ENHANCE THE

WATER-BASED ECONOMY OF THE STUDY AREA IN AN ENVIRONMENTALLY-SOUND MANNER

4. IDENTIFY IN-BASIN OPPORTUNITIES FOR STREAMFLOW ENHANCEMENT SUCH AS LOW

FLOW AUGMENTATION TO IMPROVE EXISTING FISHERIES

THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY IS BASIN-WIDE, AND REPRESENTS A PRELIMINARY FACT

FINDING AND IDEA GENERATING EFFORT. IT IS NOT A FULL FEASIBILITY STUDY

WHICH WOULD INCLUDE MORE DETAIL AS WELL AS AN ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL

IMPACTS. THE IDEAS PRESENTED REPRESENT A "SHOPPING LIST" OF

OPPORTUNITIES, NOT A FINAL PLAN.

(16)

FISHERY AND RECREATION STUDY PROCESS

1. DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES AND IMPROVEMENT TECHNIQUES

2. DESCRIBE PREVIOUS STUDIES AND COLLECT EXISTING INFORMATION

3. DESCRIBE EXISTING RECREATION RESOURCES

4. DETERMINE LEVEL OF RECREATION USAGE FROM EXISTING RESERVOIRS, LAKES, AND

STREAMS

5. IDENTIFY SELECT AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT OF FISHERIES AND WHITEWATER SPORTS

6. CONSIDER IN-STREAM FLOW REQUIREMENTS FOR SELECT AREAS

7. DESCRIBE AND CHARACTERIZE CONDITIONS OF SELECT AREAS

8. DESCRIBE IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR SELECT AREAS

(17)

IMPROVEMENT CATEGORIES AND TECHNIQUES

1. FISHERIES

MANAGEMENT OF FISH SPECIES THROUGH STOCKING AND CONTROL PROGRAMS

MANAGEMENT OF HARVEST OF FISH

MANAGEMENT OF FISH HABITAT^

WATERFOWL

0 MANAGEMENT OF WATERFOWL SPECIES THROUGH INTRODUCTION OF SPECIES OR

CONTROL OF HARVEST

0 MANAGEMENT OF WATERFOWL HABITAT

3. WATER-BASED RECREATION

0 DEVELOPMENT OF RECREATION SITES AND FACILITIES

0 MANAGEMENT OF RECREATION ACTIVITIES

0 IMPROVEMENT OF ROAD AND TRAIL SYSTEMS

4. PUBLIC ACCESS

DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC ACCESS BY PRIVATE LANDOWNERS

SHORT-TERM LEASES OF LAND OR EASEMENTS

PERMANENT LAND OR EASEMENT ACQUISITION BY PUBLIC AGENCIES AND PRIVATE

CONSERVATION ORGANIZATION

(18)

PUBLIC AND PRIVATE LAND OWNERSHIP 1)

Upper

Gunnison Basin

Uncompahgre

Basin Total Study Area (acres) (acres) (percent)

U.S. Forest Service _1,387,000 _141,000 _1,528,000

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

579,000

172,000

Curecanti Ntl. Recreation Area

State Lands and Parks

Division of Wildlife Public Lands Private Lands 42,000 18,000 5,000 18,000 6,000 2,044,000 324,000 486.000 422,000 751,000 42,000 23,000 24,000 2,368,000 72.2 908,000 27.8 Total 2,530,000 746,000 3,276,000 100.0

1) Acreage estimates adapted and updated to 1987 from Colorado Water

Conservation Board, et al. (1962).

(19)

^ ^

/

- /9^7

^<^5

^

/^tf.^;2=>

ci7>z=»/^

^

C:^^l/0^£2^ — /0=>p!=/. - jf^/^^^cis^

£-/C^eci^y<^

*=^^7 ^^JT

A^as//- "/^ A^-

J

^

<JdLr/L-- Z<7<Ee^J^<J

(ftcrv.

7^<^ <¥/7Ai -

/-^==;^j

/l/A-€ir^ - ,^Ai-^7^tii

P?<S'y</^//AyAy^'*^

A^O-'^

'A /^*^

£'c::7^'^<s^

~

^

9^ /^<S<^Cs

XXsSi-7^»^ s::3^-»^<s/f

- /A^.

- y<itA. y r J^yyi-''^ ^

(20)

-

/^>a.^' -v^ ^<s^cJ'S>

<S.

-^ec^ ^^j^^<E/^id'.^

—

y<sJ<s ,^=>—"^c

es 7^c£^»-^ci>^ /:^^<S

7^ <sa- //

- (!^,r^p=^^e A<s>->^\^ ^y -p^CcJiy-^ ~ y^^:ry y^-^af-/ yS.

A

7^

4-

c:cs.^

<s^

~^^h»yi<s.iyyJs'

4. —^

y^/oL

"y. .^y^ o

-•-v. v!?y^^

/6). 4£'yy:^/yyi<7Z ^

34^

- ~~4^/a.-y\-3'

/V. —^^£*'''77^.

(21)

5^.

Co

1981 -O

CPy

%■ COLORADO WATER RESOURCES &

gr POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE B/\SIN STUDY AGENDA - ADVISORY CGTWITTEE MEETING

April 14, 1988

I. Introduction

III. Task Menxj No. 3, Demand Projections

Introduction

M&I Water Demand Forecast

Agricultural Water Demand Forecast

Demand for Power

(22)

Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study August 26, 1987 Public Meeting

Study Overview

Study Sponsors

a. Application/Sponsors

The Upper Gunnison - Uncompahgre Basin Study is being performed in

response to an application from the UGWCD and the CRWCD.

