• No results found

Binder 9. Gunnison study. TSC and AC. Volume II

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "Binder 9. Gunnison study. TSC and AC. Volume II"

Copied!
204
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)
(2)

y*

■ 1' L* ^ ■

NATURAL

ENERGY RESOURCES

COMPANY

L '■ ' ' <

-'■I rj

;. ,fO rc.^Y T'.-

„•!- January 16# 1989

■ "

Mr. Uli Kappus, Executive Director Colorado Water and Power Authority 1580 Logan Street, Suite 620

Denver, CO. 80203

Re; Upper Gunnison Study Comments Tor

Dear Uli: iN'JVl. X'jf S3.

received

rjAN 1 9198?

Colorado water HmoWCM

Pove<

f^a-r:yr^,3rj^&eg i

ng

This letter is a follow-up to our December 14th letter

critizing your Draft Task Memo No. 6, which compares alternative

transmountain diversion concepts from the Gunnison. Per my telecon with you on January 12th and Elaine Dwyer on the 13th, we

believe the following changes and simplifications must be made to

have a useful study with apples to apples comparisons:

1. Conflict With Union Park Water Rights First, the Study

Group should recognize that the Taylor Park and Collegiate Range

alternatives would directly conflict with Arapahoe County's Union

Park water decrees 82CW340. Under this decree, Arapahoe has the

right to fill and refill a 325,000 AF Union Park Reservoir during

periods of excess flow for power and river regulation purposes.

Union Park's carry-over storage capability and the requirement to

help stabilize river flows during floods and droughts is a basic

reason this decree was granted with minimal opposition. If the

Taylor or Collegiate proposals divert the excess flows to the East

Slope before it can be pumped into Union Park storage, the senior

Union Park decree would be effectively negated. These other

alternatives also seriously conflict with NECO's Rocky Point Power

Decree 85CW96.

2. Study Of Water Rights Under Litigation The Draft

Gunnison Study makes a serious mistake by commenting on various

water rights that are (or can be) in litigation. By entering this

thicket with a state sponsored study, you could jeopardize legal

proceedings and cause challenge of senior rights which may be

underutilized. We strongly

transmountain alternatives be

environmental facts only.

recommend your study's comparison of limited to physical engineering and 3. Surplus Gunnison Water The most significant value of your Draft Study is the identification of at least 150,000 acre ,feet of surplus Upper Gunnison water that could be exported without impacting current or future in basin needs. A more detailed consumptive use study would probably show this volume to

be less than half the true surplus. However, the Draft reconfirms

the large potential identified in the older studies.

(3)

4. Diversion Volumes

Your Draft uses a wide variety of

water diversion volumes based on different studies and assumptions

by the various project proponents and others. To start with a

common denominator for all alternatives/ suggest the Colorado

Water Conservation Board's minimums below Taylor Dam be used with

50% and 100% summer flow increases for a sensitivity analysis.

The divertible yields would be the same for each Taylor River

alternative/ except for Union Park's Lottis Creek addition.

5. End

User

Your

Draft

compares water diversion

alternatives without identifying an end

user. This

is

a

meaningless and misleading exercise/ because the total system must

be considered. Metro Denver is the only logical end user* and for

study purposes/ the Gunnison alternatives can be readily computer

simulated with the existing Metro Denver facilities. The Corps of

Engineers has already calculated the safe yield increase of Union

Park when used to augment Metro Denver's existing system. This

same computer model/ which was developed by your Gunnison Study

hydrologists/ could be readily used to compare the other Gunnison

alternatives.

6. Cyclical Water Storage The primary value of the Union

Park alternative is to provide long term cyclical water storage at

high altitude for both slopes. For study purposes/ the value of

this carry-over drought insurance water can be arbitrarily set

between 5 to 10 times the^value of seasonal flood flows. To have

a meaningful comparison/ the other Gunnison diversion alternatives

must be upgraded to provide the same water storage and high volume

delivery capabilities as Union Park. If the comparable storage is

at lower altitude on both slopes, the cumulative volume should be

greater than Union Park to compensate for higher evaporation and

loss of flexibility. All of the alternatives should also be

upgraded to match the 2000 AF per day delivery capability of Union

Park.

7. Coating Criteria

Your use of Bureau of Reclamation

costing criteria is not realistic. Our engineers' and the Corps'

current estimates of darn, tunneling, pipe, and equipment costs are

substantially below the standard planning costs for BOR projects.

Current industry accepted planning factors are readily available.

A

standard 25% contingency add on is adequate for preliminary

study purposes. All costing should be done in 1985 dollars to

provide for a direct comparison with the Metro Denver EIS data.

An inflation factor can be easily footnoted to show 1989 figures.

8. Cost Of High Flow Augmentation The Union Park concept

only releases water to both slopes in dry periods when the natural

river flows are low. The other alternatives divert on a year

round basis, which will add to flood flows and channel erosion.

The cost of channel stabilization should be included.

9. Power Values And Coats Union Park can help guarantee

(4)

adequate multi-year drought flows on both slops. This ppability

would have major power values for the BOR.

union

of existing South Plate dams would also

Park, and should be included in the Gunnpon Study benefits. The

cost of union Park's pumped storage feature should

under federal guidelines for evaluating multipurpose

power projects.

in. Environmental Enhancement

The value of Union

high altitude storage should be considered for its environpntal

enhancLLt of the Gunnison, South Pljtte, and Arkansas during

multi-year droughts. The indirect benefits for the Upp

should also be included.

11. Balanced Water Use

The Gunnison Study

J^ate

sponsored. The Study should emphasize the

° « irtni-4nuina

Of the untapped Gunnison's surplus wapr, instead o ^

the historic dewatering of only the Main Stem tributari

Me

understand the above points are to be

considered to help resolve our basic

at ^our

Study. Ab Watts, Dale Raitt, and I will

® -Lver

meeting planned for January 23rd at 1 P.M. Suggest representativer

from Ebasco and Arapahoe County be included.

Me sincerely believe Task Memo No, 6 can

be

readily

simplified into a very valuable and timely

Colorado with very little increase in cost. Copies of

J;®"

are being sent to the indicated parties for time and efficiency

reasons.

Since^ly,

Allen D. (Dave) Miller

President

ADM/bm

A1 Thelen, Bob Krassa, Andy Andrews, Andy Tzap, Walt Pite,

(5)

IN REPLY REFER TO

United States Department of the Interior

NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

CURECANTI NATIONAL RECREATION AREA 102 ELK CREEK

GUNNISON, COLORADO 81230

January 9, 1989

Mr. Elaine E>vyer, Project Manager

Colorado Water Resources & Pov7er Development Authority Logan Tower Building, Suite 620

Denver, CO 80203 Dear I4r. D^yer:

We would again like to thank you for the opportunity to be involved in the l^per Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin Study Project. As a major player in the recreational base of the Upper Gunnison Valley we have watched the

development of these project proposals with great interest. We also welcome

the opportunity to comment on the overall project at this time.

We recognize the value of enhancing some recreational components in the Basin as a means of increasing revenues and the areas quality of life. We are concerned that using a water diversion project to finance these improvements will result in a loss to the Basin of existing revenues and values generated

from within Curecanti National Recreation Area. This loss could well be

greater than the potential gains from the proposed enhancements.

The 1988 season supported our premise that extended Blue Mesa draw downs will

result in a substantial decrease in visitation to the area. In 1988 the

reservoir remained 37 feet below normal pool levels, causing increases in lake temperatures and poor fishing conditions. Campground visitation to the areas 350 sites was down significantly, vdiich resulted in lower revenue.s to

area businesses. Any water diversion project will increase the likelihood of

additiorial low vjater years v;ith the corresponding loss of existing revenue

base.

