BOARD02509 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 25 '92 03'44PM PITKIN COUNTY RDMIN P.2 ~ '--^-^-^-^J ~ '--^-^-^..AJ . . . RUEDI WATER & POWER AUTHORITY Clo Pitkin County Administration 530 E. Main Street, 3rd Floor Aspen, C081611 June 22, 1992 Mr. Robert Jackson, Chairman Colorado Water Conservation Board 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80202 RE: Ruedi Reservoir Endangered Species Releases Dear Mr. Jackson, This is to enter into the record of your proceedinqs the comments of the Ruedi Water and Power Authority regarding 1992 endangered species releases from Rued! Reservoir. These comments are consistent with those that we provided to the eWCB in 1991 and with those submitted to the Bureau of Reclamation at their public meeting on 1992 endangered species releases on June g of this year. In 1991 the Ruedi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA) appealed to the eWCB to acknowledge the concerns of local Roaring Fork Valley governments and Ruedi users in the context of the Memorandum of Agreement for supplemental endangered species releases between the ewcs, the Bureau of Reclamation and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In the eWCB's Resolution approving the MOA, you required the Bureau and the Fish and wildlife Service to produce reports on the effects of supplemental.releases on Rued! recreation, hydropower production and endangered species recovery. We have discussed our concerns with last year's studies in previous communications and we will not repeat them here. We do, however, request that you continue to require these studies as a prerequisite to supplemental endangered species releases. Although the Bureau has represented that the NEPA process tor Round II water sales was sufficient to address the impacts from these releases, we want to point out that the Supplemental EIS for ~ound II water sales did not contemplate significant releases from Ruedi that were not associated with a sales program. The potential benefits of a sales proqram were an important element in our acceptance of the conclusions of the Supplemental EIS. We teel, therefore, that releases independent of a sales program are fundamentally different, in terms of total costs and benefits to the area, and are worthy of onqoing analysis in their own ri9ht. Also, we are concerned that the supplemental releases. are essentially 1 Aspen, Colorado Basalt, Colorado MEMRFR JURISDICTIONS Carbondale, Colorado Garfield County, Colorado Eagle County, Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado Pitkin County, Colorado Snowmass Village, Colorado