The

Authority reviewed the application and held a public hearing on whether to conduct the study in July 1986 in Gunnison. A consultant was then selected, a Plan of Study was developed, and an Advisory Committee was formed.

Inj addition to the two study sponsors, there are 5 participants in the study. They are the UVWUA, TCWCD, USBR, CWCB, and CDOW. Each of these organizations has formally indicated suupport of the study and is providing advice and recommendations on the conduct of the

study.

Study Objective

a. There have been numerous previous studies of water resource devel

opment plans in the Gunnison River Basin. Much of the early work was performed by the Bureau of Reclamation. In 1948 and 1950, they issued reports on plans to divert Gunnison Basin water to the Arkansas River on the East Slope. In the 1960's, the Curecanti Unit of the Colorado River Storage Project was constructed. The latest Bureau work concentrated on developing water for agricul tural uses in the Upper Gunnison Basin and resulted in reports being issued in 1964 and 1973.

Today, the Basin is confronted with very difficult choices re garding the development of its water resources. Agricultural users

are experiencing serious economic problems, and tourism and

water-based recreation have become increasingly important to the area's economy. In addition, there are two proposed plans to divert Gunnison Basin water to the Eastern Slope. All of this is occur ring in an area where the residents are very concerned about additional water development affecting the natural environment

tjhat is so important to their lifestyles and to the economy of the

area.

It is in this setting that the UGWCD and the CRWCD requested that

ijhe Authority perform what would be the first comprehensive

evaluation of the water resources of the entire basin. Therefore,

the objective of the Study is to identify an integrated and ire financially

balanced water management plan or plans

(23)

- Meet projected future in-basin needs

I

- Improve recreational opportunities and, thereby, improve

the local tourist industry

- Provide some degree of direct benefit to each of the

various water interests in the area.

Spme of the more specific objectives of the study are listed in

the Study Summary attached to tonight's agenda.

Because this is a Phase I Feasibility Study, the major activities

will concentrate on:

- Generating a comprehensive water resources data base on

hydrology and storage sites,

- Analyzing future in-basin and out-of-basin water demands,

- Evaluating alternative water management strategies such

as exchanges and successive use.

The final products pf the study would include conceptual designs

and cost estimates for a limited number of alternatives and a

preliminary financial analysis of the preferred alternatives.

The primary function of this level of study is to compare alternative plans or projects, not to make a final assessment of the technical, economic, environmental, or institutional viability of any given plan.

III. Study Phasing

If the results of the Phase I Study warrant it, a Phase II Feasibility Study may be conducted later. Depending on the size and type of the plan,! the Phase II Study may include such items as: 1) collection of additional environmental, geotechnical, and socio-economic data; 2) refinement of project designs; 3) permitting activities, environmental impact statement preparation; and 4) more detailed financial investi

gations.

Therefore, you can see that this first study is a preliminary evalua tion I that would be revisited in much more detail in a Phase II study.

The Phase II study would be conducted after this study is completed in

the fall of 1988.

IV. Study Area

As shown on the map on my left(right), the area to be covered in this study is the entire Gunnison Basin, from Monarch Pass to Grand Junction. However, as the name of the study implies, the focus of the study is on the Upper Gunnison and Uncompahgre Basins. Only the Upper Gunnison and Uncompahgre Basins will be considered for project sites.

(24)

However, the hydrologic effect of any identified projects on the

remainder of the basin will be addressed.

Study; Management and Consulting Team

a. The Study will be conducted by a team of consultants working

together with the Bureau of Reclamation.

The consulting team is

lead by HDR Infrastructure Inc. Several other firms and indi viduals will be assisting them. These subconsultants include:

WBLA Inc. for hydrology and water rights modeling. Woodward Clyde Consultants for geotechnical evaluations

Hanifen-Imhoff for financial evaluations

University of Colorado Center for Economic Analysis for population and water demand forecasts

Dr. Hugo Ferchau of Western State College for

environmental analyses

Dr. Robert Rossette for environmental analyses and Dr. Robert Behnke for review of fishery assessments

Mr. Tyler Martineau of HDR is located here in Gunnison

and will be the Environmental Studies Task Leader

b. There will be two groups providing advice and recommendations to the Authority regarding the conduct of the Study. They are the Technical Steering Committee and the Advisory Committee. The TSC consists of representatives of the Study Sponsors and Study Participants, which include the following organizations:

- UGWCD - CRWCD - USBR - TCWCD - UVWUA - CWCB, and - CDOW

The Advisory Committee consists of representatives from a wide

Vcjriety of groups interested the basin's water resources. There

are presently 21 members of the Advisory Committee.

Public Information Program

As part of the study, a program has been implemented to solicit input from|local water interests. This public involvement program will be

guided by three objectives:

- To inform and educate the public as to project purpose,

need, impacts, and benefits;

- To accurately reflect the values and concerns of all water

(25)

- To assure that public and resource agency input is inte

grated with technical data into the overall decision-making

process.

In order to encourage public participation and comments, three public meetings will be scheduled during the study. Information pertaining

to these public meetings will be made available to the press for

publication.

The next public meeting will probably be held in Montrose in January and will focus on the hydrologic and environmental studies. The third meeting will probably be held in Gunnison next summer and will focus on the alternative plans that have been identified.

I would now like to turn the program over to Andy Tczap of HDR Infrastructure to present the details of the Plan of Study for the UppeH Gunnison - Uncompahgre Basin Study. Andy

(26)

Importance of Public Input

The last item on tonight's agenda, before opening the meeting to ques

tions, is a brief discussion of the importance of obtaining public

input on a study of this nature. Andy has already indicated that the Authority and the Consulting Team have contacted a number of groups

interested in the water resources of the Gunnison Basin. We will

continue to contact groups throughout the study to obtain their input. It is inevitable, however, that we will miss an organization or an individual that may have something very important to contribute.