The proposed Needle Point No. 3 pump back storage project would have significant neg7itive environmental impacts on tlie Morrow Point area. In addition to affecting wildlife habitat, the facility construction and access road would destroy a portion of scenic viewshed along the north side of Morrow Point Reservoir. Highway 92 carries considerable sightseeing traffic during the summer and fall seasons. Ikich of this traffic utilizes scenic overlooks along that portion of Morrow Point. The large (10 to 12 additional feet) fluctuations in vTater level would likely eliminate the opportunity for existing tour boat operations on Morrow Point. These tours presently provide a unique backcountry experience for some 6,000 people per season.

We also have a strong concern for the safety of visitors using the Morrow Point area due to tlie increased potential for rocj-.-.^...des resulting from rapid

(6)

We realize these proposals are pre-feasibility in nature, but would like these considerations to be included in the decision and reporting process.

luoseph F. Alston

(7)

'flf

XpJZ

•>7^ '^ty

\yy

r"'-yY ,

^

m:f

'V

0^ 7r:?V"'

f

(^jryr

xr 'W

^

4

/T"'

71^'''^

y

rv<^'

'^(7

L

(yy /^yy

/T

&

f

■<-r,„^ <^'-Try/

y . -y'

I

Mj

■^d

(8)

AQ^^ /U

0

f/.■uf'^aA^

v) ^ /;/

^

Cr^(^

\J>

:6 ^ ,

//

// // r "l/L *—i^]

a X

U f'7f ^

// y

WV-O

i:^.

(9)

January 7, 1989

Andrew Tczajy, Project Manager

HDR Engineering^ Inc.

Suite 300

303 East 17th St.

Denver, Colorado 80203-1256 Dear Andy:

I have reviewed the manuscript which you have furnished me. Specifically,

you requested I review Chapter 13 and to outline the scope of work which is

anticipated to address the next step with Alternative 5 (recreational development

plus a dam on Ohio Creek and Tomichi Creek).

Considering your primary funding was prioritized for modeling and engineering,

and little funding was utilized to generate new environmental information, your ^

report is acceptable. The report is generic and does not provide the basis for '

^^how you reached your conclusions. Therefore, in substance, I have no basis for

^disagreeing with your conclusions, and since I have no additional data, I cannot

disagree with your conclusions. As an ecologist familiar with the areas in question,

intuitively, I cannot disagree.

Throughout the document, you use the term''"environmental enhancement" in a • manner which has troubled me and which I have so statecr, and in a manner which is

unacceptable to me as an ecologist. You consider environmental enhancement only

in the sense of the human

enhancing his environment. In ecology, environmental

enhancement should first of all be defined in terms of natural systems, and then

the determination is made whether or not the human will be enhanced. It should be

kept in mind that what is of benefit to the human does not necessarily benefit the

the natural systems, or the total biosphere. In summary, your approach does not

allow any opportunity for measuring ecological cost: benefit,

have drawn is that I'f we can take our rivers and develop rive

ave drawn is that^if we can take our rivers and develop rive

The conclusion I

rside parks and walking

rails, we enhanced the environment. Nowhere do I see what the ecological cost is.

So much for Section 13. The remainder of my remarks are relative to the future

(10)

scope of environmental studies;

I

1. Unless a damsite is not feasible from an engineering standpoint, I suggest

you continue to consider all the damsites. There has been no scoping from

the st^dpoint of natural systems, add despite you^'havWaised the question

of ffsitand game, they represent a distinct minority in the natural system

constituency, although they have a strong lobby in a rather myopic group

called the Division of Wildlife.

2. Considering the first phase did not address it, I urge the next phase

consider the question of siltation rates and the life of any proposed

reservoir. There is no known reservoir which will not ultimately face

the mudflat syndrome. Therefore, I would appreciate some statement

as to whether this can be anticipated in 10 years or 10,000 years.

3. Rare and endangered species are mentioned and the need to address them

,in the future by the U. S. Forest Service. I do not know why this

group has any unique talent in this area of concern. However, it may

be more worthwhile to address rare and endangered habitats because this

is where rare and endangered species tend to grow, and the habitat is

more readily identifiable.

4. Because phase one did not address human impacts, the next phase must. i

Every positive response also elicits a negative response. If we increase

fishermen and gain economic benefit, what are we losing?

what are we

giving up? Is there really any ecological benefit to opening all stretches

of a stream to humans, or would it be better to allow private land to

I

function as sanctuaries for the species which are destroyed by human

access. There must be some consideration given to carrying capacity,

relative to humans

at what point does an increase in people use cause

a reduction in the quality of life style for the locals and a reduction

in the recreational experience for the guest. The manuscript indicates

such questions as impacts on transportation systems will be resolved.

Despite the fact that engineers can do anything, how the solutions will

take place must be addressed in the next phase.

5. All climatological data is derived from the nearest weather station. In

ecological circles, this is unacceptable. Each proposed site must have

a climatological assessment which can be modeled and determinations can

be made as to what the consequeese of various human activities will be.

6. The next phase must generate some solid ecological data. The data currently

available has little ecological validity because it was generated at

different times, using different methods (some of which are no longer

acceptable), at locations which may or may not be applicable to the

problem at hand, etc, etc. Sites must be selected which are at the

project location, or which are representative of specific sites of a

project. In many parameters, winter data is fragmentary or lacking,

and yet it is the winter data which often iS reflective of how a natural

system will respond to some human activity. Future study at any

recreational site or dam site should include:

^

a. Seasonal water quality

b. Seasonal aquatic biology

c. Current land use

(11)

.

e. Flora and fauna under natural conditions (anticipated).

"

f. Anticipated reclamation goals and methodology.

3;^ Inventory of riparian community, proposed scheme for maintenance

and enhancement.

h. On site hydrological regimes associated with water impoundment.

i. Animal management (with the recognition that game animals are

in reality the least important in a natural system) with consideration

of seasonal requirements.

j. Effects of withdrawal of irrigation on soil, vegetation and fauna.

k. Current microclimate and how microclimate will be altered with various human activities and in various seasons.

1. How change in land use at a specific site will alter land use

in adjacent "unaffected" lands.

m. Flora and fauna associated with the developed project and

how-it will respond when management no longer exists.

^

n. How regional groundwater will be altered quantitatively and

qualitatively.

^

0. Other parameters which are needed because of the uniqueness of

a specific site.

As usual, I am a bit late, but I guess I am a part of a group which also is a

bit late. Getting moved to a new home and having 20 immediate houseguests exceeded

my carrying capacity.

Sinc^ely,

Hugo Ferchau Ph. D. Professor of Botany

(12)

Hughes,

Duncan &

Dingess,

P.C.

Attorneys and Counselors at Law

1660 Lincoln, Suite 1975 Denver, Colorado 80264 (303) 860-1975 Telefax (303) 894-9239 Marcia M. Hughes Robert R. Duncan John M. Dingess

Eliza Finkenstaedt Hillhouse HAND DELIVERED

January 9, 1989

Colorado Water Resources and

Power Development Authority

1580 Logan Street, Suite 620

Denver, Colorado 80203

JAU 9

Ooivfsio

Htic-ufces

PcAVvT C'SVv'-Oprftsnt

Re: City of Aurora Comments Regarding Task Memorandum 6 of

the Phase I Feasibility Study for the Upper Gunnison

-Uncompahgre Basin

Dear Sirs:

I am writing to you on behalf of the City of Aurora,

Colorado concerning the above-captioned Task Memorandum.

Initially, City representatives have asked me to convey their

congratulations to you for completion of this large undertaking.

