Laserfiche WebLink
<br />4 <br /> <br />DEC-21-2001 FRI 06:00 PM NORDHAUS SANTA FE <br /> <br />FAX NO, 5059821827 <br /> <br />p, 05/06 <br /> <br />NO:aDH.Ws 1Lu.TOlll TAYLOli <br />TARADASH ll: BLAnD, UP <br /> <br />ATTOAN&Y.s A.T LAw <br /> <br />T~ ow- .... .. _ _ ",-L ~ 'IIIrr.'_"':__'" 1'"'...__..._.... ...... "\I'd.,...;".. D.wl:AI"'Vnir nn.psatinnc pnEIS <br />"'I;MCUW^pill;Ua~"ilMU"" _U............U... V,. "'..-J- .----... --...- -r-- ....-... . <br />December 21, 2001 <br /> <br />Pag\!4 <br /> <br />eXDresseQ to the extent that the al!encv can determine them. in the allencv' s statutoI)' <br />authorization to act. as well as in other cOnE!J'essional directives. <br /> <br />Citi7.ens Al!ainst Burlinl!ton. Toe v. Busev. 938 F.2d 190, 195 (D.C. Cir. 1991). <br />Accordingly, the Navajo Reservoir Operations EIS must analyze the operation of the Navajo <br />Unit to meet the purposes authorized and directed by Congress. A rigorous, full and fair discussion <br />of these pUlJloses will entail projecting water development consistent with these purposes and <br />analyzing the impacts. <br /> <br />(2) Comments on the DeseriDtion and Evaluation of Alternatives <br /> <br />During the meeting on November 28'h, some participants seemed to be concerned about <br />redundancy in the discussion of the tmviromnenta1 impacts ef the No Action Alternative. Mr. <br />Warner indicated that some of the No Action Alternative discussion would be consolidated in <br />Chapter 3, but we did not understand how this would be done or wb.y this would be advisable. If Mr. <br />Warner could summarize in writing what he proposes, we can provide feedback on the proposed <br />approach. <br /> <br />(3) Resource Areas NeediDl! AdditionallmDact Evaluation/Analvsis <br /> <br />As discussed in our comments on the Summer Low Flaw Test Report submitted on <br />December 14, 2001, Reclamation should carefully review and revise both that report and the PDEIS <br />to ensure that they accurately describe the results of the Low Flow Test and that conclusions about <br />the nature and degree of any effects are supported by the record. See lleneral1v 40 C.F.R. ~ <br />1500.01(b) ("Infannation [in an EIS] must be ofhigb. quality. Accurate scientific analysis, expert <br />agency comments, and public scrutiny are essential to implementing NEP A"); 40 e.F.R. ~ 1502.24 <br />("Agencies shall insure the professional integrity, including scientific integrity, of the discussions <br />and analyses in environmental impact statements. They shall identify any methodologies used and <br />shall make explicit reference by footnote to the scientific and other sources relied upon for <br />conclusions in the statement.") <br /> <br />As also discussed in our comments on the Summer Low Flow Test Report, the sections of <br />that Report on recreation impacts and associated economic impacts appear to be based on "data" that <br />is largely hearsay. Specific examples are provided in those comments. Reclamation should take <br />care that these "data" and unsupported conclusions are not canied over into the EIS. . <br /> <br />00882 <br />