|
<br />
<br />
<br />f>w\f... ~ ~~~
<br />
<br />F)(~ ~ (?,UV\
<br />OG29~5 ·
<br />
<br />185
<br />193
<br />201
<br />21/
<br />22/
<br />231
<br />24
<br />25
<br />H:
<br />H_ -',
<br />
<br />1,
<br />16,
<br />4,
<br />15,
<br />15,
<br />46,
<br />57,
<br />(-2,
<br />(-1,
<br />
<br />Encourage BLM to recommend to Congress designation of
<br />Segments 1 and 4 of the Arkansas River as "recreational"
<br />under the W&SR Act.
<br />
<br />Response
<br />
<br />BLM believes that wild and scenic river designation is a
<br />battle that cannot be won. The Federal Reserved Water
<br />Right (FRWR) required as part ofa W&S river is such a
<br />controversial issue that it prevents or delays interminably
<br />meaningful progress in terms of river protection.IThe issue
<br />that separated factions in the long discussion over additional
<br />Colorado wilderness areas completed this past winter was
<br />the FRWR. A bill w"s passed in 1993, but the issue was not
<br />resolved. The new wilderness bill simply does not discuss
<br />the FRWR because. unlike the Wi!fi and Scenic Rivers A ct,
<br />it is not a requirement of the original Wilderness A ct.
<br />
<br />In the case of the Arkansas River. the application of an
<br />FRWR is unrealistic because the river is currently fully
<br />appropriated under Colorado water law, leaving no water
<br />available for application of the FRWR. What current ad-
<br />judicated water right should be taken to provide for a
<br />FRWR? Should it simply be confiscated through condem-
<br />nation or purchase? Howmuch water is needed to ''protect''
<br />tile river and how many rights holders will be affected? How
<br />is that water purchased? What is a realistic value?
<br />
<br />Imported wdter (water not native to the Arkansas River
<br />drainage) is in addition exempt from the FRWR. Depend-
<br />ingon whom you ask, imported water constitutes from half to
<br />three-quarters of the river tlow after the annual high runoff
<br />period. That water will never be affected bya FRWR. The
<br />problems with adequate !lows for whatever purpose you
<br />favor are during the low tlowperiod during the summer, fall,
<br />and winter, when imported \W.ter makes up such a consid-
<br />erable percentage of available !low.
<br />
<br />The central issue on the Arkansas Rher is resource protection,
<br />not wild and scenic ri",rs. Currently, all aflected parties are
<br />""rking cooperatively to manage the river; i.e., provide for
<br />delivel)'of\\ater to dOWllStream rights holders, maintain recrea-
<br />tional valnes for tloat boating and fishing, and strive to provide:
<br />for the needs of aquatic life in the ri",r. The Wtld and Scenic
<br />
<br />Public Comments
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />Rher Study Repon docwnented the 'hutstandingly remark-
<br />able" recreational value of lhe Arkansas River. It lS v.orthy
<br />of strong protection because of the value to individual
<br />recreationists as well as the economy of the upper Arkansas
<br />VaUey. The recreational \alue of the river, hO\\ever, is just olle
<br />significant value. The river is of significance to one-fourth of
<br />the residents of the state for domestic water and supports a
<br />
<br />n:~:.s::~n_~ ___n~_~~__ _c,,_.___.J_ __:___'~____I :_.J___~_ .1._.
<br />"15Iuu....auL pI,.,Ll,.,l,.,llLa!;C VI LUIVldUU d!;IIl.UaUldIIlJUU;"lUY. 111-'
<br />itiatinga Federal reserve 'MIter right. vAlich isofdoubtful v"lue.
<br />will only destroy the cooperati", efforts to manage the Arkan- '
<br />sas River, probahly the most intensively managed river in the I
<br />entire nation.
<br />
<br />The proposed national recreation area (NRA) can promote
<br />river protection by encouraging the cooperative manage-
<br />ment of the river. An NRA proposal would have to be
<br />written specifically for the Arkansas River. There is 110
<br />"umbrella "Congressional act such as the National Wikl and
<br />Scenic RiveT.\'" Act that would he used (() provide protection.
<br />This is actually an advantage in terms of provid ing protec-
<br />tion to the river because it is not encumhered by the Ull-
<br />resolvable baggage ofa Federal reserve wdter right.
<br />
<br />Also refer to Chapter 1 of this documem for more details.
<br />
<br />Comment 32-2
<br />
<br />BLM must have a firm idea (prior to making a decision
<br />whether or not to recommend W&S designation) of what
<br />environmental consequences will result if a dam is built.
<br />HopefullyGIS modeling [0 predict what effect a dam above
<br />Buena Vista, one with sufficient capacity for the city of
<br />Colorado Springs to "develop" all its Wdler rights, would
<br />have on downstream water levels, temperatures, and cur-
<br />rent speeds at various locations and different times of the
<br />year.
<br />
<br />Response
<br />
<br />Evaluation of impacts resulting from future development of
<br />the Elephant Rock Dam (() the Arkansas River will he
<br />considered in the environmelHal impact statement for that
<br />project. The BLM management decision regarding wild and
<br />scenic river designation is an administrative action based all
<br />the statutoryrequiremems of the Wild and Scenic RiversA ct.
<br />Also refer to response for Comment 90-1.
<br />
<br />Comments 48-2, 12-1, 24-2,29-2, 47-2, 59-2, 69-4,
<br />70-1,95-3,100-2,103-2,110-1,123-1,1324,135-1,
<br />136-3,136-4,138-4,1444,149-2,153-1,153-2,155-1,
<br />173-6,183-2,185-3,1854,190-2,201-2, and 263-2
<br />
<br />Does not understand why there are no rivers and streams
<br />designated as wild and scenic, even though 230 plus miles of
<br />the Arkansas, Grape Creek. Badger Creek. Bea"" Creek,
<br />R:mnnile and Eightmile Creeks v.t:re studied. They deserve
<br />
<br />2-69
<br />
|