[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-8495]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: April 8, 1994]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4710-2]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared March 21, 1994 Through March
25, 1994 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-AFS-E65043-00 Rating EC2, Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW)
(Picoides borealis) Repopulation, Habitat Management Areas,
Implementation, National Forests in the Southern Region.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding impacts due
to oil and gas seismic exploration. EPA recommended more stringent
restriction on oil and gas exploration and encouraged uneven-aged
timber harvesting instead of even-aged cutting, as a mean to preserve
habitat diversity.
ERP No. D-CGD-K50010-CA Rating EC2, Ford Bridge (Known as Henry
Ford (Badger Avenue) Railroad Bridge) Replacement Project,
Implementation, across the Cerritos Channel of Los Angeles and Long
Beach Harbor, Approval of Permits, Los Angeles County, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the
project's potential air quality impacts and the possibility that
sediments proposed for dredging may contain elevated DDT levels. EPA
requested clarification of these issues in the final EIS.
ERP No. D-COE-L39050-WA Rating EC2, Southwest Harbor Cleanup and
Redevelopment Project, Construction, NPDES Permit, from SW Spokane
Street to Elliott Bay and from Harbor Avenue SW to the West Waterway,
Port of Seattle, King County, WA.
Summary: EPA had environmental concerns due to the lack of
information on contamination at the Wyckoff property and lack of Clean
Air Act conformity determination.
ERP No. D-IBR-K39049-CA Rating EC2, Coachella Canal Lining Water
Project, Construction, Operation and Funding, Riverside and Imperial
Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the
mitigation plan and requested additional information on supply and
quality of mitigation water.
ERP No. D-SFW-F60005-IN Rating LO1, Patoka River Wetlands Project,
Land Acquisition for Fish and Wildlife Protection and Management,
Funding and Section 404 Permit, Gibson and Pike Counties, IN.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project.
ERP No. D-USA-K11051-CA Rating EC2, Sacramento Army Depot Disposal
and Reuse, Implementation, Sacramento, El Dorado, Placer and Yolo
Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the lack of
a comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts and Clean Air Act
conformity requirement. Clarification of these issues was requested.
ERP No. DC-NOA-K90007-00 Rating LO1, Pacific Coast Groundfish
Fishery Management Plan, Amendment No. 8, Fixed Gear Sablefish
Individual Quotas Program, Approval and Implementation, off the Coast
of WA, OR and CA.
Summary: EPA had no objections with the proposed action.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-BOP-D80022-PA, Philadelphia, PA. Metropolitan Detention
Center (MDC), Construction and Operation, City of Philadelphia, PA.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed action.
ERP No. F-FAA-C51015-NJ, Newark International Airport Installation
and Operation of an Instrument Landing System on Runway 11, Funding and
Airport Layout Plan Approval, Essex and Union Counties, NJ.
Summary: EPA had no objection to the proposed project.
ERP No. F-UAF-E11032-FL, Homestead Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal
and Reuse, Implementation, Dade County, FL.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the air
quality analysis and requested additional clarification.
ERP No. FA-COE-E36013-MS, Mississippi River and Tributaries Flood
Control Plan, Updated Information, Yazoo Projects, Yazoo River Basin,
several counties, MS.
Summary: EPA continued to have environmental concerns regarding the
sufficiency and success of the proposed mitigation. Verification will
only be determined during the subsequent monitoring effort and any
shortcomings will need to be rectified.
Dated: April 5, 1994.
Marshall Cain,
Senior Legal Advisor, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 94-8495 Filed 4-7-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
