Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Comment: The draft format should conform wi th that presented <br />in the Council on Environmental Quality guidelines published in the Federal <br />Re~ister, Volume 36, Number 79, Part II, April 23, 1971, pp. 7724-7729. <br /> <br />Response: Our draft environmental statement format confonns <br />to Department of the Army, Office of the Chief of Engineers, Regulation <br />No. 1105-2-507 dated 28 May 1971, titled INVESTIGATION, PLANNING AND DEVELOP- <br />MENT OF WATER RESOURCES, Preparation and Coordination of Environmental <br />Statements. This regulation and its described procedures are consistent <br />with the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines of April 23, 1971. <br /> <br />Comment: There were some notable omissions from the list <br />of agencies solicited for review of this statement. In addition, public <br />utility companies, upon whose interest this project will have an impact, <br />were also omitted from the circulation. <br /> <br />Response: On 7 September 1971 the Omaha District, Corps <br />of Engineers Public Affairs Office issued a news release on the Bear <br />Creek Lake environmental statement. This news release stated, among other <br />things, that the statement was currently being reviewed by federal, state, <br />and local governmental agencies and that copies of the statement would be <br />fUrnished any interested individual, citizen group or other entity upon <br />request. <br /> <br />6. Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, U.S.D.I. <br /> <br />Comment: The statement indicates that one of the alternatives <br />considered was different dam alignments but there was no discussion to this <br />effect. This inconsistency might be corrected. <br /> <br />Response: The comment was considered valid and the "Alternatives" <br />section of the statement has been revised to include a discussion of alternate <br />dam alignments and possible adverse environmental effects. <br /> <br />Comment: It is noted that two agencies which would appear <br />to have an interest in the project were not solicited for comments. <br /> <br />Response: One of these, the Denver Regional Council of <br />Governments, was furnished a copy of the statement a short time after the <br />initial distribution was made. The presence of the other, the Urban <br />Drainage and Flood Control District, was not known until their name was <br />mentioned by reviewers. However, even though they were not solicited for <br />comments, a news release was issued that received coverage in the Denver <br />area newspapers. This gave any interested citizens or agencies opportunity <br />to request a copy or copies of the environmental statement. <br /> <br />Comment: It was noted that the statement contains a <br />benefit-cost ratio based on a long outdated interest rate. Discussion of <br /> <br />16 <br />