[Federal Register: April 2, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 64)]
[Notices]
[Page 17403-17405]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr02ap04-51]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6649-9]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental
[[Page 17404]]
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 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 EIS
ERP No. D-AFS-F65045-MN
Rating EC1, Virginia Forest Management Project Area, Resource
Management Activities on 101,000 Acres of Federal Land, Implementation,
Superior National Forest, Eastern Region, St. Louis County, MN.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with potential
impacts from mining activities and requested that more specific
information on mitigation and monitoring be included in the final EIS.
ERP No. D-BLM-L65446-AK
Rating EO2, Alpine Satellite Development Plan, Construction and
Operation of Five Oil Production Pads, Associated Well, Roads,
Airstrips, Pipelines and Powerlines, Northeast Corner of the National
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska, Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough,
AK.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections with Alternatives A
and C because of the potential for significant adverse impacts to
environmental and subsistence resources and the users of the plan area.
Neither alternative would be consistent with oil and gas lease
stipulations in the 1998 NW NPR-A Record of Decision. In addition, the
Draft EIS does not contain adequate information regarding other
reasonable alternatives, such as the State of Alaska's proposed road to
Nuiqsut, and additional mitigation for impacts if stipulations are
excepted or amended. EPA recommends changes to the proposed alternative
to address these issues and that the final EIS include mitigation
measures and environmental safeguards to minimize significant adverse
impacts.
ERP No. D-COE-K36138-AZ
Rating LO, EL Rio Antigua Feasibility Study, Ecosystem Restoration
along the Rillito River, Pima County, AZ.
Summary: EPA supported the goals and objectives of the proposed El
Rio Antiquo Restoration, and had no objections to the proposed project.
EPA requested clarification on the recreation and parking improvements
proposed as part of the project.
ERP No. D-HUD-C81018-NY
Rating EC2, Generic EIS--World Trade Center Memorial and
Redevelopment Plan, To Remember, Rebuild and Renew what was lost on
September 11, 2001, Construction in the Borough of Manhattan, New York
County, NY.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding both the
direct and cumulative impacts to air quality (NOX, ozone,
and conformity with the SIP), and impacts to water quality (storm water
discharge). Additional information and discussion to address these
concerns should be included in the final EIS.
ERP No. DB-NOA-A91065-00
Rating LO, Proposed Rule to Implement Management Measures for the
Reduction of Sea Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic
Pelagic Longline Fishery.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed action.
ERP No. DS-BOP-K81025-CA
Rating LO, Fresno Federal Correctional Facility Development,
Additional Information, Orange Cove, Fresno County, CA.
Summary: EPA supports the proposed alternative for the Fresno
Correctional
[[Page 17405]]
Facility in Fresno County. EPA has no objections to the proposed
project.
Final EIS
ERP No. F-AFS-E65061-SC
Sumter National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan,
Implementation, Oconee, Chester, Fairfield, Laurens, Newberry, Union-
Abbeville, Edgefield, Greenwood, McCormick and Saluda Counties, SC.
Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about
designation of watershed restoration areas and provided additional
comments on strengthening forestwide standards and monitoring
commitments to protect water quality.
ERP No. F-AFS-E65062-TN
Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan,
Implementation, Carter, Cocke, Greene, Johnson, McMinn, Monroe, Polk,
Sullivan and Unicoil, TN.
Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about
designation of source water protection areas and provided additional
comments on strengthening forestwide standards to protect water
quality.
ERP No. F-AFS-E65063-GA
Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Revised Land and Resource
Management Plan, Implementation, several Counties, GA.
Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about
development of management plans for wild and scenic rivers and provided
additional comments on strengthening forestwide standards to protect
water quality.
ERP No. F-FHW-E40797-MS
Airport Parkway Extension, Improvements to MS-475 from I-20 to Old
Brandon Road, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Rankin County, MS.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. EPA does
recommend that MDOT include a draft mitigation plan regarding wetland
and stream impacts in the Record of Decision.
ERP No. F-FHW-K40224-CA
I-880/CA-92 Interchange Reconstruction, I-880 from Winton Avenue to
Tennyson Road and CA-92 from Hesperian Boulevard to Santa Clara Street,
Updated Information, Funding, City of Hayward, Alameda County, CA.
Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns with the
proposed project regarding construction-related air quality impacts and
the potential for environmental justice impacts. EPA recommends that
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) develop a detailed
construction emissions mitigation plan for adoption in the ROD and that
FHWA elicit and consider the views of effected minority and low-income
populations on the construction mitigation plan.
ERP No. F-IBR-K39079-CA
Programmatic EIS--Environmental Water Account Project, Water
Management Strategy to Protect the At-Risk Native Delta-Dependent Fish
Species and Water Supply Improvements, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Endangered Species Act Section 7 and U.S. Army Corps Section 10 Permits
Issuance, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed continued environmental concerns with the
project, including the need to strengthen the scientific basis for EWA
actions, incorporate upcoming proposed facilities and operations, and
address in more detail potential impacts to, and monitoring and
protection of, water quality for drinking water and other uses. EPA
recommended that these issues be addressed in a separate long-term EWA
EIR/EIS, which is being prepared for release later this year.
ERP No. F-NRS-K36137-HI
Lahaina Watershed Flood Control Project, Flooding and Erosion
Problems Reduction, U.S. Army COE Section 404 and NPDES Permits
Issuance, Maui County, HI.
Summary: EPA has continuing environmental concerns regarding
impacts to the near shore marine environment and water quality.
ERP No. FC-NOA-B91017-00
Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment 10,
Introduction of Spatial Management of Adult Scallops, Essential Fish
Habitat (EFH), from the Gulf of Maine and Georges Banks to Cape
Hatteras, NC.
Summary: EPA's previous issues were resolved, EPA has no objection
to the action as proposed.
ERP No. FR-DOE-A09824-00
Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program, New
Information on Waste Management Alternatives, Waste Management
Practices Enhancement for Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Mixed Low-Level
Radioactive Waste and Transuranic Waste, Richland, Benton County, WA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the
characterization that affects from past and current activities result
in irreversible and irretrievable impacts to groundwater and recommend
that the record of decision clarify that groundwater impacts from the
proposed project do not represent irreversible and irretrievable
effects. EPA also recommended that additional analysis be conducted if
T Plant is not included in the preferred alternative or implemented
project.
ERP No. FS-AFS-K65226-00
Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, New Information on a Range of
Alternatives for Amending Land and Resource Management Plans, Modoc,
Lasser, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Sequoia, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo and
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management
Unit, Several Counties, CA and NV.
Summary: EPA expressed continuing environmental objections to the
proposed management plans on the basis of impacts to water quality and
habitat, and the removal of mitigation measures to protect old-growth
forest and dependent species.
Dated: March 30, 2004.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 04-7479 Filed 4-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P