Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6241-6]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared March 15, 1999 Through March

19, 1999 pursuant to the Environmental Review Process (ERP), under

Section 309 of the Clean Air Act

[[Page 17363]]

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 EISs

ERP No. D-AFS-J65290-UT Rating EC2, Snowbird Ski and Summer Resort

Master Development Plan, Implementation, Special-Use-Permit and COE

Section 404 Permit, Salt Lake and Lake Counties, Salt Lake City, UT.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns over potential

adverse impacts to water quality, especially increased metal

concentrations, and to air quality from the proposed action.

ERP No. D-AFS-J65292-WY Rating EC2, Cold Springs Ecosystem

Management Project, Implementation, Enhancement of Tree Harvesting and

Sale, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forests, Douglas Ranger District,

Converse and Albany Counties, WY.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns over potential

adverse impacts to water quality.

ERP No. D-BLM-K65204-AZ Rating EC2, Hualapai Mountain Land

Exchange/Plan Amendment, Implementation, Kingman and Dutch Flat, Mohave

County, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding potential

impacts to wildlife, air quality, and water resources from future

development.

ERP No. D-NPS-B65007-VT Rating LO1, Marsh-Billings National

Historical Park, General Management Plan, Implementation, Woodstock,

VT.

Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project.

ERP No. D-NPS-D61050-MD Rating EO2, National Harbor Project,

Construction and Operation along the Potomac River on a 534 acre site

adjacent to the Capital Beltway and Oxon Hill Manor, COE Section 10 and

404 Permits, Prince George's County, MD.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections about potential

adverse impacts to aquatic resources, especially fin fish and aquatic

plants and wetlands. EPA suggests that the final EIS include a broader

range of alterative.

ERP No. D-NPS-J61101-MT Rating EC2, Glacier National Park, General

Management Plan, Implementation, Waterton Glacier International Peace

Park, Lake National Park, Flathead and Glacier, MT.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about adverse impacts

to water quality and wetland and requested a full air quality impact

analysis be included in the final EIS.

ERP No. D-NPS-K61221-CA Rating LO, Fort Baker Site, Golden Gate

National Recreation Area, Comprehensive Management Plan,

Implementation, Marin County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of objection for the proposed action.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-B65006-VT Sugarbush Ski Resort Project, Improvements

and Development, Special-Use-Permit, Green Mountain National Forest,

Rochester Range District, Fayston and Warren, Washington County, VT.

Summary: EPA's concerns about impacts to water quality and wildlife

habitate were adequately addressed.

ERP No. F-NOA-A91065-00 Atlantic Tunas, Swordfish and Sharks,

Highly Migratory Species Fishery Management Plan.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS/Regulation was not deemed

necessary. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

[[Page 17364]]

Dated: April 06, 1999.

William D. Dickerson,

Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 99-8935 Filed 4-8-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P