The local people have much to contribute to the decision-making process. Therefore, we encourage you to make your feelings known; and we encourage you do it in a positive way. Don't wait until after this study is done to tell us that we've missed the boat—tell us now while we still may have time to address your concerns. Although not every citizen may be actively involved in making every public decision, col lectively, they determine whether any water management plan is accept able and is capable of being implemented.

(27)

TASK NO.

4 -

PROJECT DEMANDS

H D R

(28)

METHODOLOGY

• M &

I WATER DEMAND

-

EVALUATION OF ECONOMY

-

POPULATION FORCAST

- MUNICIPAL DEMAND FROM POPULATION

-

INDUSTRIAL DEMAND FROM ECONOMIC PROJECTIONS

• agricultural water demand

-

BASED ON HISTORICAL FIGURES

• recreation related water demand

-

CONSUMPTIVE USE

-

INSTREAM FLOWS

-

EVALUATE TRENDS

- DEMAND RELATES TO QUALITY EXPERIENCE

• POWER DEMAND & MARKET VALUE

-

BASED ON EXISTING PROJECTIONS

-

BASELOAD &

PEAKING POWER

-

MARKET VALUE

H D R

(29)

POPULATION PROJECTIONS

SELECTED PLANNING HORIZON, 1985 -

2035

GENERAL METHODOLOGY

• ECONOMETRIC MODELING

I

• TFS REGIONAL FORECASTING METHODOLOGY

• THREE GROWTH SCENARIOS

• BASE PROJECTION FOR REGION 10

• DISAGGREGATION TO COUNTIES

• DISAGGREGATION TO STUDY AREA

¥

H D R

(30)

HISTORICAL ANALYSIS OF ECONOMY

KEY ECONOMIC BASE SECTORS

:

• AGRICULTURE

• ENERGY

• FOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING

• WOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING

• STATE GOVERNMENT

• FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

• TOURISM & RECREATION

HISTORICAL TRENDS

HOW USED IN POPULATION PROJECTION

H D R

(31)

BASELINE GROWTH

SCENARIO

KEY ASSUMPTIONS:

• U.S. & WORLD ECONOMIES FOLLOW WHARTON BASELINE

• NET NATURAL INCREASE EQUALS U.S. MIDDLE

SERIES PROJECTION

• OIL PRICES INCREASE BUT DO NOT EXCEED

HISTORICAL LEVELS

• U.S. EXPORTS GROW

• FEDERAL GOVT.

EMPLOYMENT DECLINES

• STATE & LOCAL GOVT.

EMPLOYMENT INCREASES

• TOURISM & RECREATION GROWS AT 2.5% ANNUALLY

• AGRICULTI^^ PRODUCTION GROWS AT 1.5% ANNUALLY

H D R

(32)

MODERATE GROWTH SCENARIO

• U.S. & WORLD ECONOMIES FOLLOW WHARTON BASELINE

• NET NATURAL INCREASE EQUALS AVERAGE OF U.S. MIDDLE

&

HIGH SERIES

• FEDERAL GOV'T. EMPLOYMENT DECLINES

• STATE & LOCAL GOV'T. EMPLOYMENT INCREASES

• TOURISM & RECREATION GROWS AT 3.5% ANNUALLY

• AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION GROWS AT 1.5% ANNUALLY

• _{RESULTING IN ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION INCREASE OF 5%}

SUPPLY PROVIDED TO PRESENT LANDS

• NEW RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF 3750 PERSONS IN

MONTROSE COUNTY

H 0 R

(33)

HIGH GROWTH

SCENARIO

• U.S. & WORLD ECONOMIES FOLLOW WHARTON BASELINE

• NET NATURAL INCREASE IS U.S. HIGH SERIES

• OIL PRICES INCREASE FASTER THAN MODERATE

• FEDERAL GOVT.

EMPLOYMENT DECLINES

• STATE & LOCAL GOVT.

EMPLOYMENT INCREASES

• TOURISM & RECREATION GROWS AT 5% ANNUALLY

• AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION GROWS AT 1.5% ANNUALLY

• NEW LAND BROUGHT UNDER IRRIGATION RESULTING IN

ADDITIONAL PRODUCTION INCREASE OF 15%

• NEW RETIREMENT COMMUNITY OF 7500 PERSONS

IN MONTROSE COUNTY

• ENERGY BOOM OCCURS

• INCREASE IN METALS MINING INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT

OF MOLYBDENUM MINE

H D R

(34)

SUMMARY OF

POPULATION FORECASTS

SCENARIO STUDY AREA POPULATION PROJECTED CAGR (%) 1986 ACTUAL 2035 BASELINE 2035 MODERATE 2035 HIGH

44,250

65,100

86,400

112,200

1.9

V

.

