[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 68 (Friday, April 9, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17362-17364]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-8935]


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

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