City of Aurora officials also appreciate the opportunity you have

extended for them to make comments concerning the Task Memorandum

6 and they would state that overall they are in general agreement

with its comments. Nonetheless, the City does disagree with a

few points contained within Task Memorandum 6 and wishes to make

the following comments concerning those areas:

* Collegiate Range Water Yield. Task Memorandum 6

concludes that the "firm annual water yield" of the

Collegiate Range Project proposed by Aurora is zero

(page 8-28). This conclusion is based upon information

in the David E. Fleming Report which states there would

not be a divertable water yield for twenty-three months

of the study period analyzed. However, as outlined on

page 19 of Mr. Fleming's Report, the reported yields

did not consider carryover storage in either the basin

of origin or basin of use. Aurora already has

substantial storage capacity in the South Platte River

Basin and will no doubt operate such reservoirs so as

to preserve some carryover storage for dry periods.

Therefore, the Collegiate Range Project's firm annual

water yield is greater than zero as reported in Task

Memorandum 6. Aurora recommends that the Study's

(13)

Hughes, Duncan &. Dingess, P.C.

Colorado Water Resources and

Power Development Authority

January 9, 1989 Page 2

reference to such zero yield for the Collegiate Range

Project be stricken.

Environmental and Institutional Considerations.

Task

Memorandum 6 attempts to compare environmental and

institutional factors between three trans—mountain

proposals including Aurora's Collegiate Range Project.

In this analysis Aurora's Project is given a low rating

from a land use perspective (p. A-31). This low rating

is based upon certain project features including tunnel

entrances and pipelines which your report states are

within the Collegiate Peaks Wilderness area. Aurora is

not aware that any surface features of project as

planned are actually located within the wilderness area. If the Project features are as we believe

located outside the wilderness area this should make

Aurora

Is Project at least equal to the other

trans-mountain proposals analyzed from institutional and

environmental perspective.

Project Costs. Task Memorandum 6 provides an itemized

preliminary cost estimate for the construction of

Aurora's Collegiate Range Project. The costs set forth

therein is somewhat higher than that originally

estimated by Aurora. Aurora appreciates the

Authority's work on making such project cost estimates;

however, as the Authority may not have had the

opportunity to study costs in as much detail as the

City, Aurora would request that the Authority use the

City's estimate at this time.

Alternative Plan Selection.

Although the selection of

Alternative No. 5 versus other alternatives does not

appear to create constraints upon Aurora's proposed

Project. Aurora would suggest the Authority may wish

to reexamine the logic of its selection of Alternative

No. 5. The Task Memorandum demonstrates the cost of

constructing reservoirs to provide supplemental

agricultural water to Ohio and Tominici Creek far

exceeds the costs and the means to pay for such

facilities. Additionally, the Study also points out

that all future M&I demands can be adequately met and

that there does not appear to a demonstrable future

need for agricultural water within these stream

systems. Therefore, it would appear Alternative No. 1

(14)

Hughes, Duncan &. Dingess, P.C.

Colorado Water Resources and

Power Development Authority

January 9, 1989 Page 3

Again, Aurora thanks you for the opportunity to provide these comments and extends its willingness to respond to any

questions that you might wish to ask concerning these comments or other matters generally concerning the Collegiate Range Project. Thank you for your time and attention hereto.

(15)

RALPH E. CLARK III

519 EAST GEORGIA AVENUE

GUNNISON, COLORADO 81230

(303) 641-2907

January 5, 1989

Upper Gunnison —

Uncompahgre Basin Study

Mr. Andrew Tczap, P. E. Project Engineer

HDR Engineering, Inc.

303 East 17th Ave.; Suite 300

Denver, Colorado 80203

Dear Andy:

PrLf-r P-sveiicor?iSnt

fV>w't^-^Fcworf)

At the December meeting o-f the Advisory Group / Public Meeting

you indicated that additional comments on the draft Memo. 6

should be submitted by January 9th. I hope these reach you in

time to be useful.

* From my perspective the detail given for the

alternatives, costs, assumptions, and evaluative criteria is the most valuable aspect of the study. I hope this detail

will promote and permit knowledgeable discussion of water resource planning in the basin.

* It would be useful to clearly define "Average Annual Shortage" (p. 6—4). I take Table 6.1 to say that the average is that which occurs in only those years actually having a shortage as opposed to a shortage occuring every year for which the figure given is the average. There is

some confusion among readers about this.

* I feel you treated quite fairly the discussed municipal requirements and projects proposed by others. A basis for their comparison is needed. There always will be features of any proposal which distinguish it from others, but these features are often difficult to quantify in' a summary. You made a good attempt to identify them in the discussion of each proposed project. No change is necessary.

* The design and operation of the proposed dams suggest

that they will not spill under most conditions.

Consideration is needed of the effects of this flow

management scheme upon riparian habitat and associated

values.

* An attempt should be made to estimate the types,

quantities, and values of derivative benefits from the

alternatives — especially with respect to agriculture and

recreati on.

Finally and personally, I would suggest revising Alternative 1

adding a sub-alternative to it. Alternative Number 1 does not

appear to provide a way to cope with the identified irrigation

shortages. All the other alternatives involve structural

(16)

page 2

A ^low of 1 cfs for a full year is usually given as amounting to

about 724 acre—feet. With due allowance for all kinds of

considerations in such a water use change, the identified

shortages could be easily dealt with by the purchase of one or a

combination of ranchs currently on the market within each

sub-basin. After briefly talking with several real estate brokers here, I believe the price of doing this is quite low and

financeable in terms of the water that would be made available

and in comparison with the identified alternatives.

If appropriately located, these land purchases could contribute to achieving objectives for wetlands protection and enhancement, flood control, and could provide replacement critical winter range for wildlife. This last feature might offer additional non—consLimptive wildlife benefits by allowing opportunities to view wintering herds. Neighboring states have found this to contribute significantly to local economies. The physical and

aesthetic consequences of "drying up" irrigated land depends very

much upon the specific site situations. There is available

research on this topic. Generally, by selection of lands within the flood plains, adverse physical and aesthetic consequences are

minimized.

If I can help develop or provide additional information on this suggested alternative for consideration, please let me know.

Best phes:.

:lark

uT^ne Dwyer; Colorado Water Resource and Power

Development Authority

Richard L. Brattonj Upper Gunnison Water Conservancy

(17)

5^

1981 -o

>

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

PUBLIC MEETING AGENDA

December 14, 1988

Definition of Study Product

Overview/Discussion of In-Basin Demands to be Satisfied

Identification of Alternative Components to Meet In-Basin Demands

Definition of Alternative Plans

Results of Plan Evaluation

Potential Financing Mechanisms

(18)

COLORADO WATER RESOURCES AND

POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

PROJECT:

PUBLIC MEETING

DATE: December 14, 1988

NAME REPRESENT/ADDRESS PHONE #

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

ii.

it/, u

/!

yji^Cr

i.

i - 2

OQ

X

icW

IT d -J»^

1/ V\ y ^

<

<■)('

^

'^J>

^9

jL

/iyy ^

o'-

r3c:>~/SSo

I^d<-1 (<^2, .4^

-A

/A 10 11. 12 13 TT^ tfKTer yy Co

H OfZ

Q-t^l ~ (3 <n:>

C/j/c9

4.i/c<yy^

lyYA-A^ ^ ^ y^

AiAj?.

Ml -ay3/f

/ ,^</-

ypry^'

y,-y/ -z-i-^ r

U

St ro>c .e

C0

ll^l- iL^lj

14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20.

e^V^AMME (-1)

fei{i-()5(eb

/uhaTL ai^

s-

/Ml

U-Cb ^

OM iZ/y

d) ^/A (T

OiTi (i'f-

I

"

A Mi

m-^ 7W~y'

4 ( ( yAi

/oi/-/ 7oy

2-7/^

A^ f J>

^V/

CpaMj &J.f'

I

c>

6^/f 'O^oi

J^r,

?:^L H

(19)

NAME 23 OJk REPRESENT/ADDRESS PHONE # L") t n V c-g^_ ~C5-<1) rr

£.

(d

( W-

/

^

/Ccp Ui/

6^!

