*Pages 1--2 from C:\Pdf2Text\Ready4Text_in\pdf\48131.pdf* STOKES ENVIRONMENTAL ASSOCIATES, LTD 28 May 2004 J effrey Steinberg Deputy Chief, Policy Division Wireless Telecommunications Bureau Federal Communications Commission 44512th Street, Southwest Washington, DC 20554 Dear Mr. Steinberg: This is to request a declaratory ruling on the question of whether an Environmental Assessment is required under 47 CFR 1.1307 when a proposed project will result in wetland impacts; and such impacts have been reviewed, approved and perIIlitted by the U. S. Anny Corps of Engineers (Corps) or their designated permitting agency (minor projects are often delegated to state environmental agencies with oversight by the Corps). ; The declaratory ruling' is forpi~ j ects where the reView'ofquestions'tnider4 7 CFR 1.1307 finds no effects other than the aforementioned: previously permitted wetland impacts. The existence of a Corps- approved permit indicates that the agency with expertise in wetlands has completed its analysis and found the wetland effects are compliant withNEP A and with the Clean Water Act, based on minimal extent of impacts and/ or mitigation to compensate such impacts. As such, it would appear reasonable to conclude that the project does not involve a significant change in surface features [see 47 CFR 1.1307a( 7)]. By the same logic, when the SHPO concludes there is no effect on historic resources, there is similarly no requirement for an EA. It is also noted that NEP A requires federal agencies to minimize paperwork, and the requirement for an EA for previously permitted wetland impacts would be inconsistent with the paperwork reduction requirements. I have discussed the subject question with Mr. Horst Greczmiel, Associate Director for NEPA Oversight at the Council for Eilvirortmental Quality( CEQ) ' m WashIngton, D. C. According to NEP A, CEQ has the task of ensuring that federal agencies meet their obligations under the Act. CEQ is also a reference when agencies disagree over environmental assessments. Mr. Greczmiel has made it clear to ine that requiring an EA for prior pennitted wetlan~ impacts is not an obligation , , -, under NEP A; Furthermore, such a requirement conflicts with NEP A because of the paperWork reduction stipulations. I encourage you, to (iiscuss this with Mr. Greczmiel at 202- 395- 0827. 4101 Granby sb- eet .Suite 404 .Norfolk, Virginia 23504 .Office (757) 623- 0777 .FAX (757) 623- 2785 1 ;91. 'Z-£ 'Z9 (L.; 1.} XY.: i .1. L. L. 0-£ 'Z9 (1.; 1.} 131. .~;£ 'Z e,~ l'l\ "11OJJON '~ v ~, ns '~ 0) 3J; S "que19 IOI~ ..~ '1 'SUVDOSSV 'IV~ 3WNOHIAN3 S: IXO. LS .Ill ss~ l~!/ t\ :I: IJISJ; U~ VS;) 0P f. wlq~ r nu? Jt1. g SUO!} U~ runwwo~:} I:}. L ss:} I:} l!. M. JJd 'uosuqOf uoQ "JW :~~ .If'S:)){ O~ S .'1 S'BWO~ ~~ .PJ~ 'SaJ8,~ OSSV 18JUamUO. l, AU~ Sa)( oJS 'l.. l:) j:):) U! S .SPIe~~ l ~s~ q ~! M .SUo!} s~ nb Aue ~Aeq noA J! ne:) 0} ~} e}! S~ q }OU OP ~se~ Id .p:)} B!~:) lddB ApB:) ffJ :) q pynOM. 'S}~ BdW! pUBp:) M. p:»>! UU~ d- lO! ld lOJ 'LOEl" I '} IdJ Lv l:} pun p:) l! nb:) l }OU S! VH VdHN B }BqJ gU! uuyuo~ :) SUOdS~ l p:)}! p~ dx~ moA .saU1lp'Bap suq q: JNA\ JO q: JUa 'sa!: Jua8~ relapaJ pue a~~~ s 'sa!: Jua8~ I~: J° I 'SlaaU! 8Ua 'SlO~ SaAU! 'SlaUA\ O Puel WO. IJ SI~ AOldd'B JO :> I1O1\\: JaU l'BaU1luou ~ saAIOAU! q: JNA\ '8u!~! s laA\ O~ Jo ~ual'B xaldwo: J a1p U1 reAOldd~ a~! S p! dtU lOJ paau 1~!: J1U: J a1p JO asn~: Jaq a: Jue1lodw! Jo S! lau~ W S~ 'l ~g~ d t'OO'l A~ W 8'l gl~ qU!~~ S A~ l1J~ f 'lW 2