DOCSLIB.ORG

Some Factors Historically Affecting the Distribution and Abundance of Fishes in the Gunnison River

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Some Factors Historically Affecting the Distribution and Abundance of Fishes in the Gunnison River fib SOME FACTORS HISTORICALLY AFFECTING THE DISTRIBUTION AND ABUNDANCE OF FISHES IN THE GUNNISON RIVER Final Report for Tishery Investigations of *the Lower Gunnison River Drainage by William J. Wiltzius Wildlife Researcher C Financed with Section 8 Funds of the Colorado River Storage Project Administered by . United States Bureau of Reclamation Colorado Division of Wildlife Jack R. Grieb, Director Department of Natural Resources Harris D. Sherman, Executive Director Colorado Division of Wildlife Fort Collins, Colorado September 25, 1978 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES ................................................. iv LIST OF FIGURES ............................................... vi LIST OF APPENDICES ............................................. vii INTRODUCTION ................................................... 1 LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION OF STUDY AREA ........................... 7 GUNNISON RIVER DRAINAGE BASIN ............................... 7 DAMS AND RESERVOIRS ........................................ 15 DIVERSIONS--Gunnison Tunnel ................................. 17 METHODS AND MATERIALS 22 LIMNOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS 22 Stream Flows .......................................... 22 Temperatures .......................................... 22 Water Analyses ........................................ 24 Bottom .Fauna Collections.and.Identificationg ; . " 24 FISHERIES STUDIES .......................................... 25 Fish Collections and Identification ...................... 25 Marked Fish Studies .................................... 28 Fluorescent Pigment Marking ........................ 28 Tetracycline Marking ............................... 30 Fin-clip Marking .................................. 31 Creel Census Studies .................................. 31 Early Questionnaires, 1973-74 ...................... 31 1977 Random Survey of Lower Gunnison ................ 33 Age and Growth ........................................ 39 STATISTICAL ANALYSES ........................................ 40 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................... 41 HISTORIC STREAMFLOWS ........................................ 42 Influence of Taylor Dam ................................. 42 Influence of Gunnison Tunnel and Curecanti Dams on Flows . 45 EFFECTS OF DAMS ON STREAM TEMPERATURE ........................ 47 Taylor Park Reservoir .................................. 47 Curecanti Unit Reservoirs ............................... 50 EFFECTS OF DAMS ON WATER QUALITY AND BOTTOM FAUNA ............. 54 GUNNISON RIVER SALMONID FISHERY ............................. 61 Early Renown .......................................... 61 Influence of Railroads ................................. 67 Contests, Record Trout, Stocking, and Catch Composition. 70 Influence of Taylor Park Reservoir ...................... 78 Fisherman Use and Harvest Trends--Pre- and Post-Curecanti. 81 1977 Random Survey of Lower Gunnison . 91 Lower River Rainbow Harvest--from Stocking, Natural Reproduction, or Reservoirs above? ................ 94 Fish Growth in Lower Gunnison River (National Monument). 99 HISTORIC DISTRIBUTION OF NON-SALMONID SPECIES ................ 101 Cyprinidae ............................................ 103 Roundtail chub--(Gila robusta Baird and Girard) . 103 Colorado squawfish--(FtychocheiZus Zucius Girard) . 106 Speckled dace--(Rhinichthys oscuZus Girard) ......... 113 Longnose dace--(Ainichthys cataractae Valenciennes). 113 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.) Page Fathead minnow- -(Pimephales promelas Rafinesque) . 