[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 67 (Friday, April 5, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 15251-15252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8484]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[ER-FRL-5415-3]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 18, 1996 Through March 
22, 1996 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
    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 environmment, or the EPA reviewer has identified new 
reasonably

[[Page 15252]]
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-NOA-E64016-FL Rating LO, Florida Keys National Marine 
Sanctuary Comprehensive Management Plan, Implementation and Special-
Use-Permit, Monroe County, FL.
    Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project. 
Furthermore, EPA believed that the Florida Keys Management Plan/EIS is 
a well-conceived comprehensive blueprint for saving the fragile coral 
reef ecosystem that is threatened by unsustainable human activities.
    ERP No. D-SFW-K99028-CA Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Natural 
Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan, Implementation 
and Associated Incidental Take Permit Issuance, Central and Coastal 
Subregion, Orange County, CA.
    Summary: EPA had environmental concerns with the scarce information 
provided in the joint programmatic EIS on the role of this NCCP/HCP in 
the overall NCCP effort and regional species population viability; 
potential effects on water quality, aquatic resources and air quality; 
adequate and sound science; subsequent environmental reviews; funding 
and administration of the proposed plan and environmental justice 
issues. EPA commended the US Fish and Wildlife Service and project 
proponents for the multi-species/multi-habitat approach, incorporation 
of proactive measures to minimize adverse impacts on habitat approved 
for conversions, the commitment to adaptive management and emphasis on 
incorporating nearly all major stakeholders in protecting the diverse 
ecosystems present in the plan area.
    ERP No. D-USN-11021-PA Rating EC2, Philadelphia Naval Base, 
Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, Philadelphia, PA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding potential 
wetland impacts, site contamination and remedial action. EPA requested 
that these issues be discussed in more detail in the final EIS.
    ERP No. DS-NOA-E91007-00 Rating LO, South Atlantic Region Shrimp 
Fishery Management Plan, Implementation, Additional Information, 
Amendment 2 (Bycatch Reduction), Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), NC, SC, 
FL and GA.
    Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed actions, but 
stressed the need to research Bycatch Reduction Devices that will 
increase the catch-per-unit effort for shrimp and achieve bycatch 
reductions.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-BLM-K08018-CA, Alturas 345 Kilovolt (KV) Electric Power 
Transmission Line Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, 
Right-of-Way Grant Approval, Special-Use-Permit and COE Section 404 
Permit, Susanville District, Modoc, Lassen and Sierra Counties, CA and 
Washoe County, NV.
    Summary: EPA continued to express environmental concerns about 
increased voltages in existing power lines near residential areas and 
EPA suggested that information to address this should be included in 
the Record of Decision.
    ERP No. F-DOE-A00168-00, Nuclear Weapons Nonproliferation Policy 
Concerning Foreign Research Reactor Spent Nuclear Fuel, Implementation, 
United States and Abroad.
    Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project.
    ERP No. F-FHW-L40191-AK, Whittier Access Project, Construction 
between Port of Whittier and Seward Highway, Funding, Right-of-Way 
Agreement and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Chugauch National Forest, 
Municipality of Anchorage, City of Whittier, AK.
    Summary: EPA provided no formal written comments to the preparing 
agency. EPA had no objection to the preferred alternative as described 
in the final EIS.

    Dated: April 2, 1996.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 96-8484 Filed 4-4-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P