COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES 

Colorado River Indian Reservation 

26600 MOHAVE ROAD 

PARKER, ARIZONA 85344 

TELEPHONE (928) 669-9211 

FAX (928) 669-1216 

Va Email Only 

March 22, 2024 

Ms. Kathleen Callister 

Adaptive Management and Water Quality Division Manager 

Bureau of Reclamation 

Attn: LTEMP Project Manager 

125 South State Street, Suite 800 

Salt Lake City, UT 84138 

Email: LTEMPSEIS@usbr.gov 

RE: Comments of the Colorado River Indian Tribes on the Draft Supplemental 

Environmental Impact Statement fr the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and 

Management Plan 

Dear Ms. Callister: 

The Colorado River Indian Tribes ("CRIT" or "the Tribes") appreciates the opportunity to 

provide comments on the Drat Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement ("Drat SEIS") 

fr the Glen Canyon Dam Long-Term Experimental and Management Plan ("LTEMP"). While 

CRIT values the Bureau of Reclamation's ("Bureau") efforts to mitigate the efects fom small 

mouth bass, ater careully reviewing the Drat SEIS, we have concers regarding the agency's 

analysis of tribal and cultural resources. 

As a preliminary matter, the Colorado Rver Indian Tribes are a ederally recognized Indian tribe 

comprised of over 4,600 members belonging to the Mohave, Chemehuevi, Hopi and Navajo 

Tribes. The almost 300,000-acre Colorado Rver Indian Reservation sits astride the Colorado 

River between Blythe, Califra and Parker, Arizona. The ancestral homelands of the Tribes' 

members, however, extend far beyond the Reservation boundaries. Significant portions of public 

and private lands in Califoria, Arizona, and Nevada were occupied by the ancestors of the 

Tribes' members since time immemorial. These landscapes remain imbued with substantial 

cultural, spiritual, and religious signifcance fr the Tribes' current members and uture 

generations. For this reason, we have a strong interest in ensuring that potential cultural resource 
and other environmental impacts associated with the LTEMP are adequately considered and 

mitigated. 

In particular, the Tribes are concered about the impacts to petroglyphs, intaglios, pictographs, 

sleeping circles, trails, manos and metates, and other cultural resources that may result fom the 

project. Accordingly, CRIT asks that the impacts to these cultural resources and sites be 

thoroughly analyzed and mitigated to the extent feasible. Further, CRIT asks that it be consulted 

in the development of the Final SEIS given the signifcant spiritual and cultural value that the 

Colorado River holds for the Tribes. 

1. The Draft SEIS Fails to Adequately Discuss CRIT's Interests in the Proposed 

Action. 

Under NEPA, agencies must consider, to the extent practicable, whether there is or will be an 

impact on the natural or physical environment that signifcantly and adversely afects Native 

American tribes. Specifcally, the Bureau must consider whether significant environental 

efects may have an adverse impact on Native American tribes that appreciably exceeds those on 

the general population. See, e.g., EPA's 1998 Environmental Justice Guidance; Executive Order 

12898. In addition to considering impacts to tribes, agencies must consult with interested tribes 

under the NHPA, as noted in the Draf SEIS. Draf SEIS 3-164. 

The Draf SEIS discusses the impact of the LTEMP on the following tribes: the Havasupai Tribe, 

Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and Souther Paiute Consortium. 

Drat SEIS at 3-174. Although CRIT is mentioned in passing in the Tribal Resources section 

(Drat SEIS at 3-177), the Drat SEIS fils to adequately describe the significace of the river 

and its cultural resources to CRT. 

As mentioned above, CRIT' s reservation is located along the Colorado River and the ancestral 

homelands of its members extend over much larger sections of the river, including sections 

within the scope of the SEIS. Because the river holds signifcant spiritual and cultural value to 

the Tribes, CRIT has an interest in the river and any projects that may afect it. We ae concered 

that any impacts associated with the LTEMP may afect the river as a whole, which will impact 

CRIT tribal members. Accordingly, CRIT must be consulted on the development of the project, 

and the potential impacts to CRIT should be adequately discussed in the Final SEIS. 

