Aspinall EIS - Scoping Report May 2007

• Basin Roundtable: Gunnison
• Title: Scoping Report - Scoping Report
• Date: 5/1/2007
• Author: Bureau of Reclamation
• Basin Roundtables - Doc Type: General Resources

The following section of this report summarizes comments and concerns associated with
specific topics. The information is a compilation of information presented and no attempt
is made to analyze/support/or refute the comments.

Planning considerations:
?

Study area should be defined; suggestions include the entire Gunniso n Basin or
expanded areas to include all or portions of the Colorado River Basin.
?

Time frame for analysis needs to be defined.
?

Uncertainties related to climate, population growth, and socio - economic changes
need to be addressed.
?

Applicable laws, regulati ons, and contracts need to be tabulated ; and type of
actions requiring congressional authorization identified.
?

Interrelationships of CRSP Units need to be explained.
?

Adaptive management and coordination with recovery goals basin wide need to
be considere d.
?

Existing data, data bases, and ongoing studies need to be tabulated. What
resources are now monitored and what are the results?
?

Will future water demands be projected?
?

How is this planning effort integrated with other Basin planning efforts?
?

How are th e 2 targets (lower Gunnison and Colorado River ) for flow
recommendations to be handled?
?

Gunnison River flows should be targeted; the Gunnison Basin should not be
responsible for meeting Colorado River targets.

Proposed action and purpose and need:

?

Sev eral commentors stressed that the proposed action should be to recover the
endangered species rather than “avoid jeopardy” under the ESA .
?

Comments were made that ESA needs surpassed the need to meet other Unit
purposes. Others stressed the importance of protecting Unit authorized purposes
as a priority . There were also suggestions that the ESA issues and meeting

traditional Unit purposes could be compatible.

Baseline (existing conditions from ESA standpoint) :
?

Most commentors believed the baseline s hould include existing water uses and
agreements and should not include future or speculative projects.
?

Concerning the 60,000 af subordination for the U pper Gunnison Basin, some
commentors believed only that portion presently being used should be include d in
the baseline while others thought the total amount should be in the baseline.
?

C ommentors pointed out that the AB Lateral Hydropower Project should not
be /should be included in the baseline.
?

The role the Dallas Creek and Dolores Projects ’ biological opinions play in the
baseline needs to be determined.
?

Full use of Dallas Creek Project water should be included in baseline.
7