Laserfiche WebLink
<br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />on its Environmental Derense Action Network Internet web site. The live action alert allows <br />citizens to automatically email a fonn/sample letter to a designated addressee (in this case the <br />Bureau of Reclamation's project leader). Of the total of approximately 7,517 email fornlletters, <br />approximately 400 have been edited in some manner from the template letter provided and the <br />remainder (approx. 7,100) are identical to the form letter. Of the edited email form letters none <br />make substantive comments on the FEIS beyond that contained in Ihe eIIDiltonn letter template. <br /> <br />With respect to the comments received on the FEIS, and pursuant to Reclamations's NEPA <br />guidance, "Only in special circumstances should any specific comments be responded to in the <br />ROD. I fthe comrrents raise significant issues that have not been addressed, the need to <br />supplement the FEIS soould be determined" Reclamation does not betieve that the conmlents <br />received on the FEIS raise any significant issues that would require supplementing the FEIS. <br />Reclamation provides the following additional information. <br /> <br />A summary of issues raised by the comment letters are as follows: <br />Comment/Issue I: Objection to the preferred alternative in the FEIS because these criteria <br />will deprive the Colorado River delta of life-sustaining water, destroy important native <br />riparian habitats, and push numerous endangered species perilously close to extinction. <br /> <br />Response: The rational for identification 0 fdIe preferred alternative is addressed in <br />Chapter 2.3.2 and analyzed in the Chapler 3. Affected Environment and Environmental <br />Consequences. Transboundary Impacts are addressed in Chapter 3.16 of Ihe FEIS. In <br />addition, the status ofcoIlSultation on special status species for the preferred alternative in <br />the FEIS is addressed in Section VIII of the ROD. <br /> <br />Connnent/lssue 2. Urges Reclamation to insure that inIpaCIS to the Colorado River delta <br />are mitigated by dedicating suffICient water to meet the needs of its riparian ecosystems, <br />specifically the reeds of cottonwoods and willows throughout Iheir tifec}{:le. <br /> <br />Response: Dedicating (Q lorado River Water for the Co lor ado River delta is addressed in <br />Chapter l.].4 and Chapter 2.2.3 of the FEIS. Transboundary Impacts are addressed in <br />Chapter 3.16 of the FEIS. See also Seclion X. Part 7, Transboundary Impacls, and <br />Section VIII of the ROD that discusses the status of consultation on special status species <br />for Ihe preferred alternative. <br /> <br />Comment/Issue 3: Urges Reclamation to issue a supplemental EIS including the Pacific <br />Institute proposal as a reasonable alternative and its analysis. <br /> <br />RespoIlSe: Consideration of the Pacific Institute's proposal in the FEIS is addressed in <br />Chapter 2.2.3 and further responded to in Volume III, Comment and Responses, Part B, <br />page B-22, Response 11-2 and page B-24, Response 11-6, page B-38, comment 12-6 and <br />12-7. These responses address the reasons lhat the Pacific Institute proposal was not <br />analyzed as an irdependent alternative in the FEIS. Accordingly, Reclamation has <br /> <br />8 <br />