115 Carp -- (Cprinus carpio Linnaeus) ...................... 118 Red shiner- - (Notropis lutrensis Baird and Girard). 119 Sand shiner- - (Notropis stramineus Cope) ................ 120 Catostomidae ............................................ 122 Flannelmouth sucker- - (Catostomus Zatipinnis Baird and Girard) .............................................. 122 Bluehead sucker -- (Catostomus discobolus Cope) .......... 126 Plains mountain sucker- - (Catostomus platyrhynchus Cope) 130 White sucker- - (Catostomus commersoni Lacepede) ....... 131 Longnose sucker- - (Catostomus catostomus Forster) . 135 Humpback sucker- - (Xyrauchen texanus Abbott) ............ 138 Bluehead sucker x white sucker hybrid .................. 141 ,.FlannelmOuth sucker x.white sucker. hybrid. 143 - Longnose sucker x white sucker hybrid .................. 145 Bluehead sucker x flannelmouth sucker hybrid .......... 145 Bluehead sucker x longnose sucker hybrid .............. 146 Ictaluridae 147 Channel catfish- - (Ictalurus punctatus Rafinesque). 147 Black bullhead -- (Ictalurus meZas Rafinesque) ......... 148 Centrarchidae .......................................... 150 Largemouth bass -- (Micropterus saZmoides Lacepede). 150 Green sunfish- - (Lepomis cyanellus Rafinesque) ......... 151 Cyprinodontidae ........................................ 152 Plains killifish- - (FunduZus kansae Garman) ............ 152 Cottidae ............................................... 154 Mottled sculpin--(Cottus bairdi Girard) ................ 154 Piute sculpin--(Cottus beldingi Eigenmann and Eigenmann) 156 Esocidae ............................................... 157 Northern pike- - (Esox Zucius Linnaeus) .................. 157 MANAGEMENT PLANS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ 159 BLUE MESA RESERVOIR AND UPPER GUNNISON RIVER .................... 159 MORROW POINT AND CRYSTAL RESERVOIRS .............................. 164 LOWER GUNNISON RIVER (BELOW CRYSTAL DAM) ........................ 166 SUMMARY .............................................................. 171 LITERATURE CITED .................................................... 189 APPENDICES .......................................................... 195 iii LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Curecanti Unit-specifications of dams, reservoirs and powerplants ...................................... 16 2 Quarterly fisherman questionnaire used during 1973-74 ............................................. 32 3 Sampling dates for lower Gunnison creel census, 1977 ............................................... 34 4 Historic mean monthly discharge (cfs) of Taylor River at Almont with estimated effects of Taylor Park and Curecanti reservoirs ......................... 44 ' • . .• ' ..• , - • Mean monthly and annual flows and diversions at the Tunnel area of the Gunnison River during various time periods, 1904-1975 ....................... 46 6 Historical effect of Taylor Dam on flows at various stations below the dam ............................... 49 Monthly mean maximum and minimum temperatures (F) of Blue Mesa Reservoir discharge after initial impoundment in October 1965 .................... 51 8 Mean monthly temperature at various stations below Curecanti reservoirs with estimated effect of the dams on temperatures in the Tunnel area of the Gunnison River ................................. 53 9 Mean monthly water temperature (F) of Gunnison River. at Grand Junction, Colorado, 195171973 . - ..... 55 10 Historical flow pattern of Gunnison River before and after Curecanti dams at two stations below the reservoirs during some months when tempera- tures were significantly lowered at Grand Junction, Colorado ............................................ 56 11 Historic creel-census and stocking data from the Gunnison River above the Cimarron River, 1942-1965 ............................................ 