Final Environmental Impact Statement Volume II Appendix K, Part 2

Home Browse Search

COMMENTS OF U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY RESPONSES TO U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY EPA -3 We have carefully reviewed EPA's analysis and conducted our EPA -3 standard, EPA has determined that instream flows of 900 cfs are own (Appendix E). A minimum flow of approximately 900 cfs, needed down to a reservoir storage level of 0.9 MAF. The 0.9 MAF by itself, is insufficient to assure that the temperature standard is reservoir level is necessary to maintain the 900 cfs flow 90 percent of the time. This 900 cfs flow recommendation is consistent with the target flows met. Our simulation results (Appendix E) indicate that minimum priority of 800 -1200 cfs specified by the Department of the Interior (DOI) in its revised flows as high as 1,100 to 1,500 cfs result in no appreciable section 10(j) recommendations for the maintenance of the aquatic ecosystem of the Platte River. EPA has included a copy of its decrease below 15 percent in probability of maximum water analysis of the temperature and flow data as an enclosure to this correspondence (Enclosure B). temperature exceeding 32 °C. EPA's rating is noted. Owing to the significance of the concerns raised in the review of this RDEIS with regard to protection of the Platte River EPA4 EPA's position is noted. Even with an aggressive alternative like ecosystem, EPA has rated the RDEIS Environmentally Unsatisfactory -- Insufficient Information (EU -2) . A copy of the Instream Enhancement operating regime, average Grand Island EPA's rating system is enclosed as Enclosure C. In order to provide an acceptable level of environmental protection to the August flows are below 800 cfs 35 percent of the time. Flows in Platte river ecosystem and meet the statutory intent of NEPA, FERC must either modify the currently proposed preferred the 800 to 1,200 cfs range cannot be assured without voiding the alternative or re- evaluate and modify one of the remaining alternatives in the RDEIS for inclusion the multipurpose aspect of the projects. as preferred alternative in the final EIS. The analysis should also clearly set forth the impacts on all users during dry, wet and normal years. The EU rating means that this proposal is a candidate for EPA -5 EPA's position is noted. 1�0 referral to the Council on Environmental Quality if the final EIS fails to address the unsatisfactory impacts and, in particular, the violations to the Clean Water Act. EPA -6 We agree with EPA on the importance of the water conservation EPA4 In summary, EPA believes that the section lo (j) flows identified by DOI (800 -1200 cfs) should be provided to the Big program, and we have strengthened our water conservation Bend Reach to protect adequately the Platte ecosystem, including program. its threatened and endangered species. In addition, EPA's analysis indicates that increased flow releases to the Big Bend Reach of the Platte during critical low -flow months are needed to support the aquatic life uses assigned by the state and to ensure EPA -5 compliance with the requirements of the CWA. EPA has also identified a potential inadequacy in the state's authority to issue CWA section 401 certifications. Such an inadequacy could vitiate the Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality's earlier effort to certify the projects and, under the CWA, place the responsibility to issue the required 401 certification with EPA. EPA -6 EPA is also concerned that the RDEIS does not adequately develop and present various aspects of the supplemental measures associated with the preferred alternative, including the implementation of a comprehensive water conservation plan, the construction of habitat restoration areas consistent with requirements of the 404(b)(1) guidelines of the CWA, FERC's priorities of these measures for implementation, and the development and implementation of a monitoring program for the project. EPA has asked FERC in previous correspondence in this