FLOOD02168 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

longstanding commitments that Congress made to the people of the Gunnison Basin when it passed the Colorado River Storage Project Act. Participants at the Gunnison meetings felt there was a lack of information to comment on and that they needed more opportunity to comment before a decision was reached. They also wanted a commitment or buy-in from all stakeholders built into the process. They were concerned that involvement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would "undo" everything; the BOR is trying to restore historic patterns and FERC was "undoing." Montrose participants questioned the process and comment period: What level (environmental assessment or EIS) of environmental study will be performed? Will additional comments be accepted after July 15? How many opportunities for input would they have to review studies identified in the scoping report? Is there a schedule? Will NPS studies on water needs for the Black Canyon be available before the contract is signed or before the public comment period is over? Delta meeting participants wanted to know what the plans were for the NEPA analysis in relation to the contract. They questioned if public input and the NEPA process really affects the contract. They were concerned that, because of the contract process, meetings would not remain open to the public. They felt that decisions were usually made in Washington or Denver and they wanted the decision process brought to the people--with more weight given to local input. They realized Gunnison participants had different concerns and felt that sharing those concerns would help understand them. Ms. Kiefer, UGRWCD, the Sierra Club, CRWCD, and NPCA felt that a full EIS was warranted to comply with NEPA, to properly identify alternatives, and to analyze the complex water supply and environmental protection issues in the Gunnison Basin and the controversy among competing interests for Gunnison River water. ~ I Mr. Clark and the UGRWCD felt that development of the contract and its associated NEPA document should be coordinated with three related EIS's (WAPA's Salt Lake City Area Integrated Project Electrical Power Marketing .EIS, W AP A's Energy Planning and Management Program EIS, and BOR's Glen Canyon Dam EIS) that are currently addressing possible program and management changes to the Aspinall Unit. Mr. Miller commented that, under NEPA rules, the EIS scoping process was not valid because specific Blue Mesa Reservoir release schedules for endangered fish are not available for public I evaluation. He further recommended deferral of the formal scoping until the desired Gunnison River flow regime is sufficiently defmed for detailed analysis. Arapahoe County felt that the BOR should comply with all NEPA substantive and procedural requirements by conducting the necessary studies and preparing an EIS before it enters into any contract for flows in the Black Canyon. They requested that the needs for and effects of flow regimes in the Black Canyon be studied and defmed for meaningful public and agency input. 37