WSP01669

• File Number: 8220.105.I
• Description: Colorado River-Water Projects-Navajo-Environmental Studies
• State: CO
• Basin: Colorado Mainstem
• Water Division: 5
• Date: 11/15/2001
• Title: Navajo Dam EIS-Southwestern Water Conservation District Comments
• Water Supply Pro - Doc Type: Report/Study

,r

.

Lines 29, 52, 88 - Change "protect" to "maintain and improve habitat"

Line 54 - Replace "have been" with "may have been",

rh.,.....to.. YT.
.....,................1 J.J..

~

{Line 168 & 169 - Suggest sentence be: "Reclamation proposes to allow the Flow
Recommendations, or reasonable alternatives, by modifying the operations of Navajo Dam so
that releases can be as low as 250 cfs and as high as 5,000 cfs,"

Lines 232 to 237 - Paragraph does not seem to fit in this location. Maybe move to the end of
Section IV,

~

Lines 700 to 70 I - Water shortage is a complicated issue that is superficially addressed,
Shortage to NIIP and Navajo-Gallup Pipeline are NOT appropriate indicators of problems with
the 500/5000 alternative. NIIP is an irrigation project and therefore has planned shortages;
however, shortages have not been included because no one knows how to deal with shortages to
San Juan-Chama. Navajo-Gallup is not even a authorized project, how can this be an indicator,
Colorado water users are NOT agreeable to having shortages in Colorado but not in New
Mexico, The sentence should be deleted.

Lines 776 to 778 - Suggest this statement be removed, Implies that USFWLS or the SJRBRIP
should make the request.

/' Chapter III:
/ Lines 35 to 36 - Sentence is not clear, rewrite to clarify

Lines III to 133 - The Scope and Summary of Impacts are not clear. Suggest these be rewritten
to clarify the intent. For example, see the Recreation section which is good,

M~ Line 258 - The flow at Bluff is more than 1,25 million AF 'per year, Recheck the flow at Bluff
I} and near Farmington.

Line 349, why is Hogback Project listed here? It is in the baseline,

~ Line 452 to 453 - The sentence "No exercise of Colorado Ute Tribal water rights beyond their
historic right is included since it is not quantified without the project." The sentence is not clear
and probably incorrect. Presumably the sentence says the other Ute water rights in the
Settlement are not quantified without ALP. This is not true, All of the Ute water rights have
Ueen quantified and adjudicated in Colorado Water Court except ALP because it is not built,
The other water rights are NOT dependent on construction of ALP. The other Ute water rights
re essentially the same as the Jicarilla Settlement that is included.

Line 501 to 505 - The intent of this paragraph is not clear. Remove or clarify,

Lines 523 to 524 - Seems to be same statement as in 501 to 505 and is not clear. Can't figure

00818