Laserfiche WebLink
<br />001236 > <br /> <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />DETAILS CONCERNING THE UTE MOUNTAIN UTE'S WORK ON THE FINAL <br />SUPPLEMENT TO THE 1996 FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT <br />STATEMENT (FSEIS), ANIMAS- LA PLATA PROJECT <br /> <br />On January, 2, 1997, Reclamation issued Modification No. 002 to the UMUT, pursuant to the <br />ISDEA process. Details of the services in Task 3 of this modification included the following: <br /> <br />1. Review the presently configured components and costs associated with the ALP as <br />outlined in the 1996 FSEIS. This will require the analysis and evaluation of the <br />Reclamation construction, design, and cost information relating specifically to Phase <br />1 of the ALP and in detail to Phase 1, Stage A. <br /> <br />2. Review feature sizing and related costs of the presently configured ALP. <br /> <br />3. Provide design and cost estimate options considered within the Romer/Schoettler <br />Process (see Appendix 2 for more information on the Romer/Schoettler Process) to <br />assist the parties to evaluate the most appropriate facilities with differing depletion <br />levels. potedtial cost savings associated with various depletions and project <br />configuration will be examined, including facilities sized to deliver only Stage A <br />depletions of 57, 1 00 acre-feet, facilities to provide a portion of such Stage A <br />depletions into the La Plata River basin, and facilities sized to deliver depletions in <br />excess of Stage A depletions into the La Plata River basin. In undertaking the <br />research and analysis, the UMUT will rely on data prepared by Reclamation and <br />others. <br /> <br />The modification also stated that Reclamation would provide all available information pertaining <br />to design, construction, and cost requested andlo'i-' required by the UMUT to complete this task. <br />Reclamation would also provide any and all technical assistance requested by the UMUT. The <br />design and cost analysis provided under the Cooperative Agreement was intended to compare <br />various options for the project. The primary focus was to determine the relative cost difference <br />between the various options. <br /> <br /> <br />In the early part of 1999, a SOW was prepared for UMUT to support Reclamation in preparation <br />for the Final Supplement to the FSEIS. Modification No. 016 was executed and transmitted to <br />UMUT on July 9, 1999. The SOW in the modification included completing a base resource <br />analysis, appraisal analysis, and public involvement. Substantial existing data and analyses were <br />used to provide the engineering, cost, and environmental information on many elements of the <br />Administration Proposal and alternatives. Work was to be completed and delivered to <br />Reclamation by June 15,2000. <br /> <br />Modification No. 017 was executed and transmitted to UMUT on November 26, 1999. The <br />primary task was development of data for use by Reclamation in preparing a FSEIS. This <br />included a description of resources potentially impacted and an assessment of those impacts. It <br />also included an evaluation, following the standard Reclamation NEP A EIS format, of options to <br />avoid or mitigate impacts. A discussion of alternatives considered and rejected was to be <br />prepared, with a description of the analysis and rationale for rejection. Some new information <br /> <br />5-2 <br />