# Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-8704 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** April 4, 1997 - **Citation:** 62 FR 16154 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-8704. Public record. Not legal advice.