Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />Agenda Item 15 <br />September 22-23, 2003 Board Meeting <br />Page 5 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Development of alternatives: There are many possibilities for alternatives, both <br />structural and non-structural. All alternatives will be identified. In the process, several <br />will be dismissed, i.e., removal of the dam and other alternatives which are beyond the <br />scope of the purpose and need. The feasible alternatives that will likely emerge for <br />serious consideration will involve operational modifications. One alternative will be to <br />, implement the flow recommendations. The EIS will address issues such as flooding, <br />water quality, and the full range of impacts of the feasible alternatives. <br /> <br />The flow recommendations include "adaptive management" in the future for Aspinall <br />operations. This concept will be incorporated into any preferred alternative that evolves <br />from the EIS process. <br /> <br />It was suggested that the water users would want to develop a preferred alternative and <br />propose it to Reclamation, as well as define "the environmental baseline" and what <br />should be included in the baseline. This will be the responsibility of the water users and <br />will be a suggestion that will be made during the scoping process. <br /> <br />Future uses: Given that M&I Water Supply is one of the uses of Aspinall, foreseeable <br />contracts will be considered in the EIS process. It will be assumed that full use <br />development of Ridgeway water will occur. Existing uses on the North Fork will be <br />included, as well as all other existing uses. Neither the baseline nor the alternatives can <br />. ' include speculative projects. <br /> <br />Public involvement: There will be ongoing public involvement throughout the EIS <br />process at specific milestones. It was suggested that USBR establish a web site for <br />publication of any interim reports, and to keep everybody fully informed. <br /> <br />Public involvement on Aspinall operations: Reclamation holds an annual operations <br />meeting to receive input from the cross section of the public, including environmentalists, <br />water users, River District, State of Colorado, etc. Reclamation intends to continue this <br />process during the EIS and will likely do so afterwards. This will not be an "advisory <br />committee" in order to avoid confusion with requirements of the Federal Advisory <br />Committee Act, which is cumbersome, requires notices in the Federal Register for every <br />meeting, formal appointment of representatives, and, is expensive. Generally, the water <br />users at this meeting were satisfied with the public meeting process and believe that <br />Reclamation is responding to their concerns. <br /> <br />3. Endanl!"ered Species Act Compliance <br /> <br />Tom Pitts reviewed the three options regarding Endangered Species Act compliance that <br />were discussed in the January 15, 2003 discussion paper entitled "Options for <br />Endangered Species Act Compliance for Water Projects in the Gunnison Basin." This <br />paper was discussed at the February meeting of the Gunnison water users. The options <br />. included: 1) project by project ESA compliance, 2) a programmatic biological opinion on <br />