9629

• UCREFRP Catalog Number: 9629
• Author: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
• Title: Selected NEPA Documents.
• USFW Year: 1993.
• USFW - Doc Type: \
• Copyright Material: NO

85
Environmental Coordinator will notify the REC as soon as the extension has
been granted or denied.
(4) To obtain an extension of the date due to a DOI lead bureau, such as
the National Park Service, the REC should request an extension directly
from the lead bureau.
(5) The REC will negotiate extensions through the REO when the Regional
Office has the lead in collating bureau's comments for the REO's signature.
M. DOI Comment Letters. DOI review comments are signed by OEPC or AS/PMB
in the Washington Office or by the appropriate RED.
(1) Copies of signed letters are forwarded to DHC. DHC provides the
appropriate Regional and field offices with copies of Departmental letters
signed at the Secretarial level in Washington. It is important that
Service offices retain these letters for future use, as they indicate the
Service and/or DOI position on the project. DHC maintains the Service's
administrative record of all Service responses to DOI and Federal agencies
on controlled environmental reviews. Regional and field offices should
maintain similar files for controlled environmental reviews within the
scope of the Region.
(2) Service personnel should compare these letters with the comments
submitted. The preparer and/or REC should question any substantial changes
in Service comments made by OEPC or a lead bureau that were not
coordinated.
3.3 How to Review Environmental Documents.
A. Service personnel responsible for reviewing an environmental document
will normally have had previous experience with the proposed action by
participating in the scoping process, representing the Service as a
cooperating agency, authoring planning aid letters or formal Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) Reports, or through consultation under the
Endangered Species Act.
B. Service reviewers must be extremely careful not to foreclose future
options by declining to review and comment on environmental documents.
Failure to review and comment on other agencies' draft EISs and other
environmental documents can be interpreted by those agencies as meaning the
Service has no concerns or believes that the proposed action will not have
significant impacts on fish and wildlife resources. It can further be
interpreted to mean that the Service will have no objections to issuance of
any permits required for project construction.
C. Major Areas of Concern to be Addressed in Service Reviews of
Environmental Documents.
(1) Service comments and advice on environmental documents should be
confined to items of Service jurisdiction and expertise and should be based
on facts, published research, or professionally supported opinion.