Laserfiche WebLink
<br />longstanding commitments that Congress made to the people of the Gunnison Basin when it <br />passed the Colorado River Storage Project Act. <br /> <br />Participants at the Gunnison meetings felt there was a lack of information to comment on and <br />that they needed more opportunity to comment h"fore a de;:;ision was reached. They also '\'lanted <br />a commitment or buy-in from all stakeholders built into the process. They were concerned that <br />involvement of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) would "undo" everything; <br />the BOR is trying to restore historic patterns and FERC was "undoing." <br /> <br />Montrose participants questioned the process and comment period: What level (environmental <br />assessment or EIS) of environmental study will be performed? Will additional comments be <br />accepted after July l5? How many opportunities for input would they have to review studies <br />identified in the scoping report? Is there a schedule? Will NPS studies on water needs for the <br />Black Canyon be available before the contract is signed or before the public comment period is <br />over? <br /> <br />Delta meeting participants wanted to know what the plans were for the NEPA analysis in relation <br />to the contract. They questioned if public input and the NEP A process really affects the <br />contract. They were concerned that, because of the contract process, meetings would not remain <br />open to the public. They felt that decisions were usually made in Washington or Denver and <br />they wanted the decision process brought to the people--with more weight given to local input. <br />They realized Gunnison participants had different concerns and felt that sharing those concerns <br />would help understand them. <br /> <br />Ms. Kiefer, UGRWCD, the Sierra Club, CRWCD, and NPCA felt that a full EIS was warranted <br />to comply with NEPA, to properly identify alternatives, and to analyze the complex water supply <br />and environmental protection issues in the Gunnison Basin and the controversy among competing <br />interests for Gunnison River water. <br /> <br />Mr. Clark and the UGRWCD felt that development of the contract and its associated NEPA <br />document should be coordinated with three related EIS's (WAPA's Salt Lake City Area <br />Integrated Project Electrical Power Marketing EIS, W APA's Energy Planning and Management <br />Program EIS, and BOR's Glen Canyon Dam EIS) that are currently addressing possible program <br />and management changes to the Aspinall Unit. <br /> <br />Mr. Miller commented that, under NEPA rules, the EIS scoping process was not valid because <br />specific Blue Mesa Reservoir release schedules for endangered fish are not available for public <br />evaluation. He further recommended deferral of the formal scoping until the desired Gunnison <br />River flow regime is sufficiently defmed for detailed analysis. <br /> <br />Arapahoe County felt that the BOR should comply with all NEPA substantive and procedural <br />requirements by conducting the necessary studies and preparing an EIS before it enters into any <br />contract for flows in the Black Canyon. They requested that the needs for and effects of flow <br />regimes in the Black Canyon be studied and defmed for meaningful public and agency input. <br /> <br />37 <br /> <br />001770 <br />