Laserfiche WebLink
<br />,-I <br /> <br />:Bureau of Reel amaMn <br />P ~;g'e~2,-i <br />-'"".L. '- <br />August 21, 1973 <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />existed at that time. The only rational test, due to the <br />delay in commencing the project, would be to demand that <br />the statement comply with current guidelines. Under current <br />CEQ guidelines, the present statement is inadequate. <br /> <br />On the basis of the statement's discussion of altern- <br />atives to the proposed action (page, 11), it is apparent that <br />the statement is inadequate in pOint of law. A one-sentence <br />dismissal of the possibility of alternatives to be examined <br />violates the full-disclosure principle of NEPA. The statement <br />is inadequate as a ltI'tterof law because of its failure to <br />consider reasonable alternatives and provide full disclosure <br />to the public of the environmental costs and benefits of <br />the proposed action. <br /> <br />It is our position that the burden of re-issuing an <br />adequate impact statement is more than outweighed by the <br />benefits which would accrue to the public through compliance <br />with NEPA procedures and policies. We request the issuance <br />of a new impact statement with public hearings. We also re- <br />quest that we be informed of your agency's action upon our <br />request. The public interest requires that the Bureau, of <br />Reclamation not be allowed to let a contract for construction <br />on the Narrows Unit until in full compliance with HEPA. <br />Thank you. <br /> <br />Si ncere~y):;?/J <br />!k7/'jfd:/t~ L;}~ <br />c;1"Q?mes Phelan 7 <br />Attofney <br /> <br />JP/lw <br /> <br />cc: Department of the Interi or <br />EPA Region VIII <br />Council on Environmental Quality <br />