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

95
provide for fish and wildlife concerns. When commenting, the Service
should recommend specific language changes. "No Comments" on proposed
Chief's Reports must also be made in writing to OEPC.
C. Soil Conservation Service Activities. See also 504 FW 1.
(1) Soil Conservation Service (SCS) projects also require similar
consultation with and reporting requirements by the Secretary of the
Interior. This authority was provided in the 1958 amendments to the FWCA,
which added a new section (section 12) to the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act of 1954 (P.L. 566).
(2) In December 1979, the Service and SCS signed Channel Modification
Guidelines to be used in the planning of all SCS projects or measures where
channel modification may be proposed. Respective Service and SCS
responsibilities and guidelines for the resolution of issues are defined.
(3) The current edition of the SCS Watershed Protection Handbook outlines
SCS procedures to be used to integrate NEPA into their planning process.
Like the Corps, SCS now combines documents, in this case, the Watershed
Plan and draft EIS. Comments on SCS Watershed Plans combined with EISs
should be addressed like those for the Corps of Engineers, as outlined
above.
D. Corps of Engineers/Coast Guard Permits and Licenses Activities.
(1) The Corps NEPA regulations (33 CFR 230) and Department of the Army
regulatory program regulations (33 CFR 320 and 330) should be reviewed.
The following guidance is provided regarding the interrelationship of NEPA
with permits and licenses.
(a) Where the need for Federal permits or licenses has been identified in
an EIS, comments to planning agencies should indicate which permits would
require Service review and the likely Service position based on available
information. If the Service's comments outline serious concerns or if the
Service's likely position would be to recommend denial, the Service should
urge the applicant to consult as early as possible with the appropriate
Service office (address and telephone-number should be provided).
Mitigation measures, including project modifications, or proposed permit
conditions should be identified in Service comments on the draft EIS.
(b) Despite efforts to have permit requirements identified early in the
NEPA process or when site-specific information is lacking, an EIS may still
lack an indication of possible permits. If this inadequacy is identified,
Service comments on the draft EIS could contain a statement similar to the
following:
"The statement lacks a discussion of (i.e., the requirement for permits)
and evaluation of how these actions may affect fish and wildlife resources.
Accordingly, these comments do not preclude separate evaluation and
comments by the Fish and Wildlife Service, pursuant to the FWCA (16 U.S.C.
661, et seq), if project implementation requires a permit from the V.S.
Coast Guard (CG) and/or the Corps, pursuant to sections 9 and 10 of the