[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8609]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4721-9]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared March 6, 1995 through March
10, 1995 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under
Section 309 of the Clean Air Act and Section 102(2)(c) of the National
Environmental Policy Act as amended. Requests for copies of EPA
comments can be directed to the Office of Federal Activities at (202)
260-5076.
Summary of Rating Definitions
Environmental Impact of the Action
LO--Lack of Objections
The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental
impacts requiring substantive changes to the proposal. The review may
have disclosed opportunities for application of mitigation measures
that could be accomplished with no more than minor changes to the
proposal.
EC--Environmental Concerns
The EPA review has identified environmental impacts that should be
avoided in order to fully protect the environment. Corrective measures
may require changes to the preferred alternative or application of
mitigation measures that can reduce the environmental impact. EPA would
like to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EU--Environmental Objections
The EPA review has identified significant environmental impacts
that must be avoided in order to provide adequate protection for the
environment. Corrective measures may require substantial changes to the
preferred alternative or consideration of some other project
alternative (including the no action alternative or a new alternative).
EPA intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts.
EO--Environmentally Unsatisfactory
The EPA review has identified adverse environmental impacts that
are of sufficient magnitude that they are unsatisfactory from the
standpoint of public health or welfare or environmental quality. EPA
intends to work with the lead agency to reduce these impacts. If the
potentially unsatisfactory impacts are not corrected at the final EIS
stage, this proposal will be recommended for referral to the CEQ.
Adequacy of the Impact Statement
Category 1--Adequate
EPA believes the draft EIS adequately sets forth the environmental
impact(s) of the preferred alternative and those of the alternatives
reasonably available to the project or action. No further analysis or
data collection is necessary, but the reviewer may suggest the addition
of clarifying language or information.
Category 2--Insufficient Information
The draft EIS does not contain sufficient information for EPA to
fully assess environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to
fully protect the environment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new
reasonably available alternatives that are within the spectrum of
alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional
information, data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the
final EIS.
Category 3--Inadequate
EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses
potentially significant environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA
reviewer has identified new, reasonably available alternatives that are
outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS,
which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant
environmental impacts. EPA believes that the identified additional
information, data, analyses, or discussions are of such a magnitude
that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not
believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA
and/or Section 309 review, and thus should be formally revised and made
available for public comment in a supplemental or revised draft EIS. On
the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal
could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ.
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-BLM-J03022-WY Rating EC2, Greater Wamsutter Area II
Natural Gas Development Project, Approvals and Permits Issuance, Carbon
and Sweetwater Counties, WY.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the plugging
program and possible ground water degradation. EPA requested additional
information on these issues, as well as, a discussion to reduce the
projected disturbance of 5 acres (per well) pad.
ERP No. D-NPS-E65048-TN Rating EC2, Foothills Parkway Section 8D,
Construction, between Wear Valley Road (US 321) and Gatlinburg Pigeon
Forge Spur (US 441/321), Right-of-Way and COE Section 404 Permits,
Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Blount, Sevier and Cocke Counties,
TN.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding potential
acid drainage and requested that the final EIS discuss possible
secondary or backup mitigation plans should the proposed strategies
fail. ERP No. D-USA-K11058-CA Rating EC2, San Onofre Area Sewage
Effluent Compliance Project, Cease and Desist Orders, Camp Pendleton
Marine Corps Base, San Diego and Orange Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding impacts to
wetlands, biological resources and water quality. Additional
information is requested for the project description and its
alternatives analysis.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-FTA-L54003-OR, New Eugene Transfer Station, Site
Selection and Construction, Funding, McDonald Site or IHOP Site, Lane
County, OR.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS has been completed and no
environmental concerns with the project were identified. No formal
comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: April 4, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-8609 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U