WSP01996 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 23<; ~.. '- .....1 The USFWS provided a general list of potential Threatened and Endangered Species at each site. In addition, the loss of wildlife and wetlands habitat due to inundation at each reservoir enlargement site is also an issue. Any opportunities to improve species habitat, especially for the Greenback Trout and the Terns and Plovers should be considered. The impacts of the California Gulch Superfund site and related mining drainage from the Leadville area should be considered for both alternatives at Pueblo Reservoir. The offices for the USFWS are in Lakewood, Colorado. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency The EPA is responsible for Environmental Impact Statement Review as authorized under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 NEPA. Under NEPA, an EIS or EA must be submitted for any project that directly or indirectly affects the human environment and uses federal funding, federal land leasing or requires federal permits for operation. Similar to the Corps, the EPA will require that the proposed project beneficiaries document the development of the storage site assessment and alternative selection in order to demonstrate the range of alternatives which have been considered by the beneficiaries. The EPA emphasizes the use of water conservation and other non-structural programs. The EPA is particularly concerned that any foreseeable future actions be considered, and that the environmental analysis cover the cumulative actions on the Arkansas River. The EPA had comments similar to those of the USBR and USFWS regarding loss of wetlands, water quality, dam safety and NEPA compliance. The EPA also indicated that an EIS would be required for Administrative Actions and Legislative Actions. Applicants for individual Section 404 permits are required to submit an environmental report with the application which includes a complete description of the proposed project, analyzes each project alternative for a full range of environmental impacts (404(b)(I) Alternatives Analysis) and recommends mitigation measures. The EPA also performs a section 404(b)(I) Compliance Review. The EPA has a broad oversight and veto power over the Corps' 404 permit decisions. Criteria used by EPA include water quality, review of alternatives, threatened and endangered species and proposed mitigation activities. The office EPA office is in Denver. U.S, Advisory Council on Historic Preservation The U.S. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Advisory Council) conducts a Cultural Resource Clearance review which focuses on protecting cultural, historic and archeological resources in the project area for all projects subject to NEPA Compliance and 404 permit decisions. This is authorized by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. Section 106 requires that every federal agency "take into account" how each of its undertakings could affect historical properties. The agency must afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Agency's project. The purpose of this review is to identify and protect properties which have historical, architectural, archeological, engineering, or cultural significance. The actual identification of ~ 7