Laserfiche WebLink
? <br /> <br />Some commentors believe that Aspinall Unit storage water should be used to <br />meet senior water right needs with supplemental storage releases and this should <br />be part of baseline. <br />? <br /> <br />The 2003 Black Canyon Settlement Agreement for Black Canyon reserved water <br />rights should be part of the baseline. <br />? <br /> <br />The 300 cfs minimum flow through Black Canyon should be in baseline. <br />? <br /> <br />Flows for the Redlands fis h ladder should be in baseline; final plans for Redlands <br />fish ladder , fish screen, and migration flows would be determined in EIS process. <br />? <br /> <br />Hydropower contracts are flexible, so they should not be in the baseline. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />? <br /> <br />Suggestions were made that alternatives should seek recovery of fish, not just <br />avoidance of jeopardy un der the ESA. <br />? <br /> <br />Section 7 (a)(1) of the ESA requires Federal agencies to use its authorities to <br />conserve endangered species — applies to other agencies with Aspinall interests — <br />such as WAPA and NPS. These agencies should support alternatives that assist in <br />fish recovery. <br />? <br /> <br />Alternatives should include the April 2003 Black Canyon settlement agreement. <br />? <br /> <br />Alternatives should protect existing uses and purposes. Alternatives <br />should/should not in clude decommissioning the Unit. <br />? <br /> <br />EIS should center on maximizing Unit flexibility for the benefit of all resources. <br />? <br /> <br />Alternatives must protect Colorado’s ability to develop compact entitlement. <br />? <br /> <br />Clarify whether the EIS will cover “water marketing”; many said that it should <br />not. <br />? <br /> <br />An array of alternatives should be presented; at least one should do everything <br />possible to meet the flow recommendations. <br />? <br /> <br />Alternatives should reveal tradeoffs --- use of water for flow duration vs. peak <br />flow ; peak flows vs. base flows , etc . <br />? <br /> <br />An alternative addressing “water banking” is needed — would involve reducing <br />the Redlands call to gain storage for later use. <br />? <br /> <br />Hydrology modeling will be important part of alternative development and should <br />be open and understandable to the public and agencies and organizations. <br />? <br /> <br />Alternatives should address severe and multi - year droughts — will alternatives <br />enhance performance of the Colorado River system to address severe sustained <br />droughts. <br />? <br /> <br />Flexibility should be retained to address drought periods quickl y. <br />? <br /> <br />Adaptive management should be designed to respond to drought periods. <br />? <br /> <br />Climatic variability should be considered in alternatives; relatively short records <br />used in EIS may not be representative of the next decades; climate change models <br />should be referred to. <br />? <br /> <br />Consideration should be given to upgrading the Gunnison Diversion Dam to <br />accommodate higher flows — would this also facilitate run - of - river hydropower at <br />the diversion dam itself? <br />? <br /> <br />An alternative of using water “surplus” to the existing needs (spill wate r) to <br />generate a spring peak would meet many of the outlined purposes. <br /> 8 <br />