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
Colorado River Energy Distributors: <br /> The EIS must recognize the benefits of <br />hydroelectric power and ass ess impacts of alternatives on hydropower. Modeling by <br />Argonne National Labs has shown that spring peak flows developed from surplus water <br />could be periodically available to endangered fish without dramatic reoperation of the <br />Unit. <br /> <br />Social and economic effects of any hydropower losses need to be addressed. Alternatives <br />should maintain the multiple benefits of the Unit <br /> <br />Implementing the flow recommendations outright should be only one alternative <br />considered in the EIS process, while other alternatives mu st consider the role of separate <br />habitat management methods either solely or in conjunction with implementing the flow <br />recommendations. Reliance on river flows for endangered fish recovery should not be <br />made to the exclusion of other recovery methods, par ticularly if such river flows cannot <br />be implemented without adversely affecting operation of the Unit for its authorized <br />purposes, including hydropower generation. <br /> <br />The EIS should recognize the April 2003 Black Canyon water right settlement <br />agreement; it s hould not seek to override or supplement the agreement to the detriment of <br />hydropower. The settlement agreement can adequately protect the Black Canyon and <br />avoid jeopardy to the endangered fish without disrupting the authorized purposes of the <br />Aspinall Un it. <br /> <br /> Platte River Power Authority: <br />Aspinall Unit hydropower operations are critical <br />to communities served by Platte River and impacts of alternatives on hydropower need to <br />be carefully considered. <br /> <br /> Palmer Divide Water Group : <br />On behalf of a coalition of Front Range water <br />providers , stressed that Colorado’ s compact water is to benefit all of Colorado, including <br />the eastern slope and that water imports are an alternative to drying up eastern slope <br />agriculture. The EIS should consider flexibility in flow r egimes that allow for future <br />depletions. Inter - basin cooperation and collaboration are needed for Colorado to use its <br />compact. <br /> <br /> <br />5. Cooperating Agencies <br /> <br />Several agencies and governmental organizations requested to be cooperating agencies <br />during the sco ping process: <br /> <br />National Park Service <br />Western Area Power Administration <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources <br />Southwestern Water Conservation District <br />Platte River Power Authority <br /> <br /> 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.