# Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-8935 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** April 9, 1999 - **Citation:** 64 FR 17362 ## Text 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 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A99-8935. Public record. Not legal advice.