[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15251-15252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8484]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ER-FRL-5415-3]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared March 18, 1996 Through March
22, 1996 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
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
[[Page 15252]]
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-NOA-E64016-FL Rating LO, Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary Comprehensive Management Plan, Implementation and Special-
Use-Permit, Monroe County, FL.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project.
Furthermore, EPA believed that the Florida Keys Management Plan/EIS is
a well-conceived comprehensive blueprint for saving the fragile coral
reef ecosystem that is threatened by unsustainable human activities.
ERP No. D-SFW-K99028-CA Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Natural
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan, Implementation
and Associated Incidental Take Permit Issuance, Central and Coastal
Subregion, Orange County, CA.
Summary: EPA had environmental concerns with the scarce information
provided in the joint programmatic EIS on the role of this NCCP/HCP in
the overall NCCP effort and regional species population viability;
potential effects on water quality, aquatic resources and air quality;
adequate and sound science; subsequent environmental reviews; funding
and administration of the proposed plan and environmental justice
issues. EPA commended the US Fish and Wildlife Service and project
proponents for the multi-species/multi-habitat approach, incorporation
of proactive measures to minimize adverse impacts on habitat approved
for conversions, the commitment to adaptive management and emphasis on
incorporating nearly all major stakeholders in protecting the diverse
ecosystems present in the plan area.
ERP No. D-USN-11021-PA Rating EC2, Philadelphia Naval Base,
Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, Philadelphia, PA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding potential
wetland impacts, site contamination and remedial action. EPA requested
that these issues be discussed in more detail in the final EIS.
ERP No. DS-NOA-E91007-00 Rating LO, South Atlantic Region Shrimp
Fishery Management Plan, Implementation, Additional Information,
Amendment 2 (Bycatch Reduction), Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), NC, SC,
FL and GA.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed actions, but
stressed the need to research Bycatch Reduction Devices that will
increase the catch-per-unit effort for shrimp and achieve bycatch
reductions.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-BLM-K08018-CA, Alturas 345 Kilovolt (KV) Electric Power
Transmission Line Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance,
Right-of-Way Grant Approval, Special-Use-Permit and COE Section 404
Permit, Susanville District, Modoc, Lassen and Sierra Counties, CA and
Washoe County, NV.
Summary: EPA continued to express environmental concerns about
increased voltages in existing power lines near residential areas and
EPA suggested that information to address this should be included in
the Record of Decision.
ERP No. F-DOE-A00168-00, Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy
Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, Implementation,
United States and Abroad.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project.
ERP No. F-FHW-L40191-AK, Whittier Access Project, Construction
between Port of Whittier and Seward Highway, Funding, Right-of-Way
Agreement and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Chugauch National Forest,
Municipality of Anchorage, City of Whittier, AK.
Summary: EPA provided no formal written comments to the preparing
agency. EPA had no objection to the preferred alternative as described
in the final EIS.
Dated: April 2, 1996.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 96-8484 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
