Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br />N <br />N <br />e' <br />ei <br /> <br />:",.::; <br /> <br />CHAPTER IV <br /> <br />CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION <br />COMMENT LETTERS <br /> <br />" <br /> <br />It is unclear from the EA how many wetlands are contained 1n <br />the project area, as well as the amount of wetland acreage under <br />discussion. While wetland types are discussed, their associated <br />habitat and wildlife values are unclear. A formal biological <br />evaluation of wetlands needs to be conducted, and the results <br />presented in the EA. Maps should be provided. <br /> <br />There are a number of instances in this DEA where sufficient <br />information regarding the nature of wildlife populations is <br />presented. The EPA realizes that the total area of these <br />projects is not large, and that associated impacts to wildlife <br />are not anticipated to be major. Even so, a more comprehensive <br />documentation of wildlife populations, particularly relating to <br />the Stubbs Ditch portion of this project, needs to be presented. <br /> <br />As previously indicated, the information and analysis which <br />the BoR has presented relating to other aspects of this project <br />is acceptable. There is some difficulty in following the <br />document due to its organization and layout. The BoR might wish <br />to consider a reorganization in the Final EA which separates the <br />various options in a more definite manner. It was sometimes <br />difficult to determine where one option description ended and the <br />next began. <br /> <br />There is one additional area in which the EPA has questions. <br />The BoR has presented essentially two alternatives for <br />consideration, having eliminated one additional proposal. As the <br />main goal of this project is the reduction of salt loading from <br />the concerned sources, we question whether there are really only <br />one viable manner in which this might be achieved. We are not <br />sure that being presented with what is essentially a one option <br />choice, i.e. either the proposed action or no action, is in the <br />spirit of what the NEPA review process is meant to achieve. <br /> <br />If this is a case where there is really only one viable <br />action to be considered, the BaR needs to address this directly <br />and identify the reason for the absence of alternatives beyond <br />the no-action alternative, and the one alternative jUdged as non- <br />viable in the analysis. <br /> <br />The EPA appreciates the opportunity to review this document, <br />and looks forward to working with the BaR on other projects in <br />the future. <br /> <br />61 <br />