Laserfiche WebLink
<br />"Ir?'I79 <br />,'-:'-),) " <br /> <br />(;HAPTER 4. SCOPE OF ISSUES AND CONCERNS <br /> <br />In this chapter, the 22 issues and concerns to be addressed are discussed according to the order <br />they would be addressed in a NEP A document (environmental assessment or EIS). In addition. <br />to resolving and addressing these issues and concerns, the document will describe compliance <br />with applicable laws and regulations including the Clean Water Act, EO 11988 (Floodplain <br />Management), and EO 11990 (Protection of Wetlands). <br /> <br />These summaries are not intended to replace a working /mowledge and u"derstanding of the <br />publics' comments, concerns and attitudes toward a particular aspect of the contract development <br />proposal. This iriformation is provided to assist cooperators in focusing on the input when <br />addressing each issue and concern. The sources and number of comments summarized by each.. <br />item below are indicated following an introductory description of the issue or concern, 'when <br />addressing the issues, cooperators should also refer to their supplementary notebooksccmtaining <br />the actual commentS which have been coded and organized (sorted) by item, <br /> <br />I. INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />A. Background - Background questions should be answered to establish the need for <br />and purpose of action, The involved agencies need to clearly defIne historic and current <br />management of the areas andlor resources for which they are responsible. The legislative <br />authority and purposes for which the Aspinall Unit, Black Canyon, Cureeanti,and the Gunnison, <br />Gorge are being managed needs to be reviewed to identify the degree to which the proposed <br />contract could meet management objectives. <br /> <br />Item 1. <br /> <br />Historic/Current Operation of the Aspinall Unit - BOR needs to defIne historic <br />and current management of the Aspinall Unit, including historic and current <br />operating criteria, commitments for water stored in Blue Mesa Reservoir, and <br />historic benefIts of project operation. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose and Delta meetings; Arapahoe County; City of Colorado Springs; <br />Congressman Campbell; CREDA; CWCB; the NPCA; Mr. Jorgenson; Commissioner Corey; <br />Non,Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; UGRWCD. (35 comments) <br /> <br />Many respondents requested that the BOR fully explain the, historic and current' operation of the' <br />Aspinall Unit. CREDA and Commissioner Corey pointed out the importance of providing <br />hydrologic data and analyses to characterize historic operation in representittivedry, average and ' <br />wet water years, Operating criteria to be defmed include annual target storage levels (fill by <br />July 31 and drawdown about 29 ft. to elevation 7,490 by December 31) and limiting factors such' <br />as the use of the Crystal bypass and power outlets, and dam size and integrity considerations. <br /> <br />Gunnison meeting pluticipants suggested that the Aspinall Unit has historically been operated to ' <br />protect the Upper Gunnison Basin from senior water right demands (including decrees of the <br /> <br />11 <br /> <br />f~ ',,;..,_/., ."',C;'., <br /> <br />'co.'"' <br /> <br />