Comments relative to the draft document describing operating principles for the RRVWSP EIS, dated July 22, 2002

By Neil Stessman, Volunteer, National Audubon Society

September 2002:

UNDER THE HEADING OF ORGANIZATION

Does the Interdisciplinary team include and participants other than Reclamation and Conservancy District employees?

Further on, there is discussion of "issues" , "impasse", and the lack of  "agreement".  Other participants should be informed with respect to such matters as they occur and are being discussed and resolved.  It is suggested that open and public processes would call for disclosure and openness with respect to relevant dialogue such as these matters.

UNDER THE HEADING OF COOPERATING AGENCY TEAM

The Cooperating Agency Team should include representatives of other states.  Minnesota, South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and Missouri should be included in the team.  Other Missouri River and Mississippi River states should also be invited.

UNDER THE HEADING OF EIS 1

With respect to the first three sentences, information relevant to these matters should be disseminated to interested and participating parties as they develop.  This pertains particularly, but not exclusively, to the "compilation of legal mandates and constraints, definition of preliminary scope, and identification of cooperating agencies."

Further on, the identification of potential cooperating agencies which it is suggested will be developed by Reclamation and the Conservancy District should be "inclusive' rather than "exclusive".  The language of DWRA would seem to prescribe a process which would allow any state to be "cooperators" if they wish to be represented and to participate.

UNDER THE HEADING EIS 2

The notice of intent should be distributed in draft to other participants, not just within the co-leads. 

UNDER THE HEADING EIS 3

The document indicates that the Conservancy District will develop a public involvement plan.  This does not seem to be a wise or prudent task assignment.  Public involvement does not seem to be a forte of that particular entity while Reclamation has more experience and more credibility with respect to public involvement and public participation.

UNDER THE HEADING EIS 4

The last four words of the second sentence should be deleted.  The needs and options report is the sole responsibility of Reclamation on behalf of the Secretary.  This does not however imply that information from the State of North Dakota would not be considered by Reclamation.

The next sentence (sentence number 3) should not attempt to define what MR%I needs are a function of.  It is sufficient to simply state that MR&I needs will be estimated.

UNDER THE HEADING EIS 5

It is important that the screening process for the range of alternatives be open for the participation of all interested agencies, entities, and the public.  The operating principles should make it clear that the co-leads are committed to conducting this process in an open forum.

UNDER THE HEADING EIS 8

Has the Conservancy District had experience authoring environmental impact statements of the magnitude and importance called for in this case?  If not, it would be preferred that Reclamation author the Draft EIS.

The document states that "One or more public hearings will be held...."   One would not be sufficient.

UNDER THE HEADINGS EIS 8 AND 9

The prospect is presented of having one preferred alternative as preferred by each of the co-leads.  Does the DWRA provide this kind of discretion to the State of North Dakota?

There is mention in the document of "agreement" and "no agreement" with respect to the preferred alternative.  The discussion highlights the need for these matters to be conducted via open forums.  These are public matters and it is important that commitments be made in the operating principles that the involved public agencies will give the public the opportunity to know what is being discussed on an ongoing basis. 

UNDER THE HEADING EIS 9 

The discussion should be expanded in context to make it clear that non-structural alternatives can be expected to be "part of the mix" when preferred alternatives are identified.

Further on, the document states that the Secretary's selection of an alternative shall be subject to judicial review.  Is this a generally the case with respect to NEPA compliance or is there a special provision to that effect in DWRA?