Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ms. Carol DeAngelis <br />,.- February 9, 1998 <br />Page 3 of 5 <br /> <br />Page 17, Table, Impacts to other water users, proposed action: Again, this is true <br />unless the releases are protected for use in the IS-Mile Reach. Also, the impacts to any <br />water users along the various washes should be identified. <br />Page 18, Table, Selenium, Proposed Action: Reword as follows, "Selenium <br />concentrations in affected washes may increase as canal spills are reduced or eliminated <br />at least in the near term...." <br />Page 18, Table, Compliance with ESA, No Action: Reword as follows, " Recovery <br />Program... No anticipated change in status of endangered fish populations or their <br />habitat. However, other portions of the Recovery Program RIPRAP could have a positive <br />impact. " <br />Page 18, Table, Unique Geographical Features, Proposed Action: Minor impacts to <br />riparian area along the affected washes should be noted to the extent there are any of <br />significance. <br />Page 21, Table 2: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service flow recommendations should be <br />shown as published in there May, 1995 report. Granted this makes the table a little more <br />confusing, but this was what they provided. We need to determine what kind of <br />hydrologic conditions we have in any given year before we determine which set of flow <br />recommendations govern and subsequently what the potential shortfall may be. Lets not <br />gloss over this by averaging everything. Also, lets put the period of record used to <br />determine the recent average right in the table. <br />Page 22, Impacts and Table 3: This needs some additional work to make it clear that <br />Ruedi water can be delivered to the IS-Mile Reach directly, but, surplus HUP water from <br />Green Mountain Reservoir needs to go through the Grand Valley Hydroplant or the <br />hydraulic pumps. As written, this is hard to understand. <br />Page 23, Background Block 6: This needs some additional work to explain why the <br />Cameo call is only 2260 cfs yet rights total 2373.98 cfs. Also, need to highlight that the <br />Cameo Call is only 1950 cfs as a result of the Orchard Mesa Check Case Settlement. <br />Page 24, Last sentence above Table 4: Reword as follows, "Table 4 summarizes the <br />existing decrees held by the CWCB for instream flows in the IS-Mile Reach during July, <br />August and September." <br />Page 24, Table 4: Show as follows: <br />July <br />581 <br />300 <br /> <br />1992-Summer Flows <br />1994-Flow Accretions <br /> <br />August <br />581 <br />300 <br /> <br />September <br />581 <br />300 <br /> <br />Both rights only cover the July-August-September time frame and the 1994 right covers <br />all inflows to the IS-Mile Reach, not just return flows. <br />Page 25, 1st Paragraph: Reword as follows, "The CWCB's instream flow right for 581 <br />cfs during July-September is equivalent to the sum of all water discharged from the <br />Orchard Mesa Pumping Plant and the Grand Valley Hydroelectric Power Plant. It <br />protects all tailrace flows from these two facilities that flow into the IS-Mile Reach. The <br />300 cfs July-September accretion instream flow right seeks to protect the largest <br />measured tributary inflow gain to the IS-Mile Reach during this 3-month period. This <br />