-Z'06

i'i t_^/i

'"tT^.^vv-v

<r g u

^SaxJ-7/

(^/.y/-iH

g^y

-//

d

3D. /2^ 31.

'D> v 4

^/L/Z -t i Cfs.-

i-- ^ro I

^

g>y 7Z.3?

$,cJty C<^

($41

7714^^

<0

G.C. (?tv

— da-^, d^jY

?fr-

33-2-j_

;/i:f^o/<yi

7~KS^

tzi

-T^aJ

U5

z-/ 34. LciAj

t

35.

MM/Zk J~^gc)

AJ^r7/>A/J4c Z^/^/g/g

Se^cfH 'c /^IVL /Z

6 m- r

39. /^/cK Wy^<V/g/f^<yV

^ y\,t^ (^O

($7^.^ <(•

TTo

ic cJc^h/J:i

Zi-f-reiz

OL

f

h K 41 ■:^/ -ryL-o

JmJ^f3 5 JX

P

c,^/-'d;2j

a fc>v Cf7G..

Zv/-s?^

44. 45.

m.

id:

Q^f

//dv/PPrd"/!

■'i(n

Ity u-

\

i<LLf

^ VA^^33^

'7 A

(f'/l^ iLll

{j>^\( -(7^^V

$0^ '

6// - /72(:

49.

'^A <^7/ ynJx^^.r^ Cf^

6)U IV1Oti-t^ (h)

ToctA c

(20)

NAME REPRESENT/ADDRESS PHONE #

LlXL'<r/i

-

[

11 Ar

-* ,1

^

^

r r , - iJ

P

■ /

k

w

1

r

(21)

^

- l/K

tP

_-'«-5' ^-C=^?2sp^

-w •

7^

^^'=£<Zkf'^

^ y y

-p'^yp

//

ypy/'^'^y -

y/y^'^y

-'y^y T5^

yy/^ _

ppy

^yP ~

^

•iy/'py

^

y

^^S^^rf5'jk^5> y^

' S3(^.^^<=Zi

■y^-'y^d

si';^

--y /^'^-Op^r^y

py^ZP

"

■ S(x?^t^'=^t/«5'-2/

yi- '

e

-'W

y^pZ '^p"v^eZZy/

Yy^p

Y^'s^y^p

3<^ y'y

- p<P,

y/ppip ppzzp^

~^y="(y^ "'^^'^y

y^

o^'^Y "''^'^'^yppP

's^ 6^s

e^<^y (yis»/^^y

y ^At7/^

~P ^)0ZKZJ.

/^,77^^

~^y-^yy yi^

/

(22)

&-I

1

1

sy K

s

^

N

S

^

\

\o

. D

«

Q

ON

R

N

V

\

s)

X

^

V

\

\

:\

*

M

?

^ «i

^

^

.Q

\

\

NK

T

.^Ni;

^

^

<9

X

\i]

k:

s)

N>

5

X^

0>

5

\

C

X

i

V" A

X

X

\

(

"V

K

^

,5

v\

^

«

I

s

■I'

>.:^

S!

n

A

^\5

X

J

X

^

V

^

'

^

p

4) \j

5

>

lit^

V

s

vi \i

r

X

1

<y

(\-

^

Km

"5

1 ^ s

V^

(23)

2:f (7

^

^

jssuczT'

^

<PL^Si^

p'^P ^

■®>--«»^ r74>

^

'S'sxfed^p

p

^py

'^jpc^p

^yyVAA

$yx_

'W^^_

/^y -^^py

X^-PO^d^Af <r^^Y

^:y/^S^O^

!

■ 'S>'^XP^<^/^^

,-^3/2(3'- -^^AAP^

yP

y2;Y^yl'^

(24)

<S^?7 V

tSL-

n^

^«i£i-•

/^<^c::<a<^//Tjii xt^jE'?^ 7^<n-^

y

/Iz^

r7 X\

X/.

^/Cy<».^e A. dJ'^^'^G^<si^<Ae<y

~ <s/^<sr--

^£.4^J^<J/z^&y ,

(^r^cp<^/^r'

'^/

'jXp/ey/^ ^/

y^yyA^Jjy^A^^yn^

y^^/^yi^/Ay^ (Sr^ ^

.

I^7p'^'^7 yJ^y7/^'^

(25)

n?XMy>^

'54lA<?^tj

Ai^civ]

JaJ'A^Iv'

^

iUyj^ CAJ^CMa

y-Ci^yro ^j

^eA/^ ^-yUyt^ tyo KT^Sto^ h

J'

(?^iV-<-KS((rK

IA) fJ^Xo^

^

IAy\JLto^i-iiyi£^

poft>i^4-ioj5. /vi-C. (juaty—s

/Ot^

~ XvOc/c^ ~ft? Kvvee-I' S-4-.1

iciL<^"U^J ^

^hWjl^

^

/

^-/rrT^t /d^ctc-5

Alj-iA^hoOC^^ p)f^S cUy)

— (X(X

/'<^- Sa/<u«^

j2v^rTAA^ Kr^jtA/^ P\/\/yty^tL/ifA^ Ao J'V-vX-g/ ; (^|^i'^/(/6CfT^ (M.^rvyf-A~~gLQ ,

p 0Vwil>^-e- - jKjV A-ioi

i;^

j^Ur^Y'

C/'xx-t (c ~

•T'x£,-<jy

(W)

4-vi,ov^ ^4>t^—

^

\ Q

YSi.*-AcjL^ KA^i'^'^ "

>OrvA^iL~f~i pvtAy\,^<^c ^2iA\tj.i:X>

(26)

|M/oi.^^n-o-}—t/^l^ (aa^^ p) — M l'~*'V^ \AA-LaJ- yt-^AjcArr^^tpi

J p Iaa*^ .

/\<^pCt/j —

CAaacL\Ja*^CC. 'h? ~P^-^ _

AkxflLi^

. . .

^

-- --

- - —

1^

fQ-itArrP\^

U/r^ /W cJ~~4u*-uAa^^

^

P

5^f-fr-KA^c_

it-ry-i

P'^

-*tx«-<»C6c p<rv*\/^

(l^irxM^ f'-f- U/i^ i,'v_i./t^3_t,>^

/Q A/ix* (yj^

yit^A^^ ytfCwjf- C-^"^ _^-f-) <'1'^-'*:^ C<» yrxAA (yK^ JjiA^ y\x

^ZyY~A.Av-^ P^TT/ic^ Pfj

(-^-^

X-<_ C-in^r^^.AXi/-' dyiy^xCtt^

. . ..

J-%^ LrfAjc. On^ -

-Ca/* "^1 <-AyP

Hy(j~ pytA^

^~7o

ttj^ ^yjlAyrAyr^ m/

cao^ uo4^'

Ij\XalwXkJi

~V^ G ^

"P Kj^A^ ^c-tx^ Tc^t^j-^A^ Y^UlA^^Art^iyy' J^Urd. '-drJ-A^ &po^j^Zt^

fAzL^j P~^ :<

•^I'T^C/pA

V C.-f4/^^'/C^ rcLAT^— t-xM^ c^c^^iyoj cvM/(y^

(Uy\rt^

_p(AA. fZ-t/.

Vj^Uaa/t^

Q-\ tj/—

^-■t'Z/lrp^/lA^

9^/ik

MtL oj-

^»U<^ S-CC^r-iju-j ^vnm^ Pru^

'TUl ,

(27)

p-A.xxy{uyt-^ y

'^JPUyl^ — [AA-"-^ ^~}^L/^JU. /a~A^ j'^'-ZL/O

L-fA^Y'

^^

'^(j>

^Y^r^xAs^

'Z' 3 ^ <}l^(^^ai\JI

cP 2, i

i^

_

'v-i-'Mnf^xy\/C/t<-'

'Vz

j" In^Kj £>^

yU^MJ

^1^n5 lUlUXtC

cj^O^XZr^ 0^

:?-»^V y\XYijuAlJ^t^ )'i..-^(/~'

r^ xxiAMArtr*^ j^

Pp^/yv^ KKaX/-V^_

■__

T/i;;^ ^X/A-<y\r1rt-r -

tA^ okyi^ - __

l-^vnin

^-innrJL -f^-V—I? . pL^^^ly^JU^ Ul^

^_//<-a, KVvvX'^^tA^

CvTl/i^

aJw-OC^

(28)

4

o (S -V

4

I

-i

^

>

I

4

S

"-i

» S~> "H~~.

r

j

4'

5

>4 "7

<o\

4

M?

