Laserfiche WebLink
<br />.. <br /> <br />II. CHAPTER II <br /> <br />A. INTRODUCTION <br /> <br />As currently written, the PUt:IS indicates that seven alternatives were formulated for <br /> <br />evaluation. During the Cooperating Agency meeting, several people indicated that they did not <br /> <br />believe decommissioning Navajo Dam should be listed among the proposed alternatives because <br /> <br />it was outside the scope of the PDEIS and Reclamation agreed. In addition, although we are <br /> <br />somewhat confused by what Reclamation decided regarding the no-action alternative, it was our <br /> <br />understanding that Reclamation intends to remove "no action" as an alternative and leave it in <br /> <br />solely for comparison purposes. Before these decisions are implemented, a brief review of the <br /> <br />requirements set forth in the National Environmental Policy Act. 42 U.S.c. SS 4321-4370a <br /> <br />("NEPA"), and its implementing regulations is necessary. <br /> <br />The consideration of alternatives is "the heart of the environmental impact statement." 40 <br /> <br />C.F.R. S 1502.14. '''It is absolutely essential to the NEP A process that the decisionmaker be <br /> <br />provided with a detailed and careful analysis of the relative environmental merits and demerits of <br /> <br />the proposed action and possible alternatives, a requirement that we have characterized as "the <br /> <br />linchpin of the entire impact statement."''' All Indian Pueblo Council v. United States, 975 F.2d <br /> <br />1437,1444 (10'" Cir. 1992) (quoting Natural Res. Defense Council v. Callaway, 524 F.2d 79, 92 <br /> <br />(2d Cir. 1975)). "[A]n agency must look at every reasonable alternative, with the range dictated <br /> <br />by the nature and scope of the proposed action, and sufficient to permit a reasoned choice." <br /> <br />Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1520 (9'" Cir. 1992). Reclamation must <br /> <br />, <br />"[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives <br /> <br />. which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been <br /> <br />3 <br /> <br />00729 <br />