Laserfiche WebLink
<br />\ <br /> <br />, <br /> <br />Agenda Item 15 <br />April 22, 1993 <br />Page two <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />cooperating agency for developing the EIS on the Aspinall Water Delivery Contract for the <br />Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument. Execution by the Colorado <br />Department of Natural Resources was conditioned on the ''Task Directive" being revised to <br />include a stronger statement on how the contract will satisfy the Black Canyon National <br />Monuments reserved water right claim and endangered species issues and more specificity <br />regarding the State's role in developing the EIS and inclusion of the Colorado River Water <br />Conservation District, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy District and Uncompahgre <br />Valley Water Users Association as cooperating agencies and signatories to the ''Task <br />Directive." <br /> <br />On February 18, 1993 Reclamation responded to a letter from the CWCB indicating <br />that they would include the Colorado River Water Conservation District, Upper Gunnison <br />River Water Conservancy District and Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association as <br />cooperating agencies in developing the EIS, and that they would revise the ''Task Directive" <br />accordingly. Reclamation and the National Park Service are currently in the process of <br />preparing a revised draft of the ''Task Directive" and MOA which is now envisioned to be <br />solely between the lead agencies and which will define in some detail which agency is <br />responsible for doing what and which agency will bear the expense. On March 22, 1993 the <br />State provided additional comments on the March, 1992 version of the ''Task Directive" to _ <br />Reclamation for use in preparing the new document. _ <br /> <br />On March 9, 1993, the CWCB was notified for the first time that the lead agencies <br />were now considering separate agreements with each cooperating agency. We have <br />indicated verbally to the lead agencies that we are not in favor of separate agreements and <br />encouraged them to at least try and develop one ''Task Directive" for the entire process <br />which would be acceptable to all. Subsequently, we have been informed that the lead <br />agencies continue to lean strongly toward separate agreements with each of the other <br />cooperating agencies, with the possible exception of one combined agreement for the <br />Colorado River Water Conservation District, Upper Gunnison River Water Conservancy <br />District and the Uncompahgre Valley Water Users Association. Staff is not particularly <br />excited with this divided approach as it does put the lead agencies more squarely in control <br />of what gets accomplished and how. <br /> <br />It is expected that the lead and cooperating agencies will be meeting in the next few <br />months to further define responsibilities for each agency involved, draft appropriate <br />agreements with each and formulate some preliminary alternatives for discussion and use <br />in identifying data and study needs. The data collection and research period is expected to <br />last several years. <br /> <br />SCOPING DOCUMENT <br /> <br />Attached hereto is a copy of the most recent Gunnison River Contract newsletter. <br />The first page of the newsletter does a good job of highlighting the key issues and concerns <br /> <br />e <br />