It

V C:::^ iii ■<5;-S S Vs. -fc

.4

'S

T

I

7

_i %u

(29)

r-"*^

~tr^^\rf-^(y

-Tpt*^ j/yinr

o

-ym-^ Qy^

-'♦'3^':^ t-v^

"ro-v^

^d-Q^ ^^--■nyj^Q

y-y^^i^

c^/^Jrvvxp i!^/|

'y^-^AAfCy^TiLlrjc; ^-<y»ir

""yvwW rv

(v^ S^~yT^

y-TT^

yiAq O

^-t-fvxAnr)

-y^C-T-^ ^<>v-H

-vTT

j v-WW

" y^*-p^Aj^i^^-iJo

■—

i-f j

^

>-^ yp^4^

y*—^

''"■•^''7^

\/j\^~tvj- e^

y\/f\fjUTf

^ -n'yri^

cj

"^^^■h'Vyyvyp

«ont^ _^'y'Ppyf

}Myh{^(i ci

^£V- /'l^

<r\yrt^ y^

wV3^-^r?^o'7^-)/p' jsy^

" -

-

-

^

-flH'^ ^-r>rvc\

-- - - '

7T^^c> -pcrfiT

"^^ajs

o^'■-'>/yyj~\

—^-5 y^r"?

'iyz^

<=yy^r^'\^

CLf. ^(aJ)

prfnl^

yo

rvMv^

o-M>

Y

r-y

"4^ '3'

> "."V

'Hi-tfy

(30)

KJ>

A?

jn^^^recS'

y}^d^ y

^

J<c.-a-u.ri^

^

Z'

'^A.y^A^ ^Ho

^ ^

^

CA..^iy^-X/A_ j-C^yLA yU^ ^

p^f^JJ-IK

\A\J^[Afi^ Urdjy^

Cpv^'^

C\_aA y\yiC^~'Ar^ I

pplAi-ty^-r-yP Cy^^f^P-xJVi^ ^

f^/^VCxK^

P U^-rX Ij-pyJ' UaJaJL Q<P pliAyC^-P^

WVy-^J^

KVjjUK -A) biu LMy^ >aoA-^ AMA4-v^

(31)

-y^

^yf\^(j

"/^r'Vy>y-^V

■'^Y^ ^Tr^i-t4^(7^-''^^yAi

^

ApQ

_Y(y^

0^ --w^

dS - c

f,

^YTp^ ^'^'lui

yjfY^tr^^V?]/ ^>py

Ua^^nynodio

yyzynrjri/ /yyyot^

<^ *-^}\^

'<39

A w>rvva^^

^ TvTYf

Ly<;^(y -yryY^

'>Wn Tv^

c^^irijjd /W^-'^^tT

-yy^'-yTymsj T^

'-^-rVYf Yfy)

yf yrp^u^

a/n -^-t,

^ /to

C}jJ)[^l

—cvy'ff'^/'tyyYY

^'<3

dAJyi^A}

^ QryvT«~.woi' t/fy

y^/^tnyD

pirJ^^

(32)

4

i

'i

A! - s

-:S

r

4

I

a

(JN

I

> -T V >

i

-f

4

4

(33)

^

(TM

oi 1/14^^ JI ^ ^-ip^

cdJt^UjLO lyiAy^ tMA44-/ C^ yt^

1

7^T-U

trj OlX (^

_ C^ ^^jt<^<l<

Ocit^i

li^c^ucdj^

n^^id-iAd/.^

(P^ ^4^ ^

(XA^ (y^ ^yujtdX'^

cdZy^ ftAAj

,

Q fpxJjLiy^ idjl~td~' 'f' dy^

/ixA.y]y-i\M>

__

/Uj^jyjy) camJ' h?

.jk^JM^u^ ufoXl/^ K^

-CXmJcs.

/4 hjpry

cC^aa^

^^44/ j2Ai

tJ-1'^A--^—

l^AA/^fAAiA-^p^

XjU*Aj

XI

^

0_

C)^ j-Ay\y^ 1/^aJA-J

jy

(34)

Six

tAyOh—o

fMyL- t/^ ol(jjlAJ^

C-^'v^ '^/(.-(-vt

Jhy^c^

C.j~(^^

iO-j-f^y-r-^,^ yZ/o^-e c/"

^rVrU^

^

i<xAJ^

'j-jWl^y'-J^

UA/l'i/ArT'Ay' p(AAr(AAyCf7^ "Q^A-yvKtA^

ffiyj(_^ c-^Lv^

jAy^J—^jyUrw^

Jc^w^ X<-<A<f

(J-Urt

l^A^/

7^) Jb^7^y(X- ^TgC^JU^ (pX-v^^A-^'y^

CriAy^

/nvv* oL/C^ji^

JT^piy oUiaJU

'-v

ky^syiA

I^^iTlj A>\J~aMj\jo

/ll<«/2>w :A? l^JXiy*\.(^

A^ A)y\.x777\,yr^ /^A.^ tA- AjL ^-y~AA=> cAji/ywxJ~ qcc£^ U

(35)

f2>lctu^

Cf-lA^iArxlA^

-^-lU-jL^ jQ_jLA^tirU^h^ _

aTertt""

1^

(fA?

cacqjl/^ -fo

^

'A-^^'PoUJ.

3

O^-t^Ji LcaM^ ^

^ ctAc Ap cAjlt^

\AM

M-r^. VtX( 4^ a^v7hJ?A/Kc

AAjl un^oUaaa-a^

O-h^Jy.

(^^aAma] (IaaJi/XQ^

(XaxJI. '•/'Al.

^

La-S-aA^Aai/^-^

A? ^

^lyUW-Sy^^ytA

(A-yir-AA/j

^AO/ [_y^ Q^XjjA^

■jljylA^ lrvOtA^O->

Lo L/v~-jP(pv ■/Aa:/' ^ '^-Oaa^—

^

y

57) \rApdUrA.

t^-

ur^ yf jAAApy

-(TV S^A> — (A\rO hy\yJiiAAr^

oj

v^La t/~ Ayi/

(36)

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

PUBLIC MEETING

PRESENTATION

DECEMBER 14, 1988

(37)

STUDY OBJECTIVES

1. TO IDENTIFY IN-BASIN OPPORTUNITIES FOR STREAMFLOW

ENHANCEMENT SUCH AS LOW FLOW OR UTE SEASON FLOW

AUGMENTATION TO IMPROVE EXISTING FISHERIES;

2. TO EXAMINE THE PHYSICAL AND LEGAL AVAILABILITY OF WATER

IN THE BASIN AS WELL AS FUTURE IN-BASIN WATER DEMANDS

(INCLUDING WATER FOR STREAMFLOW ENHANCEMENT).

