Laserfiche WebLink
<br />which agencies have lead, joint-lead or cooperating agency responsibilities. What is the <br />distinction between the relationship between the BOR and the NPS, BLM, CWCB that would <br />not be present if they were designated as cooperating agencies? How will this affect <br />administration of the NEPA compliance process? <br /> <br />Montrose participants were concerned that the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) should <br />be more involved, and not just represented by the CWCB. Involvement of the CDOW is needed <br />to study effects and make recommendations to protect the Gold Medal Trout fishery in the <br />Gunnison River and the Blue Mesa Reservoir sport fishery. As a result of discussions at the <br />November 1992 meeting of the CWCB, it was decided that the State of Colorado will be <br />represented in the NEPA analysis by the CDNR. The CDNR wrote that they will coordinate <br />participation by the CWCB, the CDOW, the Division of Water Resources, and Attorney <br />General. <br /> <br />The Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 Exchange Agreement (CRWCD, UGRWCD, and UVWUA) <br />all requested Cooperating agency status. They also want to be included as non-Federal, <br />signatory parties to the contract negotiation (in addition to the CWCB) to represent the interests <br />of water users of the Gunnison Basin. <br /> <br />Responsibilities of the agencies need to be clearly defmed and coordinated. <br /> <br />Item 22. <br /> <br />Public Involvement - Opportunities for interagency coordination and public <br />involvement need to be explained for the NEPA, decision-making and contract <br />development processes. <br /> <br />Refer to: Gunnison, Montrose, and Delta meetings; Congressman Campbell; Mr. Clark; the <br />City of Colorado Springs; CRWCD; CREDA; the NPCA; Non-Federal Parties to the 1975 <br />Exchange Agreement; UGRWCD; Ms. Kiefer; Mr. Miller; Arapahoe County; Mr. Jorgenson; <br />the Montrose Economic Development Council; the Sierra Club. (62 comments) , <br /> <br />As Congressman Campbell noted, the process for developing a contract began when BOR first <br />announced it would delay issuing a Record of Decision (ROD) for the proposed AB Lateral <br />Project. At that time, the BOR announced that it would be negotiating with other Department <br />of Interior and State agencies to draft an agreement that would allow the Aspinall Unit to <br />provide adequate flows for fish, wildlife and recreational uses in addition to satisfying the <br />demand for water to develop new hydro-electric and water storage projects. <br /> <br />Congressman Campbell stated that while the Gunnison Basin has long been in turmoil over water <br />rights, western slope communities have demonstrated an admirable amount of cohesion around <br />common issues. The UGRWCD, CRWCD, Tri-County Water Conservancy District, UVWUA, <br />Colorado Ute, City of Delta, and others have been concerned about being able to use their <br />Gunnison River water rights. Campbell felt the public meetings marked the beginning of the <br />process to protect the Gunnison River and, represents an opportunity to solidify and stabilize <br /> <br />36 <br />