Laserfiche WebLink
<br />'I Ill'" ,-,~) ~t <br />" . ... f'o. <br />................ ",' - <br /> <br />.' <br /> <br />Since wild and scenic river studies involve decisions concerning <br />future use of water and related land resources, each study must <br />include a socioeconomic analysis of the effects that may result from <br />designating the river as part of the national system. Procedures <br />for making such an analysis were developed by the Water Resources <br />Council and published in the Federal Register September 10, 1973 <br />(volume 38, number 174). The process, known as Principles and <br />Standards analysis, is presented in chapter V. <br /> <br />". <br /> <br />As required by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of <br />Janurary 1, 1970 (P.L. 91-190), an evaluation was made of <br />environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. This <br />evaluation is presented in the environmental statement, a separate <br />document displaying all the impacts of the proposal so that <br />environmental effects may be fully considered. <br /> <br />THE STUDY <br /> <br />A joint federal-state study team was organized in January 1976 to <br />conduct the Gunnison River study. Leadership responsibilities for <br />the study were shared by the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation (since <br />renamed the Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service) and the <br />Colorado Department of Natural Resources (represented by the <br />Colorado Water Conservation Board). Other member agencies of the <br />study team included the Bureau of Land Management, National Park <br />Service, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. <br /> <br />.. <br /> <br />Assisting the study team was a work group composed of numerous <br />federal and state agencies that wrote and reviewed various parts of <br />the study report and environmental statement. In addition, <br />individuals called auditor/consultants were elected by the public, <br />met with the study team on several occasions, and otherwise <br />participated in the study. Direct public input was solicited through <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />3 <br />