REGION 10 HISTORICAL POPULATION CAGR:

1960-85 = 1.7% 1970-85 = 3.3%

1980-85 = 1.3%

•V cx*-^ (5) H 0 R AprH, 19«t

(35)

BASIS OF M&l WATER DEMANDS

• POPULATION PROJECTION

• HISTORICAL PER CAPITA USAGE WILL CONTINUE

- ASSUMES HISTORICAL LAND USE TRENDS

-

ASSUMES COST WILL NOT AFFECT CONSUMPTION

-

COMBINES DOMESTIC, COMMERCIAL & LIGHT INDUSTRY

• TREATS MINING RELATED DEMANDS SEPARATELY

✓

H D R

(36)

BASIS OF

AGRICULTURAL WATER DEMAMng

• FORECAST SCENARIOS

-

BASELINE: PRESENT CONDITIONS

- MODERATE: FULL WATER SUPPLY TO PRESENT LANDS

-

HIGH: 18%

INCREASE IN IRRIGATED ACREAGE

• INCLUDES IRRIGATION & LIVESTOCK NEEDS

• CROPPING PATTERN BASED ON PRESENT USE

• CONSUMPTIVE USE BASED ON 32 YEARS OF RECORD TO

DERIVE AVERAGE ANNUAL FIGURE

• DIVERSION REQUIREMENT EQUALS CONSUMPTIVE USE

PLUS LOSSES

• OFF-FARM, ON-FARM AND ADMINISTRATIVE LOSSES BASED

ON HISTORICAL DATA

H 0 R

(37)

SUMMARY OF WATER DEMAMn

DIVERSION REQUIREMENT

(AF)

1986

ACTUAL

BASELINE

MODERATE

AGRICULTURE

707,900

785,000

HIGH M & I

_10,250

16,300

_21,500

MINING ₂₅₀ ₅₅₀

1,300

TOTAL

718,400

724,750

_807,800

CONSUMPTIVE USE

(AF)

1986

ACTUAL

BASELINE

_MODERATE

_HIGH

AGRICULTURE

230,100

251,200

284,300

M & I

_3,100

4,900

6,450

_8,300

TOTAL

233,250

235,050

_257,800

6,100

H 0 R AprN. Ittt

(38)

. ""

_/22!l.

y^e■■py7^::>

. ^3.

. -^ZAMrt:pA J^Ji-AA,

P

■ I

y

<di y p^ 'dU 7 <^<3LAr ^'7^~<s:

7^

^<d7^y^i

«£? 7'Gr'^^e. — y^^y£>*^ A AD

A g^»S>—zgc^ ^

//

/A d-^ypp^/A Pp^

dL^p^id A /y<y^^<;^y^y7A^ - —

^<£i

" aA'

^y

AsLr-^^j^

&y^^'P'P>A- " dA^;^yc.^

'~

• JA—

A^ A^-^A /cAp A^ /A^ ^ ^' T7\P> ^

/y^A^^ /A^Ad

A yA^P^<-^.

/tA^A

^

/A^d, - /..^y p^ d^dAA ^yd/di dGHjSG

—

/i/AaÂ diÂp>*Â

^pi-Apd <iry^d>^^ 7-^ dAxeJ^ aLy<s<A. T'

pAjf, Â d<i>,^/dl - y<?e<s J AyÂd^^-^ydciS^ y AÂ^

^pc-y^^A - A^c^Ad/

yo^yA-Ad-^ ~y7Z:<^'.

yAdPt-

/Aa^-p^ AA^-Ay^d^A^ y'

Ajy^AdA ^y' ddd-^A'dd-'A

—yA^A"^*^

/AzsLtd. ^ &di,A^ y^£<d^did^<sA'A^ jA'^ ^

y^tdA

Ad^d=^d-^tsA Ad-yPi*^^ a>7

^' d-yd'G yy?^^.dGd.^e,

(39)

/^»S-

<^7^ ^

"

/lyL. 7^

e^

<^e

^

y^cs^^7^ '~_^y7y^y

.-^ /zy^O~^C:-*y^

.

/n

/

_ cyr^y J^<S^

J^!^/-^S

^y^^Ty- y'^U<

/4>r5

£:j >^(S ^yjs^t^'7^^ y^sJT^ ~ '^'/^

/

"

5J-— y^ ■>—

yy

^

>»^£C-K-, ^;»-n

iy<^-»y cj. ^5 ^

y^//^" y^yy-<s.

yy]tA-y\-<^~ sz-^

yA T^ei-/

//

yj-JT

yy^y

2.//^p='yicJ.

<3iy<=-ty, 7^7'^'^^ .s<^p>. /yy/.

" 7^-^—

''^2?e'»-' <^'^p>'

<S) t./~— p=^(^9^,/y\^

(40)

A^ :^«=c2. 7/^

tAA'^

^/AyA<^

7^

— ^3"^^

e3^s€. /"^

^<^e>^. — •" yy^'A

yi:^ <A^^yi-cs^^A -

. ~ - yV<*,A

^>^e^-c3L^<s='

At77

-' /7yA^

^

.

--T^^^ef^Ai «s <a. <=/

7^<A-'y^<J^7^r~~~~~-^

^

j

-X'

"

<Oe^A- A'

^/Ao^tTs

/j»*'7;e>.s5--"25

-'7^ /i^

/As'-A y

- cfAecz^A /TAl^y^A^

^A- ^UA JyiAs^ .

5^ c ^. ^'

-/A^A^

:5<=i// yA^y

/yA

(41)

^■7^-/^r^<s.

<^^a^>9-Tp=>. y^A<a~v\ y=>-7r&'i^.

7^ <y^ey e 7^

2AJ

/-s

^7>y^'y',

y<s. <n. £(7.

7^ -"

^

e<!B-»^c»

^ yiS-e.^-y7^^^~

y\ t/\.'^^ (^/T- ^ ^yeesi^^

/y^ :y<77 /*^a£.

'-yy^ yy^r'^'^ e^ yt * y^-~~

j»^e=:-t^ <^.:^7'C>—

/^.

^<Z<^<J

7^y- yy^-^^r,— et^

yrs.'/^ t. /^<^/<sS >V^ (1 • /^■3-7^

} y^i^vy^-CE.

