[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 72 (Friday, April 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19047-19048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9289]




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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 [ER-FRL-4722-2]


 Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 13, 1995 through March 
17, 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.
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-FHW-D40275-PA Rating EC2, Kittanning By-Pass/PA-6028, 
Section 015 Extension of the Allegheny Valley Expressway, existing 
Allegheny Valley Expressway to the Traffic Route 28/66 and Traffic 
Route 85 Intersection, Funding and COE Section 404 and EPA NPDES 
Permits Issuance, Armstrong County, PA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns for potential impacts 
to wetlands, terrestrial habitat, and residences. EPA found alternative 
C Prime to be the environmentally preferable alternative because of its 
minimization of impacts to wetland resources.
    ERP No. D-FRC-D29000-VA Rating EC2, Gaston and Roanoke Rapids 
Project (FERC-No. 2009-003), Nonpoint Use of Project Lands and Water 
for the City of Virginia Beach Water Supply Project, License Issuance, 
Brunswick County, VA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the water 
demand, as well as potential supply alternatives and requested 
additional information. EPA also requested water quality modeling of 
the lower Roanoke River prior to issuance of the final EIS, and FERC 
convene a session of key parties to develop an appropriate 6-10 year 
interim withdrawal allocation.
    ERP No. D-FRC-K02008-CA Rating EC2, Mojave Natural Gas Pipeline 
Northward Expansion Project, Construction and Operation, Approvals and 
Permits Issuance, San Joaquin Valley, San Francisco Bay Area and 
Sacramento, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns over potential 
impacts to wetlands, as well as potential significant emissions during 
construction that may not meet Clean Air Act conformity provisions.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-IBR-J31023-UT Narrows Multi-Purpose Water Development 
Project, Construction and Operation, Funding, Gooseberry Creek, Manti-
La Sal National Forest, Sanpete County, UT.
    Summary: EPA continued to have environmental concerns about 
wetlands impacts, endangered species and the limited alternatives 
analyzed in the EIS.
    ERP No. FS-COE-E30032-FL Palm Beach County Beach Erosion Project, 
Updated Information, Shore Protection Project, Jupiter/Carlin Segment 
from [[Page 19048]] Martin Co., Line to Lake Worth Inlet and from South 
Lake Worth Inlet to Broward, General Design Plan, Implementation, 
Martin and Broward Counties, FL.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the long-
term consequences of how this action meshes with other, similar beach 
nourishment projects planned for the county's shoreline. EPA was 
particularly concerned over impacts to nearshore hardbottom habitat.

    Dated: April 11, 1995.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-9289 Filed 4-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U