Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5478-9]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared March 17, 1997 through March

21, 1997 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

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

[[Page 16155]]

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-L65279-ID Rating EO2, Musselshell Analysis Area,

Implementation, Pierce Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest,

Clearwater County, ID.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections about the

cumulative effects of road construction, timber harvesting, grazing and

other anthropogenic activities in the basin. There is insufficient

information to evaluate project compliance with the Clean Water Act,

the potential for proposed actions to further exacerbate existing

``impaired'' Musselshell Creek water quality and degraded aquatic

habitat.

ERP No. D-AFS-L65282-OR Rating LO, Robinson-Scott Landscape

Management Project, Timber Harvest and other Vegetation Management,

Willamette National Forest, McKenzie Ranger District, Lane and Linn

Counties, OR.

Summary: Our abbreviated review has revealed no EPA environmental

concerns on this project.

ERP No. D-AFS-L65283-WA Rating LO, Long Draw Salvage Sale,

Implementation, Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District,

Okanogan County, WA.

Summary: Our abbreviated review has revealed no EPA environmental

concerns on this project.

ERP No. D-AFS-L82014-00 Rating LO, Priest Lake Ranger District

Noxious Weed Control Project, Implementation, Idaho Panhandle National

Forest, Bonner County, ID and Pend Oreille County, WA.

Summary: EPA believed that the alternatives are generally well

described and there is adequate detail contained in the descriptions of

the biochemical and herbicidal application proposed for use. EPA had no

objection to the proposed action.

ERP No. D-GSA-E81037-FL Rating LO, 9300-9499 NW 41st Street

Immigration and Naturalization Service Facility Consolidation,

Development, Construction and Operation, Leasing, Dade County, FL.

Summary: EPA has no objection to the proposed action, although it

was suggested that the final document provide additional information on

pollution prevention.

ERP No. D-SFW-L91002-00 Rating LO, Programmatic EIS--Impact of

Artificial Salmon and Steelhead Production Strategies in the Columbia

River Basin, Implementation, WA, OR, ID, WY, MT, NV and UT.

Summary: Our abbreviated review has revealed no EPA environmental

concerns on this project.

ERP No. D-USN-D11025-DC Rating EC2, Naval Sea Systems Command

Headquarters (NAVSEA), Base Realignment and Closure Action, Relocation

from Arlington, VA to Washington Navy Yard (WNY) in southeast

Washington, DC.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the

historic preservation of buildings in the preferred alternative; the

lack of information on environmental impacts associated with the

demolition and renovation of buildings, and the need for mitigation to

protect water quality of the Anacostia River.

ERP No. DS-COE-C36030-NJ Rating EC2, Green Brook Sub-Basin Flood

Control Plan, Updated Information concerning a Revised Recommended Plan

and Mitigation Plan, Implementation, Middlesex, Union and Somerset

Counties, NJ.

Summary: EPA had environmental concerns about the project's

potential impacts to wetlands and associated mitigation. EPA

recommended that additional information be presented in the Final

Supplement EIS to address these concerns.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-K61140-CA Dinkey Allotment Livestock Grazing

Strategies, Implementation, Sierra National Forest, Fresno County, CA.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-COE-K39040-CA San Diego County Water Authority Emergency

Water Storage Project, Construction and Operation, COE Section 404

Permit and Permit Application, San Diego County, CA.

Summary:

Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No formal comment

letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-FRC-L05214-WA

Priest Rapids Project (FERC No. 2114-024), Evaluation of Downstream

Fish Passage Facilities, New License Issuance with Conditions to

Protect the Migratory Juvenile Salmon (Smolts), Columbia River Basin,

Grant County, WA.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. FS-NOA-E91007-00 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 supports five regulatory actions designed to improve

the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery and therefore has no objection to the

proposed action. EPA recommended clarification of how Bycatch Reduction

Devices might impact threatened and endangered sea turtles in Special

Management Areas.

Dated: April 1, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97-8704 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U