![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availabilit
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availabilit
[Federal Register: April 7, 1995]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4721-9]Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared March 6, 1995 through March 10, 1995 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-BLM-J03022-WY Rating EC2, Greater Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas Development Project, Approvals and Permits Issuance, Carbon and Sweetwater Counties, WY.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the plugging program and possible ground water degradation. EPA requested additional information on these issues, as well as, a discussion to reduce the projected disturbance of 5 acres (per well) pad. ERP No. D-NPS-E65048-TN Rating EC2, Foothills Parkway Section 8D, Construction, between Wear Valley Road (US 321) and Gatlinburg Pigeon Forge Spur (US 441/321), Right-of-Way and COE Section 404 Permits, Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Blount, Sevier and Cocke Counties, TN.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding potential acid drainage and requested that the final EIS discuss possible secondary or backup mitigation plans should the proposed strategies fail. ERP No. D-USA-K11058-CA Rating EC2, San Onofre Area Sewage Effluent Compliance Project, Cease and Desist Orders, Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base, San Diego and Orange Counties, CA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding impacts to wetlands, biological resources and water quality. Additional information is requested for the project description and its alternatives analysis.Final EISs
ERP No. F-FTA-L54003-OR, New Eugene Transfer Station, Site Selection and Construction, Funding, McDonald Site or IHOP Site, Lane County, OR.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS has been completed and no environmental concerns with the project were identified. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.Dated: April 4, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 95-8609 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-U