2. The Draft SEIS Fails to Adequately Analyze the Impacts on Cultural and Tribal 

Resources. 

The purpose of NEPA is to inform the public and agency decisionmakers of a project's potential 

environmental impact before those decisionmakers act. By requiring an EIS to provide a 

complete picture in advance, the drafers of NEPA expected that decisionmakers would make 

better decisions. Robertson v. Methow Valley Citizens Council, 490 U.S. 332,349 (1989) (NEPA 

"ensures that the agency, in reaching its decision, will have available, and will careully consider, 

detailed information concering significant environmental impacts"). The Bureau has an 

obligation pursuant to NEPA to conduct its analysis "objectively and in good fith, not as an 

exercise in form over substance, not as a subteruge designed to rationalize a decision already 

made ... [and] not just to file detailed impact studies which will fll goverental archives." 
Metcalf v. Daley, 214 F.3d 1135, 1142 (9th Cir. 2000); see also Earth Island Institute v. US 

Forest Service, 351 F.3d 1291, 1300 (9th Cir. 2003) ("NEPA requires that ederal agencies 

"consider every signifcant aspect of the environmental impact of a proposed action ... [and] 

infrm the public that [they have] indeed considered environmental concerns in [their] decisionmaking process[es].") (citations omitted). In doing so, to the Bureau must take a "hard look" at 

impacts resulting fom a proposed action. Tri-Valley CAREs v. US. Dep 't of Energ, 671 Tl F.3d 

1113 (9th Cir.2012) (concluding that the Department took a hard look with respect to various 

NEPA impacts); Cold Mountain v. Garber, 375 F.3d 884 (9th Cir.2004) (holding that the U.S. 

Fore st Service took the "hard look" NEPA requires in issuing a finding of no significant impact 

and a special use permit with regad to a bison capture facility). 

The Drat SEIS discusses the various types and characteristics of tribal and cultural resources, 

such as petroglyphs, present in the project area, (Drat SEIS at 3-168 to 3-170), but then fails to 

analyze the impacts that higher flows will have on those resources. The Drat SEIS states, 

without urther explaation, that there will be no additional impacts to tribal and cultural 

resources under the fow spike alteratives (i.e. the Cool Mix with Flow Spike Alterative and 

Cold Shock with Flow Spike Alterative) as compared to the no action alterative, which would 

maintain the same operations as are currently in place and were described in the 2016 FEIS. 

Drat SEIS at 3-172 and 3-179. However, the 2016 FEIS focused on the impacts of high fows on 

terraces and provided no petroglyph-specifc analysis. 2016 FEIS Appendix H at 8-12. Given 

this gap in the analysis, there is no basis fr the Drat SEIS to conclude that there will be no 

additional impacts to petroglyphs fom high water levels. The Drat SEIS must include a 

description of which tribal ad cultural resource sites will be impacted by higher flows and the 

signifcance of those additional impacts. 

Further, the Drat SEIS acknowledges that, under the non-bypass alterative, new tribal and 

cultural resource sites would be exposed and there would likely be impacts to those sites fom 

wave action, wet/dry efects, and increased visitation. Drat SEIS at 3-172 and 3-180. Despite 

acknowledging that the non-bypass alterative will degrade newly exposed sites, the Drat SEIS 

fils to analyze the signifcance or extent of that degradation. 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.16(a). This 

analysis was not perfrmed in the 2016 FEIS either because such low water levels were outside 

of its scope. Accordingly, the Drat SEIS should include the necessary analysis to determine the 

additional impacts on newly exposed tribal and cultural resource sites. 

3. The Draft SEIS Fails to Adequately Describe the Mitigation Measures that Will Be 

Used to Protect Cultural and Tribal Resources. 

