Jump to main content.

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: May 18, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 97)]
[Notices]
[Page 27647-27648]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr18my01-34]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6618-2]
 
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared 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 the 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,

[[Page 27648]]

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-J65331-00 Rating E02, Williams, Questar, Kern River 
Pipeline Project, To Approve a Petroleum Products Pipeline, and one or 
two Natural Gas Pipelines and to Amend Forest Plan, UT, NM and CO.

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections with the narrow 
range of alternatives, new construction activity in the Uinta NF 
roadless area, potential air impacts to Arches National Park and the 
lack of information disclosed on potentially connected actions. EPA 
supports efforts to reduce environmental impacts by locating pipelines 
in existing ROW corridors, avoid landslide areas and headwaters for 
sources of drinking water, slightly modify the ROW to project roadless 
areas and use directional drilling methods which may reduce impacts to 
wetlands and aquatic life.

ERP No. D-FAA-E51049-KY Rating EC2, Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky 
International Airport, Construction and Operation of a New 8,000-foot 
Runway 17/35 (Future 18R/36L); 2,000-foot Extension of Runway 9/27, 
Funding and Airport Layout Plan, (ALP) Boone County, KY.

    Summary: EPA expressed concern about proposed noise mitigation, air 
quality analysis, and wetland/stream mitigation. use of adaptive 
management regarding the monitoring of noise contours is recommended to 
ensure accurate footprints once prospective operations are initiated 
and when substantive changes affecting airport noise occur.

ERP No. D-USA-D11031-MD Rating EC2, Fort George G. Meade Future 
Development and Operations of a New Administrative and Support 
Buildings, Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, MD.

    Summary: EPA expressed concern regarding potential impacts due to 
increased base traffic. EPA encouraged Fort Meade to make a committed 
effort to institute traffic mitigation alternatives such as flextime, 
flexiplace and car pooling programs.

ERP No. DS-FAA-J51009-UT Rating EC2, Cal Black Memorial Airport 
Project, New and Updated Information for the Replacing of Halls 
Crossing Airport, within the boundary of Glen Canyon National 
Recreation, Halls Crossing, San Juan Counties, UT.

    Summary: EPA has environmental concerns with the ongoing noise 
impacts especially when combined with enroute jet aircraft noise, and 
that additional information is needed in the final Supplemental EIS 
that establishes a threshold of significance for these cumulative noise 
impacts. In addition, EPA suggests that the connected action of the 
proposed BLM land transfer be analyzed in a revised supplemental EIS to 
provide analysis of BLM's proposed action for this same airport.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-J65321-MT Mill-Key-Wey Project, Proposed Timber 
Harvesting, Ecosystem Burning, Road Construction and Reconstruction, 
Implementation, Lolo National Forest, Superior Ranger District, Mineral 
County, MT.

    Summary: While the FEIS was largely responsive to EPA's comments on 
the DEIS, EPA continue to express concerns about timber harvests on 
erosive soils, wetland impacts, use of weed control chemicals, and the 
level of monitoring proposed to identify actual project impacts.

ERP No. F-NOA-A91066-00 Tilefish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), 
(Lopholatilus chamaeleonticeps), To Prevent Overfishing and to Rebuild 
the Resource of Tilefish, Located along the Atlantic Ocean.

    Summary: EPA had environmental concerns about the proposed 
regulations and the sufficiency of the information in the document. 
EPA's concern included the adequacy of the mitigation measures and the 
impacts of trawling on Tilefish EFH.

ERP No. FS-AFS-L60104-WA Huckleberry Land Exchange Consolidate 
Ownership and Enhance Future Conservation and Management, Updated 
Information, Proposal to Exchange Land and Mineral Estates, Federal 
Land and Non-Federal Land, Mt. Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest, 
Skagit, Snohomish, King, Pierce, Kittitas, and Lewis Counties, WA.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: May 15, 2001.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 01-12569 Filed 5-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.