[Federal Register: April 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 62)]
[Notices]
[Page 16815-16816]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01ap05-65]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6662-1]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared 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) 564-7146.
[[Page 16816]]
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.
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-COE-C32036-NY Rating EC2, Hudson River at Athens, New
York Navigation Project, Design and Construction of a Spur Navigation
Channel, Hudson River, New York City, NY.
Summary: EPA expressed concerns about the project's economic
viability, the scope of the project's dredging and sediment disposal,
the impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife species and habitat,
and the indirect and cumulative impacts, and requested that additional
information, especially Habitat Impairment Test results, be presented
in the Final EIS to address these issues.
ERP No. D-COE-E11055-NC Rating LO, Fort Bragg Headquarters for
XVIII Airborne Corps and Army Special Operations Command, To Fully
Integrate the Overhill Tract Training Program, Cumberland and Harnett
Counties, NC.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. ERP No. D-
FHW-F40428-OH Rating EC2, OH-823, Portsmouth Bypass Project,
Transportation Improvements, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404
Permit, Appalachian Development Highway, Scioto County, OH.
Summary: EPA has environmental concerns about the proposed project
related to upland forest habitat losses, forest fragmentation, and
potential for stream sedimentation. EPA also recommends additional
analysis of the cumulative impacts related to forest fragmentation be
included in the FEIS.
ERP No. D-FRC-G03024-TX Rating EC2, Vista del Sol Liquefied Natural
Gas (LNG) Terminal Project, Construct, Install and Operate an LNG
Terminal and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Vista del Sol LNG
Terminal LP and Vista del Sol Pipeline LP, TX.
Summary: EPA identified environmental concerns that may require
changes to the preferred alternative and mitigation measures to reduce
environmental impact. EPA requested additional information to be
included in the FEIS, including information regarding wetland impacts,
mitigation, contaminant testing and the suitability of dredged material
for beneficial use.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-FAA-K51039-CA, Los Angeles International Airport Proposed
Master Plan Improvements, Alternative D Selected, Enhanced Safety and
Security Plan, Los Angeles County, CA.
Summary: EPA continues to express environmental concerns about
potential effects to air quality, and requested additional mitigation
measures to reduce airport-related emissions of particulate matter and
air toxic. ERP No. FS-BIA-A65165-00 Programmatic EIS--Navajo Nation 10-
Year Forest Management Plan, Selected Preferred Alternative Four,
Chuska Mountain and Defiance Plateau Area, AZ and NM.
Summary: EPA has continuing concerns regarding cumulative impacts
to water quality and riparian habitat from existing impaired
conditions, including exceedances of Navajo Nation Water Quality
Standards.
Dated: March 29, 2005.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05-6491 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P