3. TO EXAMINE POTENTIAL WATER AND HYDROPOWER COMPONENTS

IN THE GUNNISON AND UNCOMPAHGRE BASINS;

m

TO DETERMINE ANNUAL WATER YIELD, COST AND TECHNICAL

FEASIBILITY OF BOTH STRUCTURAL AND NON-STRUCTURAL

ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE FOR DEVELOPMENT;

5. TO MAKE A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE ECONOMIC

AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF WATER DEVELOPMENT

ALTERNATIVES;

6. EXAMINE THE TECHNICAL AND FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF USING

HYDROPOWER AND POTENTIAL OUT-OF-BASIN SALE OF WATER

(THAT IS IN EXCESS OF IN-BASIN DEMANDS) TO FUND IN-BASIN

WATER DEVELOPMENT COMPONENTS OF THE PROJECT; AND

7. SELECT ALTERNATIVE WATER DEVELOPMENT PLANS FOR

(38)

UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY

APPROACH TO PRESENTATION OF RESULTS

The alternative plans formulated to meet projected future demands

within the study area will be presented in ranked format; that is, they will be listed in order from the most attractive to the least attractive based on the results of plan evaluation.

An economic analysis will be prepared for the recommended plan and

possibly for the next most attractive. The results will be presented in a manner that will indicate the excess or shortfall of revenue to cover expenses associated with development of the pian(s).

The results of an economic evaluation for each potential financing

mechanism will be presented in a manner that will indicate whether

they have the potential to generate revenue in excess of their

implementation costs.

A discussion of project implementation will be presented which will

include: benefits of the recommended plan; economic feasibility of

the plan; environmental impacts, both positive and negative, of

implementation; and finally, the economic and environmental impacts

of adding one or more financing mechanisms to the recommended plan.

(39)

TARGET OBJECTIVES

SATISFY PROJECTED FUTURE MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL

WATER DEMANDS WITHIN THE STUDY AREA.

PROVIDE HIGH QUALITY RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES

THAT WILL RESULT IN INCREASED ECONOMIC

BENEFITS TO THE STUDY AREA.

ASSURE THAT AN ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY WILL BE

AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT THE RECREATIONAL

OPPORTUNITIES PROPOSED IN THE STUDY AREA.

SATISFY PROJECTED FUTURE AGRICULTURAL WATER

DEMANDS IN THE STUDY AREA.

PRESERVE THE CRITICAL ASPECTS OF THE STUDY AREA

ENVIRONMENT, SUCH AS WATER QUALITY, TO THE

MAXIMUM PRACTICABLE DEGREE CONSISTENT WITH

THE OTHER TARGET OBJECTIVES.

PROVIDE MECHANISMS, IF NEEDED, TO ENHANCE THE

FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF THE PREFERRED BASIN

WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.

(40)

WATER SHORTAGES AND DEFICIENCIES

♦ MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY; NONE IDENTIFIED ♦ AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY: AVERAGE ANNUAL SHORTAGE

(af)

469 793

1,413

394 89 53 72 243 NUMBER OF

YEARS W/

SHORTAGE MAXIMUM ANNUAL SHORTAGE

(af)

721

1,831

3,145

756 143 118 167 920 SUB-BASIN 3 5 6 3 32 32 32 20 COCHETOPA CREEK OHIO CREEK TOMICHI CREEK COW CREEK

HAPPY CANYON CREEK HORSEFLY CREEK

UPPER SPRING CREEK BLUE RIVER

♦ STREAMFLOW:

SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES ON OHIO, TOMICHI AND

COCHETOPA CREEKS.

(41)

Summary of Screening Results

Hater Hanagement and Conservation Measures

Component Screening Result* Remarks

Pheatophyte Control E1iminated Adverse Environmental impact and high cost.

Ditch Lining Eliminated High cost relative to

benefit.

On-farm Efficiency Improvements Eliminated High cost relative to

benefit.

Reservoir Evaporation Suppression Eliminated

M&I Water Conservation Eliminated

Technically and

financially not feasible.

Potential savings minor on

basinwide basis.

Water Rights Purchase, Exchange Retained

and Transfer

Potential benefit for instream flows and transmountain diversions.

Drought Insurance Retained Potential benefit for instream flows and

transmountain

diversions.

Conjunction Use of Ground

and Surface Water Supplies

Eliminated Technically not

(42)

Recreation Components Recommended For Inclusion In Alternative Plans

w«t«r Body

Gunnison River - Almont to Blue Mesa Reaarvoic Taylor Rivar

ceaoonant

Trophy-siza, wild

rainbow trout straam

fishery

Trophy-siza, wild rainbow trout straaa

fishery

Manage instreaa flows, improve

access on public sections and improve irrigation diversions Kanaga instreaa flows, institute

special regulations and provide

public access to 1/4 mile reach below the dam.

Blue Mesa Reservoir

Uncompahgre River below Ridgvay Reservoir

Study potential for introduction of large-size trout species Develop trout fishery

Research the desirability of introducing Kaaloops trout on a trial basis and implement if

results warrant.

Monitor conditions and implement appropriate plan whan conditions

warrant.

water BedT

East River

Component

Provide public access Arrange for public access to 3 miles of present private property through short term leases. Tomichi Creeic (Marshall

Creelc to Gunnison River)

Provide public access Arrange for public access to 3 miles of present private property through short term leases

Quartz Creelc Provide public access Arrange for public access to 3 miles of presently private property through short term

leases.

Water Body Taylor River

Component

Improve put-in and take-out points

Proposed Action

Provide 2 raft and boat access

points.

Taylor River Improve low flow rafting Modify selected reaches of potential streambed and manage Taylor

Reservoir releases to improve rafting.

Gunnison River - Almont to Blue Mesa Reservoir

Improve put-in and take-out points

Provide 3 raft and boat access

points.

Gunnison River - Almont to

Blue Mesa Reservoir

component

Provide campgrounds Develop 25 campsites

East River Provide campgrounds and

trails

Develop 10 campsites and IS miles

of trail between Almont and Crested Butte.

Taylor River Provide campgrounds Develop 25 campsites.

Taylor Park Reservoir Provide campgrounds Develop 30 RV campsites.

Tomichi Creek

Cochetopa Creek within

Cochetopa Canyon

Provide trail

Improve existing campgrounds

Develop 4 miles of streamside

trail through City of Gunnison,

3-acre park and 20 picnic sites.

Improve 32 existing primitive

campsites.

Uncompahgre Rivar Provide trails Develop 17 mile trail from

(43)

<,x» ^ M,

"oR" A>« o,, /

dt.l »* Bf4t\nl

w

^Jk UJO •" , POTENTIAL IN-BASIN STORAGE SITES

(44)

Alternative Storage Sites

Retained For Further Study

MAP ID NUMBER

NAME OF

PROPOSED RESERVOIR

COCHETOPA CREEK SUBBASIN

77 Lower Los Pinos

126 Pauline

OHIO CREEK SUBBASIN

120 Castleton

TOMICHI CREEK SUBBASIN

STREAM NAME

Los Pinos CreeJc Pauline Creek Castle Creek Sargents #1 Sargents #2 Sargents #4 Sargents #3 Elko Tomichi Creek Tomichi Creek Tomichi Creek Tomichi Creek Tomichi Creek

(45)

LIMIT OF STUDY AREA TAYLOR BARR RES. SPRING CK. CRESTED BUTTE , SARGENTS V NO. 3T-g;^ SARGEN1 NO. 4— -CASTLETON I CK

|p^ARj3ENT^

LEGEND ^ ALTERNATIVE STORAGE RESERVOIR SITE >! / NEEDLE CK. O / RES. PARLIN«/©

^

cochetopa

. GUNNISON LOS PINOS RAULINE

U»ypl QUWHtOM-UWCOaW^HOm study

STORAGE SITES RETAINED

FOR FURTHER STUDY I sATi: Nov. 1988

(46)

DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

* ALTERNATIVE NO. 1 - NON-STRUCTURAL PLAN COMPOSED EXCLUSIVELY

OF SEVENTEEN RECREATION COMPONENTS.

♦ ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 - STRUCTURAL PLAN COMPOSED EXCLUSIVELY OF

MULTIPURPOSE STORAGE RESERVOIRS; ONE EACH

IN UPPER TOMICHI, COCHETOPA AND OHIO CREEK

BASINS.

