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

90
alternative and its impacts. Any previous technical assistance, reports,
or planning aid letters provided by the Service on the project should be
noted in this section (and attached), if appropriate. For example, Service
comments should note any potential reviews that it may make in conjunction
with section 10/404 Corps of Engineers permits, any further consultation
requirements under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and whether the
Service may refer the project to CEQ. Other project reviews are addressed
in 505 FW 4. CEQ referrals are discussed in 505 FW 5.
(2) If the document is complete in its analysis of potential impacts on
fish and wildlife resources of the proposed action and reasonable
alternatives, and if the proposed action is acceptable, a simple statement
of that fact should be made.
D. Specific Comments.
(1) Specific comments should support each of the major concerns raised in
the "General Comments." In other words, the action agency should be able
to locate and identify the specific justifications for the major problems
addressed in the "General Comments" section. Other comments to rectify
inadequacies on how fish and wildlife resources are addressed in the EIS
are also covered in this section.
(2) The format of this section should follow the organization of the
document being reviewed. Page and paragraph numbers should be cited to
improve the usability of the comments. The comments should be written in a
constructive tone to help the author of the document modify the next draft
or final work. State the problem with specificity rather than a general
description of inadequacy. Most importantly, specifically state what needs
to be done to rectify the deficiency. Give your precise recommended
additions and deletions. As 40 CFR 1503.3 points out, when we choose to
criticize a lead agency's predictive methodology we should describe not
only the methodology we prefer, but why.
(3) Comments should address significant impacts of the proposed action
that may have been overlooked or downplayed. The comments should also be
made to assure that alternatives that would benefit or have fewer adverse
impacts on fish and wildlife resources be included and adequately
presented. Comments on the description of the environment or environmental
setting should be made only if a particular component of the environment
that will be significantly impacted is not described.
E. Sumanary Comments. When the review comments are lengthy, it may be
useful to summarize the Service's major concerns and recommendations for
rectifying those concerns in this section. Whenever appropriate, this
section should close with an offer by the Service to meet with the agency
to discuss the Service's comments and concerns. This offer of continued
cooperation and assistance is especially important if significant resources
are involved or if there are extensive Service comments too difficult to
thoroughly describe in a letter. Specific contacts by titles, addresses,
and telephone numbers should be provided.