Laserfiche WebLink
<br />" <br /> <br />;'it::rt?1 <br /> <br />..,'..' <br /> <br />(is:f:'~l <br /> <br />'..' <br /> <br />.;:',:'-' <br /> <br />M1S23 <br /> <br />Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI. <br />.' .. ,,,\ <br /> <br />6. CRWCD; p2,'3. 4. This scoping process has been noticed to the public and to state/local <br />agencies as necessary prior to initiating negotiations on the contract referenced above. The contract <br />must be limited to serving the legitimate needs of BCNM. While it is appropriate to consider the <br />requests of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) for flows to augment endangered fish habitat on <br />the lower Gunnison Rive during the process, it must be recognized that the amounts of water requested <br />by NPS and FWS require separate and distinct justifications. <br /> <br />6.' CRWCD; p2,14. 5. FWS is not a party to the contract, and does not have an'agreement with <br />USBR for downstream delivery of Aspinall Unit water (including Dallas/Dolores Project commitments) <br />to serve the perceived needs of endangered fish. Yet USBR has made dedicated releases for <br />endangered-fish habitat enhancement as thoue:b such an ae:reement exists prior to any public seoping or <br />open decision-making process. Any "test releases" for the purpose of identifying amounts of,water <br />needed in improving downstream habitat should be made in the context of an appropriate NEPA <br />analysis dealing with Olternatives to Aspinall Unit re-operation for the benefit of endangered fishes. <br />The NEP A process dealing with such releases should be started immediately. <br /> <br />22. <br /> <br />CRWCD; p2,14. 5. FWS is not a party to the contract, and does not have an agreement with- <br />USBR for downstream delivery of Aspinall Unit water (including Dallas/Dolores Project commitments) <br />to serve the perceived needs of endangered fish. Yet USBR has made dedicated releases for <br />endangered-fish habitat enhancement as thoul!h such an al!reement exists prior to any public scoping or <br />open decision-making process. Any "test releases" for the purpose of identifying amounts of water_- <br />needed in improving downstream habitat should be made in the context of an appropriate NEPA ., <br />analysis dealing with alternatives to Aspinall Unit re-operation for the benefit of endangered fishes. - <br />The NEPA process dealing with such releases should be started immediately. <br /> <br />3a. <br /> <br />CRWCD; p3,'2. <br /> <br />6. The water needs of BCNM must be stated with specificity. <br /> <br />14a. CRWCD; p3,'3. 7. The impacts of changed Aspinall Unit water levels on recreation and <br />scenic values at Curecanti National Recreation Area (CNRA) must be quantified. <br /> <br />14a. CRWCD; p3, '4. 8. NPS must assess the need for BCNM flows versus recreation values at <br />CNRA on the basis of visitor-days impacted. <br /> <br />12. CRWCD; p3, '4. 8. NPS must assess the need for BCNM flows versus recreation values at <br />CNRA on tbe basis of visitor-days impacted. <br /> <br />13b. CRWCD; p3,15. 9. NPS must state its intent regarding administration of the Federal water <br />right for BCNM, and quantify the impacts of such administration on specific public and private water <br />rights and uses upstream and downstream. <br /> <br />13b. CRWCD; p3,16. 10. Water-rights and water-use impacts both upstream and downstream must <br />be quantified for eacb alternative considered for augmenting endangered fish habital. <br /> <br />12. CRWCD; p3,'7. 11. In arranging for storage releases to meet needs of endangered fish, <br />USBR and FWS should give priority to alternatives which do not impact water rights and historic uses <br />of water in the Gunnison River Basin. <br /> <br />45 <br />