Laserfiche WebLink
<br />t'-'" <br /> <br />(- <br /> <br />'. <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />PUBLIC PARTICll'ATION <br /> <br />L This process is subject to NEPA and the final resolution will require an Environmental Impact <br />Statement; negotiations between different federal agencies should be occurring in public. <br /> <br />2. Federal family negoli:1tions andlor subordination of the 1933 right constitutes a feder.:d action and <br />policy making, and as such, requires NEP A compliance. <br /> <br />3, Who will be involved in the process of prioritizing among competing fedeml mandates? Will it be <br />open to the public or provide opponunity for public input? <br /> <br />4, Does NPS intend to have another public meeting or meetings in the future? What. if any, forum <br />exists for additional public input/comment? <br /> <br />5. NPS needs to prepare and distribute a public document which describes in detail how the proposed <br />quantification fits with other flow commitments and policies for management of the Aspinall Unit, <br />how the FWS flow recommendations relate to the NPS quantification. Also, all quantification and <br />settlement proceedings including all background information should be trulde available to the public <br />(e.g" at public libraries, web site etc.), <br /> <br />CO-MANAGEMENT OF THE ASPINALL UNIT <br /> <br />L How can the NPS, via its proposal to co-manage inflows and to prioritize among mandates, be <br />guaranteed to receive peaks, shoulder flows, or anything more than 300 cfs minimum? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />2, Does co-management imply that the NPS ultimately subordinates to the entire Aspinall yield (60,000 <br />+ 240,000 acre-feet)? <br /> <br />3. NPS proposes to prioritize among competing federal bureau mandates to determine releases from <br />Aspinall .... Are criteria established for shifting priorities among conflicting Federal mandates? <br />WiII these be incorporated into the final decree? <br /> <br />4, NPS must demonstrate that co-management and subordination is necessary, NPS has not presented <br />evidence that the Bureau of Reclamation and other federal agency mandates could NOT be met if the <br />entire NPS reserved right carried a 1933 priority. <br /> <br />EFFECTS ON ASPINALL UNIT OPERATIONS <br /> <br />1. How will NPS quantification fit within the accounting framework for Aspinall releases'! Are NPS <br />releases to be counted separately from endangered fish releases? <br /> <br />2. Doesn't operation of Aspinall to meet penk flows obligate the Bureau of Reclamation to comply with <br />NEPA, even though releases for BLCA litigation/water right may not? <br /> <br />3. Are reservoir storage targets fixed? If flexibility exists, how much? <br /> <br />4, What are intended uses of Aspinall yield? What is the definition and availability of the 240,000 <br />acre-feet? How will the yield be prioritized among other federal mandates? ... in wet years? ... in <br />dry years? <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />S. Continue to use the Aspinall Unit opemtions meetings to determine the annual operating plan for the <br />Gunnison River, Can these procedures and the decision process be formalized? <br /> <br />4 <br />