^^^^^«=->-'lcs. t>^ t

/^<-^ ~^e<=-y\. ^Ayt.^ <s>yi .a^T^cy y/^T^.

v

-"^;!^^Z^ cyi^^

"^p:=*Se£>^^!^ y7<=i<Z-'ii- 77^

/^as^>£- ^»»^<*-»— ^

yt/^

" i^y- T-Ayr^/^yT^ /—/ /^^A T^A^T^ 7 i

/y<£t^ y2cA,y^

(42)

/\l^

4-/ /

/4

•yes'^^'-T^

£»/ ^Ji'x^l^ x>n{£<3-^ z'<1,g) ^ Jt::;x.^c:- ^JL

^/?^r?u^/Ji A><&y'^

~4\^^.

yi/^

-J

1 J /^

/

<s^

:jL/u.g^

,

/T

^

^y

s»^ — ^^'AtjsS

<#:e=^

/4>-^'^

My& ic::^<^ ey-^cJ e:3ld2)

/4^/yy2<£> yv-T^

i<^'=->^

^

e,>-i

T'tIs <1—

>V? / 1^ /ZM iUCA^

yyyj/»^/ x^_-wv^_ ~ z?'<^<s <2:/^

^•4'

^

y^p^t£>^-*~t- cv-'-—

^

y^v^^scJ-Lt^ <c. — /ez yi <jA <zxp-^S7^ ~

(43)

//- vCi^/C^^

•-^S2^

(3

y-^y^y

-'■yy ^

■

jzfQ'

^y^My

■ S 631^

^SsS^Vty^ - ^^-«=->—

(-5^ ^

'^yy

^ -^a^ys

- ''^/^y

'

y iy^3>

•}A<P^XP^^

/''^y\/

" ^y-y^e^

yy /^^

^

^^y':P^

x^z^SP

e.i^'s;^:^ z»y^

-^y

• ^Cytcf^ycy^-~^c

s^-cy

• c?—<£'^;^^

yy~-^ ^yp

■^ yry

y'

/-^cp(:2'y

_^

s><p^

yr^y/j^

■^•

y^ yp'p^

^yf

y yy

— '^

^■^y>^'p<s'^<yyy^yy

^y^^^py

V^v« ^ -2^

yy^ yr^

r-^pyy- ^

y^y^yy?

yL'yy^ y<^^

-^^/yy/^

(44)

^

K

I

\

(45)

EXISTING DEVELOPED CAMPSITES

CDPOR (under construction)

Hinsdale County

National Park Service - Curecanti

Developed Campsites

National Park Service - Black Canyon

U.S. Bureau of Land Management

U.S. Forest Service

Private

(46)

SUMMARY OF ANNUAL RECREATION USE IN THE

UPPER GUNNISON AND UNCOMPAHGRE BASINS FOR 1986

All Recreational Activities Water-Based Recreation Activities Fishin Colorado Division of

Parks and Recreation

(visitations)

103,000 103,000 8,700

Colorado Division of

Wildlife Lands smal 1 smal 1 smal 1

Hinsdale

County-Lake San Cristobal

(angler days)

N/A N/A _12,000

National Park Service Curecanti Black Canyon (visitations) 1,115,000 289,000 1,000,000 smal 1 225,000 small U.S. Bureau of Land

Management 1)

(Recreational User Days)

297,000 154,000 63,000

U.S. Forest Service

(Recreational Visitor Days) 1,132,000 380,700 54,200 Private Campgrounds (visitations) 62,200 N/A ni Whitewater Boating (included in USFS and

BLM recreation estimates

above)

12,000 12,000 5,000

1) Special Recreation Management Areas only

(47)

SELECTED STREAM AND RESERVOIR SYSTEMS

GUNNISON RIVER - ALMONT TO BLUE MESA RESERVOIR

OHIO CREEK

EAST RIVER AND SLATE RIVER

TAYLOR RIVER - TAYLOR PARK DAM TO ALMONT

TAYLOR PARK RESERVOIR AND TRIBUTARIES, UPPER TAYLOR RIVER, WILLOW CREEK

AND TEXAS CREEK

TOMICHI CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, QUARTZ CREEK AND MARSHALL CREEK

COCHETOPA CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES, ARCHULETA CREEK AND LOS PINOS CREEK

CEBOLLA CREEK

LAKE FORK OF THE GUNNISON RIVER

BLUE MESA RESERVOIR TRIBUTARIES

UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER BELOW RIDGWAV RESERVOIR AND TRIBUTARY, COW CREEK

(48)

it ^ *

CLASSIFICATION OF STREAMS AND RESERVOIRS

STREAMS OR RESERVOIRS CAPABLE OF SUPPORTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIME

QUALITY OR TROPHY FISHERIES WHICH WILL BRING NATIONAL PUBLICITY AND

RECOGNITION TO THE STUDY AREA:

GUNNISON RIVER BELOW ALMONT

TAYLOR RIVER BELOW TAYLOR DAM

LAKE FORK OF THE GUNNISON RIVER BLUE MESA RESERVOIR

STREAMS IN GOOD TO EXCELLENT CONDITION LOCATED ON PRIVATE LANDS WHERE ALL

THAT IS NEEDED TO DEVELOP A GOOD RECREATION RESOURCE IS TO PROVIDE FOR

PUBLIC ACCESS:

GUNNISON RIVER, EAST RIVER, TAYLOR RIVER, TOMICHI CREEK, QUARTZ

CREEK, MARSHALL CREEK, COCHETOPA CREEK, CEBOLLA CREEK, THE LAKE FORK

OF THE GUNNISON RIVER, AND POSSIBLY THE UNCOMPAHGRE RIVER

STREAMS AND RESERVOIRS ON PUBLIC OR PRIVATE LANDS WHERE FISHERY AND

RECREATION FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS CAN BE USED TO INCREASE FISH POPULATIONS

AND PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES:

PUBLIC LANDS - TAYLOR BASIN, EAST RIVER, COHCETOPA CANYON, LAKE FORK

AND OTHERS - 110 STREAM MILES

PRIVATE LANDS - 275 STREAM MILES OF WHICH LESS THAN 30 MILES

PRESENTLY HAVE SOME FORMAL ARRANGEMENT FOR PUBLIC

ACCESS

URBAN AREAS - RIVERSIDE PARKS AND TRAIL SYSTEMS

(49)

(Jp frj2/

jnf'^-<j _5J

//

^3

7^/5;?/ 77^'7ty

->71^(00

NosiNNnV d(?