♦ ALTERNATIVE NO. 3 - COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVES 1 AND 2.

♦ ALTERNATIVE NO. 4 - COMBINATION OF ALTERNATIVE NO. 2 AND TEN

SELECTED RECREATION COMPONENTS.

♦ ALTERNATIVE NO. 5 - UPPER TOMICHI AND UPPER OHIO CREEK RESERVOIRS WITH TEN SELECTED RECREATION COMPONENTS.

♦ ALTERNATIVE NO. 6 - UPPER TOMICHI RESERVOIR WITH TEN SELECTED RECREATION COMPONENTS.

(47)

0«f1n1t1on of AUi

Coaponont

0 M»nigt Instrtui flows, Improvt acctss on public stctloni and improva

Irrigation divtrslons on Gunnlson Rivtr to davtlop a trophy-slza, wild

rainbow trout fishary.

0 Hanaga Instrean flows, Instltuta spaclal ragulatlons and provlda public

access on 1/4 rnlla of straaa below Taylor Park Oaa to develop a

trophy-size, wild rainbow trout fishery In the Upper Taylor River. 0 Study the potential for Introducing large size trout In Blue Mesa

Reservoir.

0 Monitor conditions In the Uncompahgre River below Ridgway Dam to assess

potential of developing a trout fishery.

0 Provide public access to 3 miles of private property on the East River

(short-term leases).

0 Provide public access to 3 miles of private property on Tomlchi Creek between Marshall Creek and the Gunnison River (short term leases). 0 Provide public access to 3 miles of private property on Quartz Creek,

(short term leases).

0 Provide two raft and boat access points on the Taylor River.

0 Modify selected stream reaches and manage Taylor Reservoir releases to improve Taylor River rafting during low flow periods.

0 Provide three raft and boat access points on the Gunnlson River.

0 Develop 25 campsites on the Gunnlson River below Almont.

0 Develop 10 campsites and 13 miles of streamslde trail on the East River

between Almont and Crested Butte.

0 Develop 25 campsites on the Taylor River.

0 Develop 30 RV campsites at Taylor Park.

0 Develop 4 miles of streamslde trail along Tomlchi Creek through the City

of Gunnison including a 3-acre park and 20 picnic sites.

0 Improve 32 existing primitive campsites along Cochetopa Creek within Cochetopa Canyon.

0 Develop 17 miles of Uncompahgre River trail from Montrose to Ridgway Reservoir.

(48)

Definition of Alternative No. 2

This alternative consists of three multi-purpose water storage reservoirs

to serve irrigation demands, provide instream flow enhancement, provide

flatwater recreation, and to provide some measure of flood control. These

reservoirs are as follows:

Ohio Creek Basin Reservoir.

A 20,000 af capacity facility in the Ohio

Creek Basin. The Castleton project is used

as being a representative site.

Cochetopa Basin Reservoir A 10,000 af capacity reservoir located in

the Upper Cochetopa Basin. The Pauline

project is used as being a representative

Tomichi Basin Reservoir A 25,000 af capacity reservoir located in

the Upper Tomichi Basin. The Sargents No.

3 project is used as being a representative

(49)

Definition of Alternative No. 4

This alternative consists of the Ohio Creek Basin Storage Reservoir, the

Cochetopa Basin Reservoir, and the Tomichi Basin Reservoir and the following

recreation components;

Manage instream flows, improve access on public sections and

improve irrigation diversions on Gunnison River to develop a

trophy-size, wild rainbow trout fishery.

Manage instream flows, institute special regulations and

provide public access on 1/4 mile of stream below Taylor Park

Dam to develop a trophy-size, wild rainbow trout fishery in the

Upper Taylor River.

Study the potential for introducing large size trout in Blue

Mesa Reservoir.

Provide public access to 3 miles of private property on the

East River {short-term leases).

Provide public access to 8 miles of private property on Tomichi

Creek between Marshall creek and the Gunnison River (short-term

leases).

Modify selected stream reaches and manage Taylor Reservoir

releases to improve Taylor River rafting during low flow

periods.

Provide three raft and boat access points on the Gunnison

River.

Develop 25 campsites on the Taylor River.

Improve 32 existing primitive campsites along Cochetopa Creek

within Cochetopa Canyon.

Develop 17 miles of Uncompahgre River trail from Montrose to

(50)

Definition of Alternative No. 5

This alternative consists of Ohio Creek and Tomichi Basin Storage

Reservoirs plus the recreation components identified in Alternative No. 4.

Definition of Alternative No. 6

This alternative consists of the Tomichi Basin Reservoir plus the

recreation components Identified in Alternative No. 4

(51)

PRELIMINARY

RANKING OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

ALT.

TECHNICAL ENVIRONMENTAL INSTITUTIONAL/ OVERALL

PLAN

RANK

RANK

SOCIAL RANK

RANK

HIGH

HIGH

LOW

MOD.

MOD.

LOW

MOD.

MOD.

HIGH

MOD.

MOD.

MOD.

IGH

IGH

IGH

OD.

OD.

OD.

(52)

Preliminary Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 5

INVESTMENT COST

Total Construction Cost of Recreation Components

Total Construction Cost of Ohio Creek Reservoir

Total Construction Cost of Tomichi Creek Reservoir

Total Plan Construction Cost

Interest During Construction (8% over three years)

Total Plan Capital Cost

Debt Service Reserve Fund (1 year debt service)

Financing Expences (1 1/2% of capital cost plus debt

service reserve)

Total Investment Cost

$2,580,000 $20,900,000 $25,936,000 $49,416,000 $6,157,000 $55,573,000 $5,507,000 $916,000 $61,996,000 ANNUAL COST

Annual Debt Service (8% over 30 years)

Annual Lease and/or O&M Cost

Total Annual Cost

$5,507,000

$179,000

(53)

Preliminary Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 5

INVESTMENT COST

Total Construction Cost of Recreation Components

Total Construction Cost of Tomichi Creek Reservoir Total Plan Construction Cost

Interest During Construction (8% over three years) Total Plan Capital Cost

Debt Service Reserve Fund (1 year debt service) Financing Expences {1 1/2% of capital cost plus debt

service reserve)

Total Investment Cost

$2,580,000 $25,936,000 $28,516,000 $3,553,000 $32,069,000 $3,178,000 $529,000 $35,776,000 ANNUAL COST :

Annual Debt Service (8% over 30 years) Annual Lease and/or O&M Cost

(54)

Preliminary Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 1

INVESTMENT COST ;

1) Total Plan Construction Cost

Interest During Construction (8% over six months)

Total Plan Capital Cost

Debt Service Reserve Fund (1 year debt service) Financing Expences (3% of capital cost plus debt

service reserve)

Total Investment Cost ANNUAL COST :

Annual Debt Service (8% over 20 years) Annual Lease and/or O&M Cost

Total Annual Cost

(55)

,1

\ 5 tl \ I i IMIIIIIil! 5/ N n I i 1 i I <! i 1 n i i I n i H n 11 ii n iiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiitti

liiiiiiSlilllilliHijiliiiil

!- nn??!nnn?n!nif!H!nn |( IISIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll llihljilliiiiilhi Q a — r o a >• X > X X - X a < > w >-a — </) — < X X UJ -> i 5 511 ;/) a (/) (/> £.

