PERMFILE59039 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

affinities and geographical areas to be considered in view of the proposed actions. The proposed actions are discussed by species in another comment. The original distribcition maps should also be considered. They indicate the ubiquitous ar restricted nature of the species in reference to their stability as populations in the proposed area of impact. If a species is restricted it is so indicated. FISH AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES 7NFORMATION THE APPLICANT HAS NOT INITIATED CONTACTS WITH THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY TO DETERMIIQE THE SCOPE OF FISH AND WILDLIFE STUDIES. VARIOUS AGENCIES WERE CONTACTED FOR INFORMATION AND WILDLIFE RESOURCES. It states in regulation 783.20 (b), "Prior to initiating such studies, the applicant shall conta~~t the regulatory authority to determine xhat fish and wildlife resources information will be required." Regulation 783.20 (c) states, "The regulatory authority, in consultation with the appropriate State and Federal fish and xildlife management, conservation, or land management agencies having responsibilities for fish or wildlife or their habitats, shall determine the level of detail and the areas of such studies according to: (1) Published data and other information, (2) Site specific information obtained by the applicant, and (3) Written guidance obtained from • agencies consulted." This level of contact was not the responsibility of nor made by the terrestrial vertebrate consultant. The terrestrial vertebrate consultant responded to a competitive bid RFP sent from Burns d McDonnell, Kansas City, Missouri. The RFP specifically stated tt~e scope of work to be performed. This scope of work as outlined by Burma & McDonnell was, however, presented for critical review to those in attendance at a scoping meeting held in Hottle Hollox Resort, Utah, on May 29-31, 1979. Both. representatives from Burns d McDonnell and the terrestrial vertebrate consultant were present not only for the presentation but also for questions and consultation. Field trips were also conducted with Burns d McDonnell biologists and the terrestrial biology consultants; botany, endangered plant species, fisheries, and terrestrial vertebrates. These trips were open to all and those with jurisdiction over the resources encouraged to attend. The purpose was to clarify any issues in question pertaining to the scope of work. Personnel from REA, HL~K, U. S. Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Washington EPA office attended both the scoping meeting and the field trips. Their comments and criticisms xere incorporated into the study. Representatives from O:iM and the Colorado Division of Wildlife were conspicuously absent although specifically invited as well as publicly notified. Utah Division of Wildlife Resources had several people in attendance at the scoping meeting but no: on the field tripe. Their comments at the meeting were properly attended. Hosed upon the RFP and the amended input, the study proceeded. The terrestrial • consultants proceeded e~ccordingly. The terrestrial vertebrate consultant or his 10$0 20