[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 69 (Friday, April 10, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 17856]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-9567]
[[Page 17856]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5490-7]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared March 16, 1998 through March
20, 1998 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)
564-7167.
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.
EO--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.
EU--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 environmment, 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-FTA-E40774-FL Rating EC2, Central Florida Light Rail
Transit System Transportation Improvement to the North/South Corridor
Project, Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) and Minimum Operable
Segment (MOS), Orange and Seminole Counties, FL.
Summary: EPA conceptually concurs with the selection of a light
rail system because of the expected air quality benefits. EPA concerns,
however, include environmental justice impacts associated with
Alternative 3, neighborhood travel disruptions, potential impact to
historic districts, and some urban wetland impacts.
ERP No. D-NSF-A81164-00 Rating EC2, Amundsen-Scott South Pole
Station, Proposal to Modernize through Reconstruction and Replacement
of Key Facilities, Antarctica.
Summary: EPA believes that since monitoring of ambient air quality
at the station is not feasible, the EIS should identify measures to be
carried out on a periodic basis to ensure that air emissions from
sources at the station continue to be in line with the emission factors
as specified for such equipment. EPA also, identified a number of
points which should be clarified in the EIS to better inform the final
decision regarding the proposed action.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-FHW-D40284-PA, US 202 Section 700 Corridor, Improvements,
from PA 63 in Montgomeryville to the PA-611 Bypass in Doylestown
Township, COE Section 404 Permit and Right-of-Way, Montgomery and Bucks
Counties, PA.
Summary: EPA continued to express concerns that the proposed 8 mile
highway will negatively impact water quality of the Neshaminy Creek, a
tributary to the Delaware River. EPA does not oppose issuance of a
Section 404 permit for the project provided all appropriate measures
are taken to mitigate adverse impacts to water quality, wetlands and
terrestrial ecosystems.
Regulations
ERP No. PR-AFS-A65164-00, 36 CFR Part 212 Administration of the
Forest Development Transportation System: Management Regulations
Revision and Temporary Suspension of Road Construction in Roadless
Areas; Proposed Rules.
Summary: EPA supports the Forest Service's effort to revise its
existing transportation policy and an 18 month road moratorium in
designated roadless areas. EPA believes this is a good start to
protecting the environmental and cultural values associated with the
roadless and low-density roaded areas as well as the other Forest
Service lands. EPA expects to work closely with the Forest Service as
it develops its rules to ensure that adverse impacts to water quality
are avoided or mitigated.
Dated: April 7, 1998.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-9567 Filed 4-9-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
