Laserfiche WebLink
<br />water agreement. While alternatives are included to protect water users, they suggested that <br />alternatives be developed to protect hydropower users; and a better analysis of hydropower <br />impacts provided. <br /> <br />Arapahoe County said it was important that the proposals not interfere with the primary purposes <br />of the Aspinall Unit which include the comprehensive development of the water resources of the <br />Upper Colorado River Basin. Arapahoe feels strongly that there is significant unappropriated <br />water upstream from the Aspinall Unit for development, and that Reclamation should not begin <br />calling out existing or future uses so that it can release water out of the Aspinall Unit and <br />ultimately out of the State. The interim agreement should recognize interim agreement releases <br />should not interfere with Aspinall purposes. Arapahoe feels a full ElS would be needed before <br />a long-term contract was developed. Mesa County did not comment on the draft EA. However, <br />Reclamation is working with them to address concerns with the project, including any concerns <br />that may arise during the fmal design and pre-construction process. <br /> <br />Soecific Comments and Responses <br /> <br />Specific comments have been summarized below according to resource categories and responses <br />prepared. The text of the fmal EA has been revised where appropriate. <br /> <br />Purpose and Need <br /> <br />Suggestions were made on strengthening the Purpose and Need Statement in the EA in several <br />comments. One person indicated that it was impossible to tie the need for the project to the <br />biological section of the EA. One agency suggested that the impacts of No Action alternative <br />were presumptive and overstated, and alternatives to the passageway exist. <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />The purpose and need section of the repon has been revised in response to comments received. <br />The biological section of the final EA describes the situation where fish are prevented from <br />moving up the Gunnison River and that they congregate downstream from the diversion. The <br />comment on the No Action altema1ive referred to a statement in the draft EA that under the No <br />Action altema1ive the Recovery Program .would no longer serve as the reasonable way <br />(reasonable and prudent altema1ive) to offset impacrs ofwarer development, and existing and <br />future warer development and use in Colorado could be adversely affecred." Since the <br />passageway and warer supply are considered key elements of the Recovery Program, this seClion <br />of the repon has not been changed. The Recovery Program would not fail if the passageway <br />is not completed, bur a key action of the program (restoring use of the Gunnison River) would <br />not succeed. <br /> <br />Design of Fish Passageway <br /> <br />One organization stated that alternatives and issues like channelization, screening, attractants, <br />trapping, and power purchases may be related to the initial proposal and have not been <br /> <br />45 <br />