76 12 Creel-census and stocking data for Blue Mesa Reservoir, 1966-1976 ................................. 77 13 Estimates and projections of fisherman-use and harvest for various sections of the Gunnison River below North Beaver Creek ........................ 84 iv LIST OF TABLES (cont.) Table page 14 Comparison of fisherman-use and harvest estimates for some area of the Gunnison River with that of Blue Mesa Reservoir in various years ................ 86 15 Creel-census estimates for various areas of the Gunnison River below Crystal dam, April 16 - October 11, 1977 .................................... 93 16 Comparison of 1977 fisherman-use, harvest and stocking costs for various areas of the Gunni- son River below North Beaver Creek with Curecanti (W.C.) and without Curecanti Unit (W.O.C.) ..... 98 17 . Comparison of rainbow trout rota]. length ranges (in.). for iraiicitis ages, pre- and post-Curecanti Unit in the Gunnison National Monument ................ 100 18 Comparison of species composition, mean length (in.), and ranges for the fish captured within the Gunnison National Monument, pre- and post- Curecanti Unit ...................................... 102 19 Percent of years with mean monthly flow above long-term historic average flow (cfs) in various historic periods for the Gunnison River at Grand Junction ...................................... 110 20 Composition comparison for the sucker species taken in various years pre- and post-Curecanti Unit in different sections of the Gunnison River below the dams and above the North Fork junction ............................................ 125 LIST OF FIGURES Figure .1218!. 1 Curecanti Unit-Colorado River Storage Project ............ 3 2 Gunnison-Uncompahgre drainage basin and popula- tion, 1965 .............................................. 8 3 Topographic overlay of Gunnison-drainage basin with gradient of Gunnison River above Delta, Colorado ................................................ 9 4 Main fisherman-access roads for Gunnison River below Blue Mesa Dam 11 5 Post-card questionnaire, lower Gunnison creel • survey 9, 1977. O O O O O • .. • • • • . • •• • • • • • • • • 36 •.•
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Cogjm.Bure Reclam Dev Co.Pdf (160.6Kb)
    . -~ BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DEVELOPMENT IN COLORADO Colorado's Centennial Year finds 10 Bureau of Reclamation water and land resource development projects in the state completed or under construction. The developments are the Uncompahgre, Grand Valley, Fruitgrowers Dam, Colorado-Big Thompson, Pine River, Mancos, San Luis Valley, Paonia, and Collbran Projects, and the St. Francis Unit of the Missouri River Basin Project. Eight of the projects made available in 1957 full water supplies to 97, 694 acres and supplemental supplies to 781, 647 acres. (Data on the San Luis Valley Project are not available and the1 Collbran Project is under con­ struction.) The gross value of the crops produced on the eight projects in 1957 totaled $81, 495, 163. In the same year, more than 12, 000 farms and 282, 000 persons were served with water from the projects. Seven powerplants on the projects have a total in­ stalled capacity of 186, 9 50 kilowatts. The following are summary descriptions of the projects. Uncompahgre Project (Gunnison, Delta, and Montrose Counties)--This is the earliest project constructed by the Bureau in Colorado. Construction began in .July 1904, and first water for irrigation was made available during the season of 1908. Project lands, which obtain water dive rted from the Uncompahgre and Gunnison Rivers, surround the town of Montrose, and extend along both sides of the Uncompahgre River to Delta, a dis­ tance of 34 miles. Features include the Taylor Park Dam and Reservoir, the 5. 8-mile­ long Gunnison Tunnel, 7 diversion dams, 143 miles of main canals, 425 miles of later­ als, and 215 miles of drains.
