|
<br />
<br />JJ2946
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />185
<br />193
<br />207
<br />2ll
<br />22/
<br />231
<br />24
<br />25
<br />H;
<br />R - , ,
<br />
<br />"
<br />"
<br />
<br />f"t
<br />.'
<br />"
<br />
<br />i'
<br />
<br />Encourage BLM to recommend to Congress designation of
<br />Segments I 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 of a W&S river is such a
<br />controversial issue that it prevents or delays interminably
<br />meaningful progress in terms of river protection. The issue
<br />that separated factions in the long discussion over additional
<br />Colorado wilderness areas completed this past wimer was
<br />the FRWR. A bill was passed in 1993. but the issue was not
<br />resolved. The new wilderness bill simply does not discuss
<br />the FRWR because, nnlike the Wild and Scenic Rive".. Act,
<br />it is not a requirement of the original Wildemess 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? How much water is needed to "protect"
<br />the river and how many rights holders will be affected? How
<br />is that water purchased? What is a realistic vdlue?
<br />
<br />Imported water (water not native to the Arkansas River
<br />drainage) is in addition exempt from the FRWR. Depend-
<br />ing on whom you ask, imported water constitutes from half to
<br />three-quarters of the river tlowafter the annual high runoff
<br />period. That water will never be affected bya FRWR. The
<br />problems with adequate flows for whatever purpose you
<br />favor are during the low flow period during the summer, fall,
<br />and winter, when imported water makes up such a consid-
<br />erable percentage ofavailable flow.
<br />
<br />The central issue on dIe Arkansas River is resource protection,
<br />not wild and scenic rivers. Currently. all aflected parties are
<br />""rking cooperatively to manage the river; i.e.. provide for
<br />deliveryofv.aterto downstream rights holders, maintain recrea-
<br />tional values for float boating and fishing, and strive to provide
<br />for the needs of aquatic hre in the river. 'fhe Wild and Scenic
<br />
<br />
<br />Public Comments
<br />
<br />.
<br />
<br />1,
<br />'6,
<br />4,
<br />15,
<br />J5,
<br />46,
<br />57,
<br />1-2,
<br />1-1,
<br />
<br />Ri\.er Study Report docwnented the 'butstandingly remark-
<br />able" recreational \l3lue of the Arkansas Ri.....ef. It is vvonhy
<br />of strong protection because of the value to individual
<br />recreationists as ~1I as the economy of the upper Arkansas
<br />VaUey. The recreational vdlue 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 />significant percentage of Colorado agricultural industry. In-
<br />itiating a Federal reserve water right. which isofdoubtful vdlue.
<br />will only destroy the cooperative efforts to manage the Arkan-
<br />sas River, probably the most intensively managed river in the
<br />entire nation.
<br />
<br />The proposed national recreation area (NRA) can prolllote
<br />river protection by encouraging the cooperative manage-
<br />ment of the river. An NRA proposal wonld have to he
<br />written specifically for the Arkansas River. There is no
<br />"umbrella "Congressional act such as the National Wild and
<br />Scenic RivelJ A ct that would he used to provide protection.
<br />This is actually an advantage in terms of providing protec-
<br />tion to the river because it is not encumbered by the UIl-
<br />resolvable baggage of a Federal reserve wdter right.
<br />
<br />Also refer to Chapter I of this docnment for Illore 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 />envirOIilllental consequences will result if a dam is built.
<br />Hopefully G IS modeling to predict what effect a dam above
<br />Buena Vista, one with sufficient capacity for the city of
<br />Colorado Springs to "develop" all its water rights, would
<br />have on downstream water levels, temperatures, and CUf-
<br />rent speeds at various locations and different times of {he
<br />year.
<br />
<br />Response
<br />
<br />E\I3luation of impacts resulting from future development of
<br />the Elephant Rock Dam to the Arkansas River will be
<br />considered in the environmental impact statement for that
<br />project. The BLM management decision regarding wild and
<br />scenic river designation is an administrative action based on
<br />the statutoryrequirententsofthe Wild and Scenic Rive" Act,
<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, lJO-1,123-1, 132-4,/35-1,
<br />136-3,136-4,1384,144-4,149-2,153-1,153_2,155_1,
<br />173-6,183-2,185-3,185-4,190-2,201-2, and 263-2
<br />
<br />Does not understand vvhy 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;,:r Creek.
<br />Foumlile and Eightmile Creeks \\ere studied, They deser;,:
<br />
<br />2-69
<br />
<br />....
<br />
<br />:'
<br />
<br />'1
<br />
<br />"
<br />'r
<br />
<br />I,
<br />
<br />i'
<br />I
<br />I
<br />
<br />,
<br />I'
<br />~
<br />I
<br />
<br />j
<br />, I
<br />
<br />
|