My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Aspinall EIS - Scoping Report May 2007
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
Backfile
>
Aspinall EIS - Scoping Report May 2007
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 4:14:22 PM
Creation date
7/25/2007 8:09:10 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Basin Roundtables
Basin Roundtable
Gunnison
Title
Scoping Report - Scoping Report
Date
5/1/2007
Author
Bureau of Reclamation
Basin Roundtables - Doc Type
General Resources
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
State of Colorado (Water Conservation Board, Division of Wildlife, and <br />Division of Water Resources ) : <br />Aspinall Unit is invaluable resource to Colorado - <br />purposes of the Unit including river regulation, water storage, compact development, etc. <br />must be protected. Hydropower revenues from Aspinall are valuable for recovering costs <br />of CRSP and participating projects; also revenues help fund Recovery Program. <br />Colorado feels it is imperative that this EIS strive to protec t all the authorized purposes of <br />the Unit and the delicate balance that exists among those purposes. <br /> <br />The authorized purposes must remain the highest priority and the EIS should center on <br />maximizing Unit flexibility for the benefit of all resources. No al ternative should <br />preclude Colorado from developing its compact - entitled water. <br /> <br />The April 2003 Black Canyon settlement agreement must be included in alternatives; <br />settlement will also help endangered fish. <br /> <br />Concerning flood control, Colorado expects the 10,500 cfs limit at Delta described in the <br />April 2003 agreement to be honored until appropriate flood protection improvements are <br />made. Winter “icing” targets presently used are appropriate. <br /> <br />Colorado urges Reclamation to use the power generation model of WAPA in the EIS <br />process and to consider modeling work performed by Argonne Labs that emphasizes <br />combining “spill” water into spring peaks. Colorado also will use its Colorado Decision <br />Support System models to assist in the EIS. <br /> <br />Impacts of alternatives on the downstream Gold Medal fishery and the reservoir fishery <br />should be evaluated. Entrainment, species interactions, limnological changes, and <br />kokanee migration are some of the reservoir factors to be analyzed. <br /> <br />Effect of alternatives on Aspinall yield should be determined. <br /> <br />Modeling of the baseline condition is an important step. All current uses and exchange <br />agreements should be included in baseline. Water presently used under the 60,000 af <br />subordination should be included as should flows for the Red lands fish ladder (subject to <br />plans as they may be modified in EIS process). Minimum Black Canyon flows of 300 cfs <br />should be included and unadjudicated rights should be included/excluded in a consistent <br />manner. <br /> <br />Colorado has not seen evidence that tempera ture modification structures at Blue Mesa <br />would be useful or necessary for endangered fish recovery. Such modifications would <br />require significant structural changes and may have significant detrimental effects to <br />reservoir and river fisheries. Reservoir stratification could be adversely affected to the <br />detriment of the Blue Mesa kokanee fishery which is of statewide importance. <br /> <br />The Dallas and Dolores Projects biological opinions need to be considered in the process; <br />the Aspinall Unit is not the only sou rce of water referred to in those opinions. On a <br /> 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.