WSP11573 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

0015:8 ., Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI. , '~?~}.;:, ,~, ',;":;. ..~.~ .. . , , '..., ' ~.. . :,~:. .; '.. ':.;.;->,:.' 14b. CREDA; p2,'1. We assume that the portion of the Special Management Area that constitutes the Gunnison Gorge Wilderness Study Area will be separately analyzed as will the area within the Monument and the Special Management Area that has been recommended for Wild and Scenic River designation. 17. CREDA; p2,'2. What surprises us is the total lack of discussion about bydropower.generation. Since hydropower generation is one of the autborized purposes for the Aspinall Unit, the impact on , hydropower generation of operations under this proposed contract or alternatives to it must be analyzed. Additionally, changes in operation for nonhydropower generation purposes should also be ,analyzed in terms of reallocation of project costs and benefits. 3a. CREDA; p2, '3. In the public information packet (page 16), it is claimed that benefits will result from changing the delivery pattern of water released from Crystal Dam to more closely' resemble pre- Gunnison Tunnel (1911) and pre-Aspinall Unit (1977) conditions. No explanation of these benefits is provided nor is there an explanation of what adverse impacts resulted from operation of the 'Aspinall Unit with Crystal Darn as a re-regulating dam. Clearly sucb analysis is within the proper scope of this EIS. 20b. CREDA; p2, '4. Related to this analysis (of benefits that will result from changing the delivery pattern of water released from Crystal Darn) is the question whether it is the responsibility of the Aspinall Unit and CRSP to provide,mitigation for impacts caused by the Uncompahgre Project. Impacts from that project need to be separately identified in order for such analysis to be possible. :~:~: -'. .<,:>.J' 19c. CREDA; p2, '4. Related to this analysis (of benefits that will result from changing th~ delivery pattern of water released from Crystal Darn) is the question whether it is the responsibility of the Aspinall Unit and CRSP to provide mitigation for impacts caused by the Uncompahgre Project. Impacts from that project need to be separately identified in order for such analysis to be possible. 19c. CREDA; p2, '5. Separate analysis of the impacts of the Redlaods Diversion, which also, preceded CRSP and the Aspinall Unit, needs to be made. To the extent that the current analysis of the Redlands Dam in terms of endangered fishes impacts on the pending final biological opinion for this contract, those impacts must be analyzed and defined separately. II. CREDA; p3, '1. Until there can be further articulation of what benefits are sought, it is difficult if not impossible to defIne what the reasonable alternatives could be. If nothing more than we bave seen was presented at the scoping meetings, it would appear to be difficult at this stage in the process to articulate alternatives. 22. CREDA; p3, '2. On page 3 of the public information packet, it is stated that Reclamation is the lead agency for public information and NEP A compliance. The National Park Service, BLM, and the Colorado Water Conservation Board are designated joint-lead agencies. In the proposed contract (page II), it is stated that "NEPA compliance will be joint responsibility of Reclamation and the NPS." Which statement is correct? If the contract statement is correct, what is the status of BLM and CWCB? If tbe public information packet statement is correct, what is the distinction in relationship between Reclamation and the three other entities that would not be present if they were designated as cooperating agencies'? How will this affect administration of tbe NEPA compliance process? 40 ;;,:-\::~.". I .~.~,~' '~<.:{. j ... ,. " .". ,~, ;,i