Laserfiche WebLink
<br />000814 <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV - CONSULT A nON AND COORDINATION <br /> <br />General <br /> <br />The Cimarron Dredging Project was first presented to the general public at the January 200 I <br />Aspinall Operations meeting. The Aspinall Operations meetings are held three times a year <br />between Reclamation, local, state and federal agencies, water users, environmental organizations, <br />recreationists. and other interested panies. On January 25, 200!' a public scoping letter was <br />mailed to interested panies and was published in the Grand Junction Daily Sentinel. Comments <br />were requested to be received by March 2. 2001. <br /> <br />Comments on the Draft EA were addressed and incorporated as follows: <br /> <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) <br /> <br />Comment I: The CWCB has some minor concerns with the potential to stan a headcut that <br />would move up the Cimarron River. The CWCB has a 16 cfs instream flow on the Cimarron <br />River that runs from the Gunnison confluence upstream 3.7 miles to the cont1uence with the <br />Little Cimarron River. The CWCB would therefore like to see the potential for headcutting up <br />the Cimarron addressed in the Draft EA. <br /> <br />Response: The potential for a headcut 1'0 stan in the Cimarron River was evaluated. Discussion <br />on the headcut issue was added to the Land Use and Vegetation Section of the EA. <br /> <br />Comment 2: It would be helpful if the Frontispiece map showed some of the water diversions in <br />the Delta area and the Redlands Diversion down near Grand Junction. Also. critical habitat for <br />endangered fish should be identified. <br /> <br />Response: The Frontispiece map was modified to show the Hanland Diversion near Delta and <br />the Redlands Diversion. Endangered fish critical habitat for the Gunnsion River was also <br />identified. <br /> <br />Comment 3: Page I. Proposed Action - We suggest that the bulleted authorization purposes be <br />broken out into "primary and incidental or secondary" purposes consistent with the Colorado <br />River Storage Project Act. Also, the 3'" bullet needs to include reference to the Upper Colorado <br />River Compact. <br /> <br />Response: The authorized purposes are not listed in any panicular order. Reclamation has the <br />responsibility to meet all authorized purposes, therefore primary and incidental or secondary <br />purposes are not presented. Upper Colorado River Compact was added to the third bullet. <br /> <br />Comment 4: Page 3. Background Information - We suggest brief mention of critical habitat for <br />the four endangered Colorado River fishes and the Redlands fish ladder and the smaller water <br /> <br />21 <br />