[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19047-19048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9289]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4722-2]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared March 13, 1995 through March
17, 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.
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 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-FHW-D40275-PA Rating EC2, Kittanning By-Pass/PA-6028,
Section 015 Extension of the Allegheny Valley Expressway, existing
Allegheny Valley Expressway to the Traffic Route 28/66 and Traffic
Route 85 Intersection, Funding and COE Section 404 and EPA NPDES
Permits Issuance, Armstrong County, PA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns for potential impacts
to wetlands, terrestrial habitat, and residences. EPA found alternative
C Prime to be the environmentally preferable alternative because of its
minimization of impacts to wetland resources.
ERP No. D-FRC-D29000-VA Rating EC2, Gaston and Roanoke Rapids
Project (FERC-No. 2009-003), Nonpoint Use of Project Lands and Water
for the City of Virginia Beach Water Supply Project, License Issuance,
Brunswick County, VA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the water
demand, as well as potential supply alternatives and requested
additional information. EPA also requested water quality modeling of
the lower Roanoke River prior to issuance of the final EIS, and FERC
convene a session of key parties to develop an appropriate 6-10 year
interim withdrawal allocation.
ERP No. D-FRC-K02008-CA Rating EC2, Mojave Natural Gas Pipeline
Northward Expansion Project, Construction and Operation, Approvals and
Permits Issuance, San Joaquin Valley, San Francisco Bay Area and
Sacramento, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns over potential
impacts to wetlands, as well as potential significant emissions during
construction that may not meet Clean Air Act conformity provisions.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-IBR-J31023-UT Narrows Multi-Purpose Water Development
Project, Construction and Operation, Funding, Gooseberry Creek, Manti-
La Sal National Forest, Sanpete County, UT.
Summary: EPA continued to have environmental concerns about
wetlands impacts, endangered species and the limited alternatives
analyzed in the EIS.
ERP No. FS-COE-E30032-FL Palm Beach County Beach Erosion Project,
Updated Information, Shore Protection Project, Jupiter/Carlin Segment
from [[Page 19048]] Martin Co., Line to Lake Worth Inlet and from South
Lake Worth Inlet to Broward, General Design Plan, Implementation,
Martin and Broward Counties, FL.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the long-
term consequences of how this action meshes with other, similar beach
nourishment projects planned for the county's shoreline. EPA was
particularly concerned over impacts to nearshore hardbottom habitat.
Dated: April 11, 1995.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-9289 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