4i/p

f^j^7^(/^

n~fl£l

'D O

^r

QO/^'N'aO

<^^2

i,l

^^\i(/

'y/

~acw

^^«UJY)9 /^J^

'y^ C/

'^'-^^Cl/

oey :^d^e/^/

r/

'C^<^ ^

V^-^-Z

^

^ //

'i/'v^^'/i-i^

jyy^y

07 OIL

i/j '^^y/

y^

^ yx^y?

-j?

^'vyyinnip^ :3rsr-»v3^

I^ncx^ ^cs^TV^(p|:^

vn)'y)W

i^o

-rsA^y ry:?

tP^

SO

:■si ^

3 r>^ sf-r

^^ypyp

^ 3" ^

^

yaH

e^'?e/

r

^ oj-L^

II --^^77

-^f

>/ //^

(50)

/WVT-^ /

^■ /O'^V

r^i vo^l

'5^'sn

^* ■•

■

'vV'p» ig2^

^^ouviTii:^ VviiQ,

^sj-9j|<2o_ hjji^:j;*/^

N ✓

(51)

Co

1981

a

■t" COLORADO WATER RESOURCES &

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING SUhWARY UPPER GUNNISON-UNCCMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

APRIL 14, 1988

A meeting of the Technical Steering Committee for the Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study v;as held at the Bureau of Land Management office in Miontrose at 1:30 p.m. on April 14, 1988. The agenda and attendance sheet are attached. The following outline surrmarizes the meeting in the order that the items were discussed. The agenda was rearranged to accommodate travel schedules.

I. GENERAL STUDY UPDATE

Andy Tczap discussed the consultants' current activities and said that the study is slightly behind schedule. The next Task Memo will address Tasks

3 and 5 which are development and calibration of the hydrologic model and a

comparison of existing supplies with future in-basin demands, respectively. II. HYDROLOGIC MODELING

Chuck Brendecke of WBLA presented an overview of the hydrologic modeling

done to date. He stated that the model has been calibrated and he discussed

the preliminary results of Task 6. There are no large M&I shortages, but

there are shortages in the agricultural sector. Chuck gave surmiary of the

agricultural shortages by listing the number of years that shortages occurred

and the magnitude of the average shortage for each subbasin.

Selection of conditional decrees to be included in future modeling is

still being finalized. It was suggested that the initial modeling be

performed without Brush Creek Reservoir to provide data on the current

situation in the basin.

Regarding instream flows. Chuck reported that the preliminary results

show widespread instream flow deficiencies on Ohio, Tomichi and Cochetopa

Creeks. Instream flow modeling for the Black Canyon was performed as outlined

in a previous memo and the 300 cfs flow is maintained (albeit barely in 1957)

throughout the study period.

III.TASK l€MO NO. 3 - DEMAND PROJECTIONS

Gary Hunt from the University of Colorado Center for Economic Analysis

presented an overview of the population projections including methodology,

alternative scenarios (baseline, moderate, and high), and results. Andy Tczap

and Brent Uilenberg (USBR - Grand Junction) made similar presentations for M&I

and agricultural demand forecasts. Andy also discussed power demand forecasts

and said they are recommending the use of a 2.5% compound annual growth rate.

(52)

Technical Steering Meeting Summary April 14. 1988

Pace two

Regarding recreational derriands, the consultant reported that relatively

insignificant amounts of consumptive use are required. Hov/ever, comments were

made that diversions for snow making may have a large impact on water quality

and instream flows.

!

IVi APPLICATION OF DEMAND SCENARIOS

Blaine Dwyer discussed an April 4 letter from HDR that was sent to the Steering Committee with a memo dated April 5. The letter recommended the f011owi ng:

1. Use the moderate demand forecasts in the hydrologic model when evaluating

alternative plans.

2. After the recommended plan is identified, perform hand calculations to assess the impact on the recommended plan(s) of assuming the baseline and high demand forecasts instead of the moderate demand forecast. The result will be an approximation of the difference in availability of water for

out-of-basin transfer after in-basin needs are satisfied under all three

demand scenarios.

Mike Gross suggested hand calculations be performed to evaluate all of the alternative plans for the baseline and high forecasts. The study team will review the budget implications to see if this might be accomplished.

V. TASK MEMO NO. 4

Tyler Martineau presented an overview of the methodology and results associated with the identification and evaluation of recreational plan components. Conments included the following:

1. A fourth category of fishery improvement method, flow enhancement, should be added. See page 2-4 and Figure 2.1.

2. CWCB minimum streamflows should be added to Table 6.2

(53)

:&• COLORADO WATER RESOURCES &

^

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

^ Logan Tower BIdg. - Suite 620, 1580 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80203

303/830-1550

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

AGENDA - TECHNICAL STEERIfJG Cai^ITTEE MEETING

April 14, 1988

I. Introduction

III. Vask Memo No. 3, Demand Projections

Introduction

Demand for Power

Recreation Improvement Opportunities

VI. Hydrologic Modeling

Model Configuration and Operation

Preliminary Results of Task Na 6, Compare Existing Supply with Fore

(54)

/9^

^

o(\/\ ^ L'ffirK^ 10 <

(Z^:) fo*

S-

/~^T^

'^.■■z-.--^j ^y

^

;>/.

