Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I I, G~Be~ <br /> <br />CHAPTER 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 NEPA 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 knowledge and understanding of the <br />publics' comments, concerns and attitudes toward a particular aspect of the contract development <br />proposaL This irifonnation is provided to assist cooperalOrs 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 notebooks containing <br />the actual comments which have been coded and organized (soned) by item, <br /> <br />I. IJ'I.'TRODUCTION <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 defme historic and current <br />management of the areas and/or resources for which they are responsible. The legislative <br />authority and purposes for which the Aspinall Unit, Black Canyon, Curecanti, 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 defme 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 Panies 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 imponance of providing <br />hydrologic data and analyses to characterize historic operation in representative dry, 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 panicipants 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 />II <br />