(56)

RESULTS OF

PUMPED -STORAGE SCREENING

PROJECT INSTALLED CAPACITY

(MW)

TOTAL INVESTMENT UNIT COST

($x10®)

COST ATTRACTIVE RANGE OF UNIT COST

($/KW)

($/KW)

♦ NEEDLE PT. NO. 3 720 644

895

1,000-1,200

♦ ROCKY PT. NO. 2

1,000

1,025

1,025

1,000-1,200

(57)

■TAYLOR RIVER EAST RIVER-ALMONT RESERVOIR-(Proposad) GUNNISON RIVEH-GUNNISON PIEPLANT -RESERVOIR (Proposad) TAYLOR PARK-RESERVOIR (Exlatingl <1—11 1 COLLEGIATE RANGE PROJECT WATER CONDUCTOR , ly ANTERO RESERVOIR (Ex tat log)

TAYLOR PARK PROJECT WATER CONDUCTOR BUENA VISTA ARKANSAS RIVER

/

LOTTIS CREEK

BLUE MESA / TAYLOR PARK WATER CONDUCTOR (Taylor Park Project Variation)

UNION PARK RESERVOIR IPropoaad) CENTRAL COLORADO PROJECT (Modified) Water Conductor

UNION PARK PROJECT WATER CONDUCTOR SAL IDA \ BLUE MESA RESERVOIR (ExtatlngI TOMICHI

CREEK-COioa*oo wAtan naaowacat

AMO oavtiorMfMi miimomiv

W»«l» OUIIIIHOM-UMCOMPAMQWC «TUDV alternative transbasin

EXPORT PROJECTS

(58)

UPPER TAYLOR RIVER BASIN YIELD ANALYSIS

ASSUMFTJO/^

- ASSUMED MINIMUM ALLOWABLE RESERVOIR

LEVEL OF 9,268 (23,400 AF). INSTREAM FLOW NEEDS CAN DRAW RESERVOIR

BELOW THAT BUT EXPORTS CANNOT.

kl:>lkvuik

* OfyER3K>^/iA7F - EAST SLOPE DIVERSIONS ASSUMED TO BE MADE AT A

CONSTANT. UNIFORM RATE.

SCEW90S JM^ESTJGATECk

♦ IVATEFf/KiHTS

1. UVWUA TAYLOR RES. STORAGE DECREE SUPPORTS TRANSMOUNTAIN

DIVERSION AND REPLACEMENT WATER IS PURCHASED FROM

BLUE MESA RES. AS REQUIRED.

2. NEW JUNIOR DECREE SUPPORTS TRANSMOUNTAIN DIVERSION AND

EXISTING PRIVATE INSTREAM FLOW RIGHTS ARE ASSUMED NOT VALID.

3. NEW JUNIOR DECREE SUPPORTS TRANSMOUNTAIN DIVERSION AND

EXISTING PRIVATE INSTREAM FLOW RIGHTS ARE VALID.

* FAi'ffkzAMFLOiV - ASSUMED REQUIREMENTS DOWNSTREAM OF

TAYLOR PARK DAM SATISFIED FIRST. EVALUATED THREE FLOW REGIMES AS

FOLLOWS: REGIME 1: OCT-APR MAY-SEP 50 CFS ICQ CFS REGIME 2: OCT-MAR APR MAY-JUL AUG-SEP 75 CFS 100 CFS 150 CFS 100 CFS

REGIME 3:

OCT-MAR 75 CFS APR 100 CFS MAY-JUN15 150 CFS JUN15-AUG15 300 CFS AUG15-SEP 100 CFS

(59)

TAYLOR PARK PROJECT

EXPORT YIELD VS. INSTREAM FLOW

EXISTING AND NEW WATER RIGHTS

LEGEND

EXISTING RIGHTS

(UVWUA STORAGE DECREE)

<

50

*^1

NEW RIGHTS ASSUMING EXISTING PRIVATE INSTEAM FLOW DECREES NOT OPERATIONAL

NEW RIGHTS WITH EXISTING PRIVATE INSTREAM FLOW DECREES OPERATIONAL

Private

(60)

SUMMARY OF EXPORT ALTERNATIVES

AVE. ANNUAL ANNUALIZED

YIELD

UNIT COST^

UNIT COST^

PROJECT

(AF/YR)

($/AF)

($/AF/YR)

CENTRAL COLORADO PROJECT 60,000 6,830 753

CENTRAL COLORADO PROJECT 150,000 3,310 425

COLLEGIATE RANGE PROJECT 73,100 7,810 752

UNION PARK PROJECT 63,000 12,760 1,292

UNION PARK PROJECT 111,000 7,240 733

TAYLOR PARK PROJECT 42,000 7,207 71 8

TAYLOR PARK PROJECT WITH 100,000 5,148 621

BLUE MESA IMPORTS ^

1. PROJECTS CONSIST OF WEST SLOPE STORAGE AND A WATER DELIVERY SYSTEM

TO THE EAST SLOPE. NO EAST SLOPE STORAGE IS INCLUDED. 2. BASED ON TOTAL INVESTMENT COST.

3. SOURCE: FLEMING, DAVID E., COLLEGIATE RANGE PROJECT, 1985.

4. RANGE OF YIELD DEPENDING ON INTEGRATION WITH DWD SYSTEM PER USCOE

(DWD SYSTEM WIDE EIS)

(61)

NATURAL ENERGY RESOURCES COMPANY

December 14, 1988

Board of Directors

Colorado Water Resources and

Power Development Authority 1580 Logan Street, Suite 620

Denver, Colorado 80203

RE: Public Comment, Draft Upper Gunnison-Uncompahgre Basin

Study, Gunnison Meeting, December 14, 1988.

Gentlemen:

I am Dave Miller, president of the Natural Energy Resources

Company. Our team of engineers and consultants have had only

thirteen days to evaluate your draft study, and these are our

initial comments.

The study has done a good job of quantifying future in-basin

water needs and small water projects to enhance the area's economic and recreational objectives. The study also clearly identifies substantial surplus Gunnison water, and the potential for exporting water and power to help pay for the desired in-basin enhancement projects. However, some of the study's conclusions are seriously flawed because of major errors

in the methodology and assumptions used to evaluate the large

revenue generating projects.

Background Before discussing our specific areas of concern,

it would be helpful to review our company's role in the

development of Gunnison water and power resources. Our company's founder is a retired Bureau of Reclamation executive engineer, who is considered the father of Colorado's Big Thompson Project.

He is also directly or indirectly responsible for most of the large water and power exporting alternatives considered in your

Gunnison Study. In 1972, he formulated the Central Colorado Project, which envisioned an East Slope diversion of 600,000 acre feet of surplus Gunnison flood waters, without interfering with

senior Gunnison water rights. In 1982, he founded our company (known as NECO) to specifically study and develop the untapped

water and power resources of the Taylor Park/Union Park area. The Water and Power Authority first became interested in the Upper Gunnison's potential in late 1985, when NECO offered to joint venture its Union Park Water and Rocky Point Power Projects with the Authority. Our intent and the Authority's interest was based on the unique potential of these projects to generate significant state revenues for desirable water conservation and

recreation projects that were not otherwise economical. After

several months of discussion, the Authority declined NECO's offer

with the explanation that an Upper Gunnison Study was needed.

References

Related documents

Council is responsible to the Assembly and shall consider all issues referred to it by the Assembly and monitor the implementation of policies formulated by the Assembly” (AU

It is our strong conviction that a dedicated pan-African envelope is now not only necessary but also a top priority that will go a long way in facilitating and ensuring effective

the United Nations New Agenda for the Development of Africa in the 1990s; the Africa-Europe Summit’s Cairo Plan of Action; the World Bank-led Strategic Partnership with Africa;

Public Enquiries employs Bergendal’s practice as a point of departure to develop a range of new critical interventions, breaking new ground in the critical and theoretical

43 This point was also reiterated by the Council in its 14 June 2019 conclusions (point 16 concerning progress achieved by the Code of Conduct Group (doc.. The objective of

With the urgent need for a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, it is necessary to use CCS and fossil fuels to be able to reach the emission targets and at the same

Linköping Studies in Science and Technology Dissertation No... Linköping Studies in Science and

Till höger om denna grymma, hednisk-ger­ manska scenbild återges ett välkänt motiv av helt annat slag: de tre magernas tillbedjan. Att det är magerna som här