Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

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