WSP07846 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

;l.ECORD OF OEaSION '.\'oIfolli Mo-..a llo1lDctJ' C,.ln llA:..-r ?1ilo1 Following the filing of the FEIS with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) , a comment letter dated March 30, 1990, was received by Bh~ from EPA concerning procedural and environmental issues. EPA brought ~p the issue that BLM had not adequately responded to previous comments provided by EPA and the Service regarding the methodology used for evaluating wetland impacts and the adequacy of mitigation for wetland impacts. EPA also took issue with the method of assessment of wetland mitigation credits and stated its position that proposals for mitigating lost wetland values should be based on in-kind value replacement. EPA comments were addressed by BLM in official correspondence dated May 24, 1990. BLM indicated that responses to all agency comments on the DEIS and SDEIS were provided in the FEIS and asserted that their responses to comments were in full compliance with applicable Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations. BLM also asserted that the CEQ regulations do not require that responses to agency comments on the preliminary FE IS and mitigation plan be provided in the FEIS. In response to EPA comments on the methodology for evaluating wetland impacts and its implications on the mitigation plan, BLM concluded that the situation involves probable irreconcilable differences of professional opinion between the agencies on the assumptions used for the functional values of affected wetlands, rather than a matter of BLM ignoring EPA comments without adequate explanation. In the letter dated May 24, 1990, the BLM also responded to other EPA concerns raised subsequent to filing of the FEIS. EPA requested withdrawal of the FEIS or that more time be granted to reach mutual agreement prior to completion of a BLM record of decision. BLM stated that withdrawal of the FEIS was unnecessary as it believes that the assertions made by EPA, to that date, were not convincing in terms of legal sufficiency or appropriate for purposes of NEPA. EPA asserted that the FEIS is not appropriate for the Clean Water Act, Section 404 permitting process. BLM disagreed with this conclusion and stated that the COE should assess the extent that it will use the FEIS in the Section 404 permitting process. BLM further elaborated that the EIS process was conducted with COE as a cooperating agency consistent with CEQ regulations. Finally, EPA indicated that it would be unable to concur with the BLM record of decision, which did not fully address impacts on wetlands and the aquatic environment, or provide adequate mitigation since BLM did not adequately respond to comments on the FEIS as required by CEQ regulations. BLM reasserted that it had fully complied with applicable CEQ regulations and further elaborated that it responded to EPA and Service comments on the DEIS and SDEIS by supplementing, improving, and modifying the analyses pursuant to 40 CFR 1503.4(a) (3). Furthermore, BLM