    [Show full text]
  • UCRC Annual Report for Water Year 2019
    SEVENTY-SECOND ANNUAL REPORT OF THE UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH SEPTEMBER 30, 2020 2 UPPER COLORADO RIVER COMMISSION 355 South 400 East • Salt Lake City, UT 84111 • 801-531-1150 • www.ucrcommission.com June 1, 2021 President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear President Biden: The Seventy-Second Annual Report of the Upper Colorado River Commission, as required by Article VIII(d)(13) of the Upper Colorado River Basin Compact of 1948 (“Compact”), is enclosed. The report also has been transmitted to the Governors of each state signatory to the Compact, which include Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming and Arizona. The budget of the Commission for Fiscal Year 2021 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2021) is included in this report as Appendix B. Respectfully yours, Amy I. Haas Executive Director and Secretary Enclosure 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE .................................................................................................. 8 COMMISSIONERS .................................................................................... 9 ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS ........................................................... 10 OFFICERS OF THE COMMISSION ....................................................... 10 COMMISSION STAFF ............................................................................. 10 COMMITTEES ......................................................................................... 11 LEGAL COMMITTEE ................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Uncompahgre Project
    Uncompahgre Project David Clark Wm. Joe Simonds, ed. Bureau of Reclamation 1994 Table of Contents Uncompahgre Project...........................................................2 Project Location.........................................................2 Historic Setting .........................................................2 Project Authorization.....................................................5 Construction History .....................................................5 Post-Construction History................................................10 Settlement of the Project .................................................13 Uses of Project Water ...................................................14 Conclusion............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................16 Articles...............................................................16 Index ......................................................................18 1 Uncompahgre Project Uncompahgre is a Ute word meaning as follows; Unca-=hot; pah=water, gre=spring. One of the oldest Reclamation projects, the Uncompahgre Project contains one storage dam, several diversion dams, 128 miles of canals, 438 miles of laterals and 216 miles of drains. The project includes mesa and valley land on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado at an elevation
    [Show full text]
  • Gunnison River
    final environmental statement wild and scenic river study september 1979 GUNNISON RIVER COLORADO SPECIAL NOTE This environmental statement was initiated by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (BOR) and the Colorado Department of Natural Resources in January, 1976. On January 30, 1978, a reorganization within the U.S. Department of the Interior resulted in BOR being restructured and renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service (HCRS). On March 27, 1978, study responsibility was transferred from HCRS to the National Park Service. The draft environmental statement was prepared by HCRS and cleared by the U.S. Department of the Interior prior to March 27, 1978. Final revisions and publication of both the draft environmental statement, as well as this document have been the responstbility of the National Park Service. FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GUNNISON WILD AND SCENIC RIVER STUDY Prepared by United States Department of the Interior I National Park Service in cooperation with the Colorado Department of Natural Resources represented by the Water Conservation Board staff Director National Par!< Service SUMMARY ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Department of the Interior, National Park Service 1. Type of action: ( ) Administrative (X) Legislative 2. Brief description of action: The Gunnison Wild and Scenic River Study recommends inclusion of a 26-mile (41.8-km) segment of the Gunnison River, Colorado, and 12,900 acres (S,200 ha) of adjacent land to be classified as wild in the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the administration of the National Park Service and the Bureau of Land Management, U.S. D. I. This river segment extends from the upstream boundary of the Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument to approximately 1 mile (1.6 km) below the confluence with the Smith Fork.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River a NATURAL MENACE BECOMES a NATIONAL RESOURCE ' '
    The Colorado River A NATURAL MENACE BECOMES A NATIONAL RESOURCE ' ' I Comprehensive Report on the Development of ze Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin for rrigation, Power Production, and Other Beneficial Ises in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming By THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR J . A . Krug, Secretary SPONSORED BY AND PREPARED UNDER THE GENERAL SUPERVISION OF THE BUREAU OF RECLAMATION Michael W. Straus, Commissioner E. A. Morit-, Director, Region 3 ; E. O. Larson, Director, Region 4 MARCH 1 946 1P 'A m 4„ M 1i'leming Library Grand Canyon Colleg P . )x 11097 Contents Page PROPOSED REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE Explorations 46 INTERIOR Settlement 48 Page Population 49 Letter of June 6,1946, from the Acting Commissioner, Chapter III . DIVIDING THE WATER 53 3 Bureau of Reclamation Virgin Conditions 55 REGIONAL DIRECTORS' REPORT Early Development of the River 56 Summary of Conditions in the Early 1920's . 59 Map of Colorado River Basin Facing 9 Between the Upper and Lower Basins 59 Scope and Purpose 9 Between United States and Mexico . 66 Authority for the Report 9 DEVELOPING THE BASIN Cooperation and Acknowledgments 9 Chapter IV. 69 Description of Area 10 Upper Basin 72 Problems of the Basin 11 Labor Force 72 Water Supply 12 Land Ownership and Use 73 Division of Water 13 Soils 73 Future Development of Water Resources 13 Agriculture 73 Table I, Present and Potential Stream Depletions in Minerals and Mining 80 the Colorado River Basin 14 Lumbering 85 Potential Projects 14 Manufacturing 86 Table II, Potential Projects in the Colorado River Transportation and Markets .
