WSP11573

• File Number: 8210.766
• Description: Gunnison River General Publications - Correspondence - Reports - Etc
• State: CO
• Basin: Yampa/White
• Water Division: 6
• Date: 3/1/1993
• Author: Unknown
• Title: Scoping Report for the Gunnison River Contract - Analysis Notebook - Section I - Comments by Source
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

OD1532

.,

Public Scoping Comments, Gunnison River Contract, conI.

/~~~{.~}::

..'-";~ ..

needed to establish the feasibility of altering operating criteria. The Gunnison Basin Planning
Model will be needed before alternatives can be developed and before environmental
consequences can be adequately analyzed.

22. GREENO+; pI4,'2. Issue O. Public Involvement - One of the most fundamental objectives of the
National Environmental Policy Act is meaningful public participation in federal decision-making.
Meeting this objective requires: I) an 'EIS written in plain language with a clear and thorough
presentation of issues, alternatives, and impacts and 2) adequate comment periods.

22. GREENO+; p14, '3. (Issue O. Public Involvement, cont) The Bureau of Reclamation's recent EIS
on the AB Lateral Project is a good example of a poor ElS. The most important issue in the entire
EIS--the acre-feet per year of water currently flowing in the river below the Gunnison Tunnel and
changes in that flow under the various altematives--is not clearly discussed, The most important water
supply data are hidden in contradictory appendices or in unindexed responses to public comments. This
sort of obfuscation whether intentional or unintentional sbould not be allowed in the EIS for the
proposed Gunnison River Contract. The draft should be rigorously edited by a professional editor who
not only corrects spelling and grammar but also identifies missing information and improves
organilAtion. The plain language requirements of NEPA and the CEQ regulations were established in
past litigation and they need to be taken seriously.

22.

GREENO+; pI4;'4. The public comment period on the draft EIS should extend for at least six
months. The proposed contract involves an enormously complicated set of issues that can begin to be
understood only after many hours of study. The public should be given an opportunity to digest the
EIS and to ask questions before the comment period ends. Hearings should be held in Denver and
Boulder as well as in Western Slope cities.

':.~fL~.;

, '.

11. GREENO+; pI4,\l6. <Alternatives)
I) Selection of alternatives should be 20al-driven--after studies have been done to deteniline
optimum flows for the various environmental ~d economic values, values with similar
optimum flows should be grouped together to define alternatives. For example, the goal of
optimizing flows for endangered fish, riparian vegetation, campsite restoration, and sediment
transport might define one alternative.

11. GREENO+; pI5,'2. '(Alternatives, cont)
2) The statement of alternatives should include contract lamrualZe--In order for conuncntors to
comprehend the .actual environmental consequences of each alternative, they will need to see
specific contract language that sbows how that alternative would be implemented. The January
1992 draft contract is very helpful in identifying potential problems and focusing questions;
draft contract language for the EIS alternatives would do the same.

12. GREENO+; pI5,'3. (Alternatives, cont)
3) Alternatives should be analvzed with a hi.h level of quantitative and qualilative sDecificitv--The
effect of each alternative on historic flows since 1970 should be quantitatively simulated and
presented in the EIS along with qualitative analysis of the probable environmental impacts of
those flows. Also the potential impact of future projecis and diversions should also be
quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed (e.g., AB Lateral, Union Park, transfer of
downstream rights for upstream diversion, etc,).

54

:';.~~,.,~;.':,~.;:
'~:,.' ";/;-".:
.,,:,!''-,