Laserfiche WebLink
<br />/ <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />Memorandum <br />Animas-La Plata <br />December 9, 1992 <br /> <br />The Department of the Interior would complete future site-specific NEP A <br />compliance as appropriate on any Federal actions related to the use of the Southern Ute <br />Indian Tribe and Ute Mountain Ute Tribe supply of Project water. The U. S. Department <br />of Energy (DOE), Western Area Power Administration would, in the future, comply with <br />NEP A requirements after completing an alternative study on the design of the power <br />transmission facilities for the Project <br /> <br />Staff Analysis of PUl:pose and Scope of the Supplement <br /> <br />The Supplement addresses all the issues raised in the lawsuit filed by the .Emu: <br />Corners Action Coalition. et al v USBR. However, it does summarily dismiss the need for <br />further scoping, reformulation or consideration of project alternatives, potential water <br />marketing by the Tribes, Navajo re-operation for endangered fish and NEPA on the design <br />of future power transmission facilities, While the justifications for such summary dismissals <br />appear reasonable, additional detailed reasoning appears needed. We strongly urge <br />Reclamation to make sure the Final Supplement is legally defensible in all aspects. <br /> <br />For example, the 1980 EIS and SEIS together must demonstrate that Reclamation <br />conducted a through well reasoned analysis of alternatives. Therefore, the SEIS should <br />demonstrate that new data obtained since 1980 does not alter Reclamations analysis of <br />environmental impacts or generate any reasonable new alternatives. This appearing to be <br />the case, Reclamation should then emphasize the fact that the project is authorized for <br />construction as presently configured and that the Colorado Ute Indian Water Rights Act of <br />1988 as passed into law by the Congress is predicated on the construction of ALP as <br />authorized. <br /> <br />Also, given that ALP is now phased, it may be appropriate to identify impacts in <br />phases starting with the "reasonable and prudent alternative." <br /> <br />The next level of review would seem to be a paragraph by paragraph review of the <br />DSEIS to see if it adequately addresses the claims made in the lawsuit and Colorado's <br />motion to intervene. Time considerations and deadlines preclude such a review at this <br />point Detailed comments on the DSEIS report are attached. <br /> <br />alpsupp2 <br /> <br />2L pages of enclosure <br />follow <br /> <br />4 <br />