    [Show full text]
  • THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN a HANDBOOK for INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14
    THE GUNNISON RIVER BASIN A HANDBOOK FOR INHABITANTS from the Gunnison Basin Roundtable 2013-14 hen someone says ‘water problems,’ do you tend to say, ‘Oh, that’s too complicated; I’ll leave that to the experts’? Members of the Gunnison Basin WRoundtable - citizens like you - say you can no longer afford that excuse. Colorado is launching into a multi-generational water planning process; this is a challenge with many technical aspects, but the heart of it is a ‘problem in democracy’: given the primacy of water to all life, will we help shape our own future? Those of us who love our Gunnison River Basin - the river that runs through us all - need to give this our attention. Please read on.... Photo by Luke Reschke 1 -- George Sibley, Handbook Editor People are going to continue to move to Colorado - demographers project between 3 and 5 million new people by 2050, a 60 to 100 percent increase over today’s population. They will all need water, in a state whose water resources are already stressed. So the governor this year has asked for a State Water Plan. Virtually all of the new people will move into existing urban and suburban Projected Growth areas and adjacent new developments - by River Basins and four-fifths of them are expected to <DPSDYampa-White %DVLQ Basin move to the “Front Range” metropolis Southwest Basin now stretching almost unbroken from 6RXWKZHVW %DVLQ South Platte Basin Fort Collins through the Denver region 6RXWK 3ODWWH %DVLQ Rio Grande Basin to Pueblo, along the base of the moun- 5LR *UDQGH %DVLQ tains.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies for Those Considering Agricultural Water Conservation in the Colorado River Basin
    CASE STUDIES FOR THOSE CONSIDERING AGRICULTURAL WATER CONSERVATION IN THE COLORADO RIVER BASIN • Arizona • California • Colorado • Nevada • New Mexico • Utah • Wyoming • Multi-state Projects within the Colorado River Basin • Projects outside the Colorado River Basin INTRODUCTION • Moving Forward on Agricultural Water Conservation in the Colorado River Basin is a USDA-NIFA funded project of the Colorado Water Institute at Colorado State University • These case studies have been compiled to demonstrate where and how water has been developed in the Colorado River Basin to meet agricultural needs, what changes have been made (or proposed) in those uses to meet different challenges, and how obstacles were addressed. • To help those considering such changes visualize what can be done, some case studies from outside the Colorado River Basin are included. INTRODUCTION • Through a comprehensive literature review, we have produced 78 case studies across the western United States, as well as one international case study, that shed light on various ways water has been diverted for agricultural use and how that water has been managed and its use changed over time to meet both agricultural and other objectives. • We have categorized the case studies into three general types: • Original water resources development projects: The original projects that made it possible to use river water for agriculture through such means as diversion and storage. • Programs and regulations: The local, regional, statewide, and basin-wide processes and programs that have been instituted to better manage the water for purposes such as improving agricultural productivity, meeting endangered species and water quality goals, and conjunctively using groundwater and surface water.
