WSP07175

• File Number: 8200.766
• Description: Gunnison River General
• State: CO
• Basin: Gunnison
• Water Division: 4
• Date: 3/1/1993
• Author: DOI-BOR
• Title: Scoping Report for the Gunnison River Contract - Water from Blue Mesa Reservoir through the Black Canyon and the Gunnison Gorge
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

CRWCD, and CREDA were concerned that the effects of provxding test' flows for the 5-year
study were not assessed, (NEPAcompliance) prior to BOR initiating the flows, Mr, Jorgenson,
the Sierra Club, Congressman Campbell, andCWCBsupport ensuring that the contract will meet
Section 7 recommendations to reoperate .the Aspi,nall Unit to m~t recovery' goals. The NPCA '
supported beginning NEP A cOmpliance for development of an :"interim contract," with fmal
negotiations completed following issuance of the Biological Opiqion on the Aspinall Unit. As
stated by the FWS: "

. ,
"Clearly, the. development of a water servicecont~ct .:. . representing a long-term
change, in operations and the need for complilll1cewith (Section. 70f the Endangered
Species Act and NEP A areinseplU'llble. The legal and jnstitutional interrelationships
would suggest that the develQpment of one without the other to b~impractical."

B. Need for and Purpose ofActilln- Care,ful analysis !ofall six items above should
, help to define the scope of the issues to be resolved, appropriate actions to take, ,and goals of
involved agencies~ The lead and cooperating agencies have disc~ssed and recognize the need
for concise statements of the need for and purpose ofapropoSedaction to guide the NEPA
analysis and/orcontractdevelopment processes.

n. ALTERNATIVES

A. FOnDulationof Alternatives - Many commented on how difficult it will be to
articulate alternatives based on the information developed to date (or the proposal, Wereceived
several suggestions identifying factors to consider when formulating alternatives,

Item 7. '

Compatibility with Federal and State, Laws - Contractaiternatives must be
cOmpatible with the intent of Congress in authorizing the Aspinall Unit, the "Law
of the River" and Colorado State Water Law.

Referto: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Arapahoe Coynty; Congressman Campbell;'
the City of Colorado Springs, CREDA; the Montrose Economio Development Council; Non-
Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement; Mr. Robinson; (24 comments)

, ,,', ' -,:' " -",

TheproPOSal to operate the Aspinall Unit to more closely simulate:natural flows of the Gunnison
River brought out many questions on compatibility of contrachprovisions with the, intent of
Congress in passing the CRSP Act in 1956. Central to this issue is operation of the Aspinall
Unit to meet, or not interfere with, authorized "primary purposes'l and in accordance with State
water right decrees, Arapahoe County wrote:

. ,

"From the text of the Colorado River Storage Project (Act)... it is clear that the Aspinall
Unit does not have decreed water rights for the purposes 'contemplated ,in the proposed
Contract. Constructing. facilities for the propagation of fish and wildlife' and mitigation
of losses at the Aspinall Unit is not the same as making substantial releases for in stream
uses for miles downstream, EVen if the Bureau ofRe<;lamation believes that the

18