WSP09906 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Who Commented During Seoping? The 17,000 written comments came in a variety of forms from all across the country. However, of that number, more than 15,000 were form letters and pre-printed cards sent under the urging of several organizations. The remainder were other types of form and written letter comments. ~terestingly, there were four organizational efforts, two by environmental groups and two were on behalf of power generation interests. The largest number came from the efforts of the Friends of the River, headquartered in Sacramento, California. They generated approximately 12,190 responses through two different versions of a detachable post card. Of the total received, 7,484, or 61.4%, came from California. All states except South Dakota were represented. The Sierra Club also encouraged cards to be sent in and 2,260 individuals responded. Again, California accounted for the largest number of respondents with 1,361 or 60.1 %. Forty-eight states were represented in this set of cards. Public power interests in the St. George, Utah, area generated nearly 1,240 cards. 85.5% ofthe cards came from Utah, with others from six additional states. In addition, 124 residents of Page, Arizona, sent in a card that disagreed with demands for immediate interim flows from the dam during the EIS process. Over 250 speakers presented verbal comments at public meetings. Those who provided verbal and written comments came from all regions of the country. However, more than two-thirds of the comments came from western states, mainly Arizona,California, Colorado, Nevada, and Utah. It's interesting to note that there were significant differences in the geographical distribution of people identifying clearly with particular interests. Comments on the importance of hydropower came almost exclusively from adjacent states who receive electric power and also from national organizations representing power users. On the other hand, environmental interests were , more broadly distributed throughout the entire country, ' although two-thirds of the comments came from the five I western states. Water users, river guides, fishermen, ' Indian tribes, and interested citizens not affiliated with an interest group were mainly from the west. HOW CAN I SEE THE COMPLETE REPORT? The entire Scoping Report is available for public review at a number of locations. Because of its length, a limited number of copies were printed for public distribution. The report can be read at: Bureau of Reclamation offices in Salt Lake City, UT; Page, Flagstaff, and Phoenix, AZ; Boulder City, NV; Denver, CO; and Washington, D.C. They are also at the Fish and Wildlife Sezvice offices in Phoenix, AZ and Albuquerque, NM. The report can be read at the National Park Service Offices in Denver, CO; Page and Grand Canyon National Park, AZ; and San Francisco, CA. The Arizona Game and Fish offices in Flagstaff and Phoenix, AZ have the report as does the Bureau of Indian Affairs office in Phoenix, AZ. Copies are also available at the tribal headquarters of the Navajo Nation, Window Rock, AZ, the Hopi Indian Tribe, Kykotsmovi, AZ, the Havasupai Tribe, Supai, AZ, and the Hualapai Tribe, Peach Springs, AZ. Additional copies have also been furnished to a number of college and university libraries including Arizona Slate University, Northern Arizona University, University of Arizona, University of Nevada at Las Vegas, Southern Utah Slate College, and the University of Utah. Public libraries in Phoenix, Flagstaff, Page, Salt Lake City, Denver, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Washington, D.C. have also been sent copies. Other school and public libraries will be sent copies upon request. 2