    [Show full text]
  • The Continental Compact
    The Continental Compact IAN CAINE EMILY CHEN University of Texas at San Antonio TIFFIN THOMPSON DEREK HOEFERLIN Washington University in St. Louis PABLO CHAVEZ The drought crisis in California is first and fore- 3 types of hydro-urbanisms leverage existing price tag associated with infrastructural most a political crisis. Decades of public policy water resources to create a conurbation at the obligations. have created a system of massive water con- scale of the river basin. Locally, each responds veyance, fostering and maintaining a funda- to the specific characteristics of its riverine, Current 2050 growth projections in the U.S. mental misalignment between the supply and geographic and landscape environment. The don’t factor what will likely become the most demand of water. The untenable status quo in hydro-urbanisms are capable of accommodat- critical determinant of successful urban- California is maintained through an elaborate ing diverse programs including agriculture, ism: water supply. The Continental Compact slew of public policies, designed to support residential, ecology, industry, recreation and re-directs growth from Mega-regions to a system of water-trading between western tourism. Hydro-regions, investing in water-rich urban states in areas like the Colorado River Basin. conurbations built around dams, rivers and The Continental Compact replaces hydraulic deltas. The Compact re-invests the massive The Continental Compact proposes to funda- urbanism with hydrological urbanism. Simply resources that currently support the con- mentally alter the culture of water-trading: re- put, the Continental Compact stops moving struction and operation of aqueducts into the legislating water distribution, first in California water to the people and starts moving people construction of new infrastructure to support and ultimately throughout the United States, to the water.
    [Show full text]
  • The Colorado River the Colorado River
    The Colorado River The Colorado River ' ' ., , A NATURAL MENACE BECOMES A NAT IO NA L R ESOU R CE A Comprehensive Report on the Development of the Water Resources of the Colorado River Basin/or Irrigation, Power Production, and Other Beneficial Uses in Arizona, California, Colorado,Nevada,New Mexico, Utah, and Wyoming By THE UNITED STATE ' DEPARTMENT OF T H E r l TEH I R J. A . Krug, e retary SPONSORED BY AND PREPARED U ; DER THE GENE R A L SUP EHVJSJO OF T H E BUREAU OF RECLAMATION M ichael W. Straus, Commissioner E. A. Moritz, Direc tor, Region 3; E. 0. Larso n, Direc tor, Region 4 MARCH 1946 HIS edition if THE COLORADO RIVER is issued in advance if its publication as a Congressional T Document in response to an urgent public demand for copies, many if them for qfjicial review . Y.he document has not been transmitted to the Congress for consideration, nor will it be, until certain States and Federal qfjicials who are now reviewing it have added their written comments to the text that appears here . When the report is published as a Con­ gressional 'Document these comments will be included, or will appear in a supplementary volume. Contents Page PROPOSED REPORT OF THE SECRETARY OF THE Explora tions 46 INTERIOR Settlement . 48 Page Popula tion . 49 Letter of June 6, 1946, from the Acting Commissioner, Chapter III. D IVIDING T H E v\' A TER 53 Bureau of R eclam ation . 3 Virgin Conditions 55 REGIONAL DIRECTORS' REPORT Early D evelopment of the R iver .
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Management Plan
    Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District Strategic Management Plan Including Discussion of Water Management Issues Inventory of Water Resources in the District Legal, Institutional and Environmental Setting Revised September 30, 2016 Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District 210 West Spencer, Suite B Gunnison, Colorado 81230 www.ugrwcd.org - [email protected] TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . 1 MISSION AND VALUES STATEMENTS . 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 5 SECTION 1. GEOGRAPHY, POPULATION, AND ECONOMY.. 10 1.1 GEOGRAPHY . 11 1.2 POPULATION . 13 1.3 ECONOMY . 14 1.3.1 Agriculture . 14 1.3.2 Water Based Recreation . 14 SECTION 2. DESCRIPTION AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE DISTRICT. 18 2.1 ORGANIZATION . 19 2.2 COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS . 20 2.3 THE BUDGET PROCESS . 22 2.4 MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENTS OF THE UPPER GUNNISON DISTRICT . 23 2.4.1 1975 Taylor Park Reservoir Operation and Storage Exchange Agreement . 23 2.4.2 Taylor Park Reservoir Second Fill Decree . 23 2.4.3 Opposing Transbasin Diversion - Union Park Reservoir Litigation . 23 2.4.4 2000 Aspinall Subordination Agreement . 24 2.4.5 Aspinall Unit Contract Plan for Augmentation . 24 2.4.6 Black Canyon of the Gunnison federal reserved water right settlement . 25 2.4.7 Meridian Lake Reservoir Project . 26 2.4.8 Recreational In-Channel Diversion Water Right. 27 2.4.9 Lake San Cristobal Project . 27 SECTION 3. DISCUSSION OF WATER MANAGEMENT ISSUES . 29 3.1 OUT-OF-BASIN DIVERSIONS . 30 3.2 PROTECTION AGAINST DOWNSTREAM SENIOR CALLS . 31 3.3 EXISTING USES SUBJECT TO A DOWNSTREAM SENIOR CALL . 31 3.3.1 Irrigation .
