Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Scopitlg Summary Report <br /> <br />On April 26, 2001, Reclamation sent a separate letter to 55 Indian Tribal representatives, <br />initiating government to government coordination pursuant to Council on Environmental <br />Quality Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of the NEPA (40 CFR <br />1500-1508, S 1501.7); the National Historic Preservation Act (Section 101 (d)(2)) (16 US.c. S 4701), <br />the Section 106 regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800.2(c)(2)); and <br />Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000 pertaining to consultation and coordination with <br />Indian tribal governments. The letter and associated distribution list sent by Reclamation is <br />attached as Appendix B. One comment letter was received in response to Reclamation's letter. <br /> <br />2.3 INFORMAL MEETINGS <br /> <br />On February 15, 2001, Reclamation staff met with members of seven interested environmental <br />groups at their request to discuss the proposed lOP. In addition, informal discussions and a <br />meeting on March 22, 2001 were held with representatives of the Colorado River basin states to <br />discuss the technical details of the proposed lOP. On April 3, 2001, a conference call was held to <br />discuss these technical aspects with the same environmental groups that attended the <br />February 15, 2001 meeting. <br /> <br />Coordination with the FWS pursuant to the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act was initiated in <br />April 2001. Two meetings and informal discussions were carried out. Extensive coordination <br />with the FWS had been previously conducted pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) <br />Section 7 consultation on Interim Surplus Criteria and the IA. <br /> <br />In addition, numerous meetings were held with the four affected California agencies, CVWD, <br />lID, MWD and San Diego County Water Authority (SDCWA), regarding coordination of NEPA <br />and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance. <br /> <br />2.4 SCOPING COMMENTS <br /> <br />2.4,1 Number of Comments <br /> <br />A total of 22 comment letters were received in response to the Notices of Public Comment <br />Period, and the NO! published in the Federal Register. One comment letter was received in <br />response to Reclamation's tetter sent to the 55 Indian Tribal representatives, All comment <br />letters can be viewed at Reclamation's offices in Phoenix and Yuma, Arizona, and Boulder City, <br />Nevada, as identified in Appendix C. <br /> <br />The meeting and conference call held between Reclamation and the seven environmental <br />organizations, the meeting with the representatives of the Colorado River basin states, the <br />meetings with FWS, and the meetings with the four affected California agencies were intended <br />to be informal information gathering/coordination sessions; therefore, discussions were not <br />recorded, <br /> <br />2,4.2 Issues Raised through Scoping <br /> <br />A number of written comments were received during tile scoping process. A list of all <br />commenters and their organizational affiliation, if any, is provided in Appendix D. <br />Reclamation has reviewed and considered all the comments that have been received. <br /> <br />6 <br /> <br />LA, lOP and Related Federal Actions EIS <br />