Beyond merely disclosing potential environmental impacts, NEPA requires agencies to develop 

tactics to address them. Specifically, an environmental impact statement ("EIS") must "[i]nclude 

appropriate mitigation measures" and discuss the "[m]eans to mitigate adverse environmental 

impacts." 40 C.F.R. §§ 1502.14(e), 1502.16(a). The statute "require[s] that an EIS discuss 

mitigation measures, with 'sufcient detail to ensure that environmental consequences have been 

firly evaluated.' An essential component of a reasonably complete mitigation discussion is an 

assessment of whether the proposed mitigation measures can be efective." South Fork Band 

Council ofW Shoshone of Nevada v. US. Dep't of Interior, 588 F.3d 718, 727 (9th Cir. 2009) 

(quoting Robertson, 490 U.S. 332 at 352). 
As described above, the Drat SEIS fils to adequately analyze the additional impacts to newly 

exposed tribal and cultural resource sites. Nonetheless, the Drat SEIS claims that any "adverse 

efects to cultural resources [fom the non-bypass alterative] would be resolved under the 

LTEMP PA." Drat SEIS at 3-172 and 3-179. It is unclear how the Drat SEIS can state that all 

additional impacts will be mitigated by the PA, given that there is no analysis on the extent and 

severity of those impacts. 

Moreover, the PA only lays out procedures fr monitoring the impacts of the project, and states 

that mitigation measures "will be developed." 2017 LTEMP PA at 7. Although monitoring 

newly exposed sites will certainly be a helpul and necessary first step, it does not provide any 

protection to cultural resource sites. Furher, any mitigation measures that were developed for the 

2016 FEIS were not based on the current project, and the Drat SEIS does not assess their 

efectiveness under the curently proposed alteratives. Thus, the Drat SEIS fails to provide 

suffcient detail on mitigation measures, as required by NEPA. Accordingly, the Drat SEIS 

should disclose specifc mitigation measures that may be used to reduce impacts, such as erosion 

to tribal and cultural resource sites, under the current alteratives. Ater revising the Drat SEIS, 

the Bureau should recirculate it for public review and comment. 

4. The Draft SEIS Engages in "Piecemealing" by Failing to Analyze the Project in 

Conjunction with the Broader Plan for River Operations. 

In determining the scope of an EIS, NEPA requires agencies to consider connected actions. 

Conected action are those that are "interdependent parts of a larger action." 40 C.F.R. §§ 

1501.9(e). Accordingly, NEPA does not permit agencies to "piecemeal" larger projects into 

smaller parts and analyze each of the pieces independently. Native Ecosystems Council v. 

Dombeck, 304 F.3d 886. 897 (9th Cir. 2002); see also 40 C.F.R. §§ 1501.9(e). Rather, agencies 

must analyze the impacts of the larger project as a whole "in the same impact statement." Id. 

The Drat SEIS looks solely at discrete changes in the flow regime. However, these changes in 

the flow regime are a single part of a much broader project to develop ongoing guidelines for the 

operation of the river as a water delivery system. By considering the change in the flow regime 

as a stand-alone project, as opposed to considering it as a component of the overarching plan for 

the river, the Drat SEIS impermissibly breaks the project down into smaller parts. Rather than 

piecemealing the project, the Drat SEIS should consider the impacts of the LTEMP together 

with the impacts of general river operation. 
Thank you for your consideration. To understand how these comments were taken into account 

in your decision-making, we ask for a written response prior to a final decision. Please copy the 

Tribes' Attorney General Rebecca A. Loudbear, at rloudbear@critdoj.com and THPO Director 

Bryan Etsitty, at betsitty@crit-nsn.gov, on all correspondence to the Tribes. 

Respectfully, 

COLORADO RIVER INDIAN TRIBES 

Amelia Flores 

Chairwoman 

Cc: Tribal Council of the Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Bryan Etsitty, THPO Director, Colorado River Indian Tribes 

Rebecca A. Loudbear, Attorney General, Colorado River Indian Tribes