Laserfiche WebLink
<br />CRWCD, and CREDA were concerned that the effects of providing test flows for the 5-year <br />study were not assessed (NEPA compliance) prior to BOR initiating the flows. Mr. Jorgenson, <br />the Sierra Club, Congressman Campbell, and CWCB support ensuring that the contract will meet <br />Section 7 recommendations to reoperate the Aspinall Unit to meet recovery goals. The NPCA <br />supported beginning NEPA compliance for development of an "interim contract," with final <br />negotiations completed following issuance of the Biological Opinion on the Aspinall Unit. As <br />stated by the FWS: <br /> <br />"Clearly, the development of a water service contract. . . representing a long-term <br />change in operations and the need for compliance with Section 7 of the Endangered <br />Species Act andNEPA are inseparable. The legal and institutional interrelationships <br />would suggest that the development of one without the other to be impractical." <br /> <br />B. Need for and Purpose of Action - Careful analysis of all six items above should <br />help to derme the scope of the issues to be resolved, appropriate actions to take, and goals of <br />involved agencies. The lead and cooperating agencies have discussed and recognize the need <br />for concise statements of the need for and purpose of a proposed action to guide the NEPA <br />analysis and/or contract development processes. <br /> <br />n. ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />A. Formulation of Alternatives - Many commented on how difficult it will be to <br />articulate alternatives hased on the information developed to date for the proposal. We received <br />several suggestions identifying factors to consider when formulating alternatives. <br /> <br />Item 7. <br /> <br />. Compatibility with Federal and State Laws - Contract alternatives must be <br />compatible with the intent of Congress in authorizing the Aspinall Unit, the "Law <br />of the River" and Colorado State Water Law. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Arapahoe County; Congressman Campbell; <br />the City of Colorado Springs, CREDA; the Montrose Economic Development Council; Non- <br />Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; Mr. Robinson. (24 comments) <br /> <br />The proposal to operate the Aspinall Unit to more closely simulate natural flows of the Gunnison <br />River brought out many questions on compatibility of contract provisions with the intent of <br />Congress in passing the CRSP Act in 1956. Central to this issue is operation of the Aspinall <br />Unit to meet, or not interfere with, authorized "primary purposes" and in accordance with State <br />water right decrees. Arapahoe County wrote: <br /> <br />"From the text of the Colorado River Storage Project (Act) ... it is clear that the Aspinall <br />Unit does not have decreed water rights for the purposes contemplated in the proposed <br />Contract. Constructing facilities for the propagation of fish and wildlife and mitigation <br />of losses at the Aspinall Unit is not the same as making substantial releases for instream j <br />uses for miles downstream. Even if the Bureau of Reclamation believes that the I <br /> <br />18 <br />