Sn'o

GDrr^rlr

5. //ifi:'^ &0S>3

''■^.

s c. j, t / m

^»lora,^

n. L^rry Eju-rnsrad

HDR_

/X /3i// 'Z^etnpc^

Ki/?

13. l.R.A AC d ZnA'4"i

>= ^cs:

C^:3 !o

.'J0

/r/

-'O DTT'.rl,-r -<.\,'rJ~ o f

1 ^ r a. cJ^ to

HDR_ UC

0;^J{f,^.J,■^ _.■, / 'J^J, id I' " <•

/

-/ '

\ j-" C /■'O '\.

dZcyisr/'^^ df^,

'•>.'■■.■ ct■ i? ^ C

_{C-. J.}

CL^ 4«Lr a^-^S^ruA

iS bc^i-tl

/St ^akr.Y KtisAK.

^(d. -4/^ l'/<d>KiT

i

/

U5B^

/-OfZ^

HOf^

(55)

COLORADO WATER RESOURCES

&

S3

«:o

19S1

-<3

CP/.

^

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Logan Tower BIdg. - Suite 620, 1580 Logan Street, Denver, Colorado 80203

303/830-1550

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMP/\HGRE BASIN STUDY AGENDA - TECHNICAL STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING

April 14, 1988

I. Introduction

III. Task Memo No. 3, Demand Projections

Introduction

Demand for Power

Identification of Potential Improvement Areas

Instream Flow Improvement

Recreation Improvement Opportunities

VI. Hydrologic Modeling

Model Configuration and Operation

Preliminary Results of Task Na 6, Compare Existing Supply with Fore

(56)

-7 \ t >t« ~^aH

'■■a/

-Vf) j S>

5^fS>^

<S 1^

•cr j er^

^pv^^lr'!

v^Jop^

~>-^. 'Ipl7fv)

i '•■'

'^f '^-'f^

'Q

r~-^^r-r--'''*'''*iri^^

efirz:^

if

'-~^r-H2^2yi'l^ ^-'■Q^J__

l^j

x'y^//

V

'JIT'

A^aV7

-^/

'2}

II'QI Xt

p'O-^'PUJryg

'(I

^f.V

g

-^-'i^/yp

-s

SiOj^^io-y

If

y

■"pr" 'If

^

A

/h

lAl

4

»

*<y_

y

s&^/ y/

/fy

3>^yy<x^p^yy

^0^cy

'^s^xiyy _ i/e<:^^/

c^c^^yp ^s><iiP:^^

(57)

7^

4-//4-7^

T'

./

c^

C^/^/ v-L

.

cs^»-^<=. .- ^^tfrerejs_sr A./

7^

- ^

WVJF'

- <^^c <^~7^

— —

diT'

y^/f^ / *A ^

^^p&f

— ^•''^ - yy^<^^e

d/d'sfo^a^^ j..

(X&'es .syof-yad^

3 &]cy^ T^r^y), yr^

-^

- (TDA?'' <:Lyt^'^y^pcr ^ A

f

/Tar3<s.^ <T<ya/^ •7^"<^

'

/^/o /Jy\<ie>tv^^ /~^s>^-/Co td ^

"

d/y

'*'{^ ~~yy<Ta9^^ , ~

^

- ^<etJ ec-^^ ^<2i>'<:<®'^.

3-V^^^7#^ ei^a. yvx- y~

/^.«-<->S ~

/y/Z yfAoy^

9^/^^z/c3i.ye

"Z^^y

M/i

ZcoTZiG/eryva IGS.^

/?»</v/<=^/'S^<^^3^•

(58)

"ZPPPP

y/l/^ .

~,^.*^/4'^. "

/^<ZUs5^ —

j

"

<3;^<^zt>=7^c3

;p:>^

. ~ (^:r«^js•a^s. '^x*^—

/i4-x4<4c<

•^<2 tx- i .

'^O'- 4<^ - (4P-*x^ S>-ZP^:S>

c^<st/^

<;^p 4

cx^

P

~

.^p> C <=-/'^<^

'

^~

^

_ /iPea, d,

- .-<f <:3C

M<^ d

~ p> ^7^

jScx-^P^d

4 S<^

^^yys - p'4xv-> <S

cT

"

/Pt

' (dlypA'^'*^

y<ZTcxyty^

<PS<^ d

^

-

<S—---

, J

- <yy</

T^/P/ -Z^^PtP S^S

(59)

a-.:?:?

'__^ I

^=!L.

. ~ ^

/^S X>'<2S<^<S

/s^

^CB x-y —

es~/^

■yiCZ'^ e-^-o

^'S^tA.

,;0

~7^^ 2^ 4-

^

(60)

DRAFT

TECHNICAL STEERING COTfllTTEE MEETING SUM1ARY UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

APRIL 14, 1988

A meeting of the Technical Steering Committee for the Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study was held at the Bureau of Land Management office in Montrose at 1:30 p.m. on April 14, 1988. The agenda and attendance sheet are

attachecj. The following outline summarizes the meeting in the order that the items

were discussed. The agenda was rearranged to accommodate travel schedules.

I. GENERAL STUDY UPDATE

Andy Tczap discussed the consultants' current activities and said that the study is slightly behind schedule. The next Task Memo will address Tasks 3 and 6 which are development and calibration of the hydrologic model and a comparison of existing supplies with future in-basin demands, respectively.

