Option 3. Oppose Construction Pending a Complete Reevaluation 



Selection of this option would be based on a recognition that (a) the Corps has 

 failed to demonstrate the need for additional peaking capacity and the economic feas- 

 ibility of the project, and (b) the project is environmentally degrading and recrea- 

 tional losses due to the project have not been adequately considered. 



This option calls for a complete reevaluation of the project's economic feasib- 

 ility, the existing fluctuation criteria and mitigation measures. The Corps and the 

 state should work jointly on the economic assessment. Construction would be opposed 

 until it is determined that the project is economically feasible, fluctuation criteria 

 are adequate, all mitigation is sufficient and guaranteed, the bald eagle won't be ad- 

 versely affected, and public sentiment is generally in favor of the project. If these 

 conditions could not be satisfactorily achieved then the project would be reformulated 

 or dropped. 



A variation of this option would require that a regional environmental impact 

 statement (EIS) be prepared for the Kootenai River Basin. In light of Troy ASARCO, 

 Northern Lights, and the Libby controversy, it is important that the cumulative 

 effect of these possible actions be identified. Construction at Libby would remain 

 halted while the EIS is prepared. Clearly the selection of an option which recom- 

 mends extensive, expensive studies is based on the belief that the existing studies 

 are inadequate and that the results of these studies will be valuable in developing 

 a state position on the project and/or reformulating the project. 



This option could be implemented by opposing Congressional authorization until 

 ^ studies formulated by the state are completed and demonstrate that the project is 

 ^ worthy of state support. 



Option 4. Do Nothing 



^,, This option could be justified by any of the following assumptions: 



■-,1. The project if halted will not be revived by Congressional authorization and 

 that this outcome is desirable. 



.Z. No effective means exist to implement the other options since the state has 

 MQry limited control over federal water projects. 



3. The project is desirable, will receive Congressional authorization and no 

 special efforts are required to produce a desirable result. 



The implausibil ity of assumption 2 and the uncertainty about assumptions 1 and 

 3 make this an unattractive option. 



Recommendation 



Opponents to the project are vocal , numerous, wel 1 -organized and they've won the 

 first battle. Supporters of the project, although they may not be any fewer than the 

 opponents, have been much less noticeable. Until last Saturday .^events were going 

 their way and no display of support was necessary. s-^t 9, 



^ The Department of Natural Resources and Conservation will hold hearings in the 

 Libby area to obtain public opinion on the project. The growing controversy makes 

 it increasingly important that public opinion be carefully considered before any option 

 is selected. Subsequent to those hearings, a state position will be recommended to 

 the Governor. 



15 



