Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />..- ...., ~ "\ <br />~'-.l_'J <br />SUBJECT: NONCOHPLIANCE WITH NEPA <br /> <br />1. Issue: The Draft Statement is basically where it is requested Lo <br />deal with questions of alternatives, irreversible, irretrievable com- <br />mitments of resources, and the like, pretty well degenerates into an <br />engineering calculation of how many gallons or acre-feet of water will <br />be diverted, how many bags of cement, and the like, will be expended in <br />the construction of facilities, and really do not deal directly with <br />even primary impacts. <br /> <br />Raised by: <br /> <br />Representing <br /> <br />Dwight Shellman, Jr. <br />*Murray Pope <br /> <br />Pitkin County Commissioners <br />Himself (letter of June 4, 1974) <br /> <br />Response: <br /> <br />The Bureau of Reclamation has answered those questions dealing with the <br />irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources under Chapter <br />VIII of the Final Environmental Statement. This chapter deals with <br />commitments of resources in the service area and in the Colorado River <br />Basin. Whenever possible, these commitments are quantified. <br /> <br />Chapter IX, Alternatives to the Proposed Action, deals with several alter- <br />nate proposals to the Project plans and their respective beneficial and <br />adverse impacts. <br /> <br />Although these impacts are not as fully analyzed as are those resulting <br />from the present plan, the major expected impacts are identified. A <br />general discussion of the impacts that result from the types of actions <br />taken by the Project is presented in Chapter IV, Section A, and is <br />applicable to the alternatives, since these would cause similar effects, <br />but differ in scope and location. <br /> <br />2. Issue: The Statement is required to specify alternatives. As far <br />as I can see, the Statement only specifies an alternative of no-build <br />and makes a determination that the primary and secondary impacrs of that <br />option are limited to not diverting the water, not incorporating the <br />concrete, and the like. I would submit that that is a highly <br />superficial evaluation. <br /> <br />Raised by: <br /> <br />Representing <br /> <br />Dwight Shellman, Jr. <br />*Murray Pope <br /> <br />Pitkin County Commissioners <br />Himself (letter of June 4, 1974) <br /> <br />XI-468 <br />