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.
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
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,
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
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
'flf
XpJZ
•>7^ '^ty\yy
r"'-yY ,
^
m:f
'V0^ 7r:?V"'
f
(^jryr
xr 'W
^
4
/T"'
71^'''^
y
rv<^''^(7
L
(yy /^yy/T
&
f
■<-r,„^ <^'-Try/
y . -y'I
Mj
■^d
AQ^^ /U
0
f/.■uf'^aA^
v) ^ /;/
^
Cr^(^
\J>
:6 ^ ,
//
// // r "l/L *—i^]a X
U f'7f ^
// y
WV-Oi:^.
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
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
.
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
icWIT d -J»^
1/ V\ y ^<
<■)('
^
'^J>^9
jL
/iyy ^
o'-
r3c:>~/SSoI^d<-1 (<^2, .4^
-A
/A 10 11. 12 13 TT^ tfKTer yy CoH 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-^ rU
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-
/MlU-Cb ^
OM iZ/yd) ^/A (T
OiTi (i'f-
I
"
A Mim-^ 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
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<^
($417714^^
<0G.C. (?tv
— da-^, d^jY
?fr-
33-2-j_
;/i:f^o/<yi
7~KS^tzi
-T^aJU5
z-/ 34. LciAjt
35.MM/Zk J~^gc)
AJ^r7/>A/J4c Z^/^/g/gSe^cfH 'c /^IVL /Z
6 m- r39. /^/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-oJmJ^f3 5 JX
P
c,^/-'d;2j
a fc>v Cf7G..
Zv/-s?^
44. 45.m.
id:Q^f
//dv/PPrd"/!
■'i(nIty 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
NAME REPRESENT/ADDRESS PHONE #
LlXL'<r/i
-
[
11 Ar
-* ,1
^
^
r r , - iJP
■ /k
w
1
r
^
- 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^
/
&-I
1
1
sy Ks
^
N
S
^
\
\o
. D«
Q
ON
R
N
V
\s)
X
^
V
\
\
:\
*
M
?
^ «i^
^
.Q
\
\
NKT
.^Ni;
^
^
<9
X
\i]
k:
s)
N>5
X^
0>5
\
CX
i
V" AX
X
\
(
"V
K
^
,5
v\^
«
I
s
■I'
>.:^
S!
n
A^\5
X
J
X
^
V
^
\«
'
^
p
4) \j5
>lit^
V
s
vi \ir
X
1
<y(\-
^
Km
"5
1 ^ sV^
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'^
<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/^'^
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>
|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 ,
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^
4
o (S -V4
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 %ur-"*^
~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
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^
-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/fyy^/^tnyD
pirJ^^
4
i
'i
A! - s-:S
r
4
I
a
(JNI
> -T V >i
-f4
4
^
(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
Six
tAyOh—ofMyL- 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
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/
UPPER GUNNISON-UNCOMPAHGRE BASIN STUDY
PUBLIC MEETING
PRESENTATION
DECEMBER 14, 1988
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
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.
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.
WATER SHORTAGES AND DEFICIENCIES
♦ MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY; NONE IDENTIFIED ♦ AGRICULTURAL SUPPLY: AVERAGE ANNUAL SHORTAGE
(af)
469 7931,413
394 89 53 72 243 NUMBER OFYEARS W/
SHORTAGE MAXIMUM ANNUAL SHORTAGE(af)
7211,831
3,145
756 143 118 167 920 SUB-BASIN 3 5 6 3 32 32 32 20 COCHETOPA CREEK OHIO CREEK TOMICHI CREEK COW CREEKHAPPY CANYON CREEK HORSEFLY CREEK
UPPER SPRING CREEK BLUE RIVER
♦ STREAMFLOW:
SIGNIFICANT DEFICIENCIES ON OHIO, TOMICHI AND
COCHETOPA CREEKS.
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
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
<,x» ^ M,
"oR" A>« o,, /
dt.l »* Bf4t\nl
w
^Jk UJO •" , POTENTIAL IN-BASIN STORAGE SITESAlternative 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
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 RAULINEU»ypl QUWHtOM-UWCOaW^HOm study
STORAGE SITES RETAINED
FOR FURTHER STUDY I sATi: Nov. 1988
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.
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.
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
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
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. 4PRELIMINARY
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.
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
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 $35,776,000 ANNUAL COST :
Annual Debt Service (8% over 30 years) Annual Lease and/or O&M Cost
Preliminary Cost Estimate - Alternative No. 1
INVESTMENT COST ;
1) Total Plan Construction Cost
Interest During Construction (8% over six months)
Total Plan Capital Cost
Debt Service Reserve Fund (1 year debt service) Financing Expences (3% of capital cost plus debt
service reserve)
Total Investment Cost ANNUAL COST :
Annual Debt Service (8% over 20 years) Annual Lease and/or O&M Cost
Total Annual Cost
,1
\ 5 tl \ I i IMIIIIIil! 5/ N n I i 1 i I <! i 1 n i i I n i H n 11 ii n iiiiiiiniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittiliiiiiiSlilllilliHijiliiiil
!- nn??!nnn?n!nif!H!nn |( IISIIIMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIillll llihljilliiiiilhi Q a — r o a >• X > X X - X a < > w >-a — </) — < X X UJ -> i 5 511 ;/) a (/) (/> £.RESULTS OF
PUMPED -STORAGE SCREENING
PROJECT INSTALLED CAPACITY
(MW)
TOTAL INVESTMENT UNIT COST($x10®)
COST ATTRACTIVE RANGE OF UNIT COST($/KW)
($/KW)
♦ NEEDLE PT. NO. 3 720 644895
1,000-1,200
♦ ROCKY PT. NO. 21,000
1,025
1,025
1,000-1,200
■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 CREEKBLUE 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
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 CFSTAYLOR PARK PROJECT
EXPORT YIELD VS. INSTREAM FLOW
EXISTING AND NEW WATER RIGHTS
LEGEND
EXISTING RIGHTS
(UVWUA STORAGE DECREE)
<
50
*^1NEW RIGHTS ASSUMING EXISTING PRIVATE INSTEAM FLOW DECREES NOT OPERATIONAL
NEW RIGHTS WITH EXISTING PRIVATE INSTREAM FLOW DECREES OPERATIONAL
Private
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)
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.