    [Show full text]
  • Draft Environmental Impact Statement
    DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS ASPINALL UNIT—COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO VOLUME I U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Upper Colorado Region Western Colorado Area Office Grand Junction, Colorado January 2009 Mission Statement: The Mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American Public. ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS: ASPINALL UNIT— COLORADO RIVER STORAGE PROJECT GUNNISON RIVER, COLORADO Draft Environmental Impact Statement Cooperating Agencies: U.S. Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation (lead agency) Fish and Wildlife Service National Park Service State of Colorado Colorado Department of Natural Resources Colorado Water Conservation Board Colorado Division of Water Resources Colorado Division of Wildlife U.S. Department of Energy Western Area Power Administration Colorado River Water Conservation District Southwestern Water Conservation District Platte River Power Authority Abstract: The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the Bureau of Reclamation, proposes to implement a plan to avoid jeopardy to four endangered fish in the Gunnison and Colorado rivers downstream from the Wayne N. Aspinall Unit, a Colorado River Storage Project facility in western Colorado. The plan focuses on modifying the operation of the Aspinall Unit to provide sufficient releases of water at times, quantities, and duration necessary to avoid jeopardy and adverse modification to designated critical habitat, while maintaining authorized purposes of the Aspinall Unit. Four action alternatives are presented to address Flow Recommendations developed by the Upper Colorado River Endangered Fish Recovery Program for downstream endangered fish and are compared to the No Action Alternative.
    [Show full text]
  • DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 4, COLORADO Case Nos. 86-CW-226 and 88-CW-178
    DISTRICT COURT, WATER DIVISION NO. 4, COLORADO Case Nos. 86-CW-226 and 88-CW-178 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECREE ON WATER AVAILABILITY In the Matter of the Applications for Conditional Water Rights of THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF ARAPAHOE COUNTY, COLORADO, for the UNION PARK PROJECT in Gunnison County, Colorado. I. INTRODUCTION A. INTRODUCTION OF ISSUES, TRIAL DATA, PARTIES & COUNSEL: This Decree addresses the threshold issue of "Water Availability" with respect to two applications and an amended application for conditional water rights pursued by the Board of County Commissioners of Arapahoe County, Colorado ["Arapahoe" or the "Applicant"] with respect to the Union Park Project in Gunnison County, Colorado. Following extensive pretrial activity over a period of five years, the Court conducted a trial to the Court in Gunnison, Colorado, from June 3, 1991, through July 3, 1991. The Court viewed some areas relating to the subject water applications (i.e. Union Park, the Taylor River and the Taylor Park Reservoir) on July 1, 1991, and heard closing argument on July 24, 1991. Written briefs regarding proposed forms of this Decree were filed thereafter. The last brief was received by the Court on August 15, 1991. Counsel actively involved in the presentation of the case included the following: Party Counsel Applicant: County of Arapahoe Robert F. T. Krassa John R. Henderson William A. Hillhouse II Paul J. Zilis Opposers: City of Gunnison Timothy J. Beaton Colorado River Water Conservation District Donald H. Hamburg Crystal Creek Homeowners Association, Perkins D. Sams and Ernest H. Cockrel Charles B. White & Wayne B.
    [Show full text]