My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSPC02244
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
14000-14999
>
WSPC02244
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 11:17:49 AM
Creation date
10/9/2006 3:16:06 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8210.761.09.C
Description
Colorado River-Federal Agencies-US NPS-Black Canyon of the Gunnison National Monument
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
3/1/1993
Author
BOR-NPS
Title
Legislation to Make BC a National Park-Scoping Report for the Gunnison River Contract
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<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 fmal <br />negotiations completed. following issuance of the Biological Opinion on the Aspinall Unit. As <br />stated by theFWS: <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 and NEP A 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 defme 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 pUlpose of a proposed action to guide the NEPA <br />analysis and/or contract development processes. <br /> <br />II. ALTERNATIVES <br /> <br />A. Formulation of Alternatives - Many commented on how difficult it will be to <br />articulate alternatives based 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 F~deral 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 <br />uses for miles downstream. Even if the Bureau of Reclamation believes that the <br /> <br />18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.