II. HYDROLOGIC MODELING

Chuck Brendecke of WBLA presented an overview of the hydrologic modeling

done to date. He stated that the model has been calibrated and he discussed

the preliminary results of Task 6. There are no large M&I shortages, but there are shortages in the agricultural sector. Chuck gave summary of the agricultural shortages by listing the number of years that shortages occurred ancj the magnitude of the average shortage for each subbasin.

Selection of conditional decrees to be included in future modeling is still being finalized. It was suggested that the initial modeling be performed without Brush Creek Reservoir to provide data on the current

situation in the basin.

Regarding instream flows. Chuck reported that the preliminary results show widespread instream flow deficiencies on Ohio, Tomichi and Cochetopa Creeks. Instream flow modeling for the Black Canyon was performed as outlined in a previous memo and the 300 cfs flow is maintained (albeit barely in 1957)

throughout the study period.

III.TASK MEMO NO. 3

-

DEMAND PROJECTIONS

! Gary Hunt from the University of Colorado Center for Economic Analysis

presented an overview of the population projections including methodology, alternative scenarios (baseline, moderate, and high), and results. Andy Tczap

ancil Brent Uilenberg (USBR - Grand Junction) made similar presentations for M&I

and agricultural demand forecasts. Andy also discussed power demand forecasts

(61)

Technical Steering Meeting Summary April 14, 1988

Page two

Regarding recreational demands, the consultant reported that relatively

insignificant amounts of consumptive use are required. However, comments were made that diversions for snow making may have a large impact on water quality

and instream flows.

IV. APPLICATION OF DEMAND SCENARIOS

Blaine Dwyer discussed an April 4 letter from HDR that was sent to the

Steering Committee with a memo dated April 5.

The letter recommended the

following:

1. Use the moderate demand forecasts in the hydrologic model when evaluating

alternative plans.

2. After the recotrmended plan is identified, perform hand calculations to assess the impact on the recommended plan(s) of assuming the baseline and high demand forecasts instead of the moderate demand forecast. The result will be an approximation of the difference in availability of water for

out-of-basin transfer after in-basin needs are satisfied under all three

demand scenarios.

i Mike Gross suggested hand calculations be performed to evaluate all of the alternative plans for the baseline and high forecasts. The study team will review the budget implications to see if this might be accomplished.

V. TASK MEMO NO. 4

Tyler Martineau presented an overview of the methodology and results

associated with the identification and evaluation of recreational plan

components. Comments included the following:

1. A fourth category of fishery improvement method, flow enhancement, should be added. See page 2-4 and Figure 2.1.

2. CWCB minimum streamflows should be added to Table 6.2

(62)

22 lib R3 1981 -O w

COLORADO WATER RESOURCES

&

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

303/830-1550

MEMORANDUM

April 5, 1988

TO: Advisory Committee: Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study

FROM: Blaine Dwyer, Project Manager

RE: April 14 Meeting Agenda and Application of Demand Forecasts

As a reminder, the next Advisory Committee Meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m., April 14 at the Bureau of Land Management office (BLM) in Montrose. The address is 2465 South Townsend. The BLM telephone number is 249-7791 if you need directions. An agenda for the meeting is enclosed. We will be discussing the last two task memos that have been sent, therefore, it will be helpful for you to bring your

memos with you.

Also enclosed is a letter from the consultant regarding the application of water demand forecasts. This will also be discussed at the meeting.

(63)

5^^

Co

1981

a

COLORADO WATER RESOURCES

&

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

303/830-1550

MEMORANDUM

April 5, 1988

TO: Technical Steering Committee: Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study

FROM: Blaine Dwyer, Project Manager

RE: April 14 Meeting Agenda and Application of Demand Forecasts

t

As a reminder, the next Technical Steering Committee Meeting will be held at

1:00 p.m., April 14 at the Bureau of Land Management office (BLM) in Montrosa An

Advisory Committee Meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. the same day also at the BLM office. The BLM address is 2465 South Townsend. The BLM telephone number is 249-7791 if you need directions. An agenda for the meeting is enclosed. We will be discussing the last two task memos that have been sent, therefore, it will be helpful for you to bring your memos with you.

Also enclosed is a letter from the consultant regarding the application of

water demand forecasts. This will also be discussed at the meeting.

(64)

HIdr Engineering, Inc. Suite 300 303 East 17th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80203-1256 Telephone: 303 861-1300 MEMORANDUM

To:

Blaine N. Dwyer

'

g |Q,,y

From:

Andy To

zap

Co/orsrinu/.»

. Water

Subject: Upper Gunnison Study

Application of Water Demand Forecasts

Date: April 4, 1988

yO/

^y1/A

H D R

Task Memo No. 3 presents the results of the demand projections which

we prepared in accordance with Task 4 of the PCS. That task memo

did not, however, address how those demand projections would be used

in our basin modeling of alternative project plans. This memo

presents our recommendation in that regard. We would like input

regarding our recommendation from you and the appropriate committees

so that this matter can be resolved at the April meetings.

Since our study will be considering out-of-basin transfers of water,

we believe it is appropriate and necessary to not only take a

conservative approach to defining future in-basin demand, but to

also consider the level of accuracy of our projections and to

account for potential factors which are not foreseeable at present.

Regarding the future water demand within the study area,

technological, institutional, and economic conditions may have a

significant impact on demand, resulting in either an increase or

decrease in that demand. Consider the following:

0 If another oil shale boom occurs, technological change could

conceivably result in a dramatic decrease in the need for process water that was envisioned during the '78-'82 boom. Proposals already exist which would eliminate the need for