My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP00389
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
1-1000
>
WSP00389
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 12:25:46 PM
Creation date
10/11/2006 9:42:42 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8220.105.I
Description
Colorado River-Water Projects-Navajo-Environmental Studies
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
12/19/2001
Author
Southern Ute Tribe
Title
Navajo Dam EIS-Southern Ute Tribe Comments
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
20
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />eliminated." 40 C.F.R. S 1502.14(a) (emphasis added).' NEPA does not require agencies to <br /> <br />analyze "the environmental consequences of alternatives it has in good faith rejected as too <br /> <br />remote, speculative, or. . . impractical or ineffective." City ojAurora v. Hum, 749 F.2d 1457, <br /> <br />1467 (10'" Cir. 1984). However, "'[t]he existence ofa viable but unexamined alternative renders <br /> <br />an environmental impact statement inadequate.'" Resources Ltd. v. Robertson, 35 F.3d 1300, <br /> <br />1307 (9'" Cir. 1993) (quoting Idaho Conservation League v. Mumma, 956 F.2d 1508, 1519 (9'" <br /> <br />Cir. 1992)). Based on the foregoing, it appears the best course of action is to list <br /> <br />decommissioning the dam as a proposed alternative and then indicate why it is impractical for <br /> <br />environmental reasons. <br /> <br />In addition, the regulations require that the no action alternative be considered. 40 C.F.R <br /> <br />S 1502.l4(d). Indeed, "[t]he 'no action' alternative must also be considered in detail: . . . <br /> <br />'Informed and meaningful consideration of alternatives--including the no action alternative--is <br /> <br />. . . an integral part of the statutory scheme.''' Alaska Wilderness Recreation & Tourism Ass'/1 v. <br /> <br />Morrison, 67 F.3d 723, 729 (9'" Cir. 1995) (quoting Bob Marshall Alliance v. Hodel, 852 F.2d <br /> <br />1223, 1228 (9'" Cir.) (internal citations, quotations and alterations omitted) cert. denied, 489 U.S. <br /> <br />1066 (1989)). Indeed, the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Animas- <br /> <br />La Plata Project (July 2000) included the no action alternative in its detailed analysis of specific <br /> <br />impacts. <br /> <br />B. ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION CRITERIA <br /> <br />The PDEIS , II-3-4, lines 124-143, should be rewritten as follows: <br /> <br />'In considering a challenge to the adequacy of an EIS, courts "test the discussion of <br />alternatives in an EIS under a 'rule of reason' standard of review." All Indian Pueblo Council, <br />975 F.2d at 1445. <br /> <br />4 <br /> <br />00730 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.