[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 73 (Friday, April 14, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20157-20158]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9371]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6253-3]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 27, 2000 through March 
31, 2000 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 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-BIA-K65223-CA Rating EC2, Cortina Integrated Solid Waste 
Management Project, Development and Operation, Approval of Land Lease 
Cortina Indian Rancheria of Wintin Indians, Colusa County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding water 
quality impacts and the lack of mitigation measures.
    ERP No. D-BLM-L65338-OR
    Rating EC2, John Day River Management Plan, Implementation, John 
Day River Basin, Gilliam, Grant, Wheeler, Crook, Harney, Jefferson, 
Morrow, Sherman, Umatilla, Union and Wasco Counties, OR.
    Summary: EPA expressed concern about the degraded environmental 
conditions in the wild and scenic corridor and the relatively minor 
adjustments being proposed for land management, which may not be 
sufficient to protect/enhance the resource values, or comply with state 
water quality standards. EPA requested that the plan include both 
implementation and effectiveness monitoring to measure progress in 
meeting goals/objectives, and to enable BLM and partners to make needed 
adjustments.
    ERP No. D-DOE-L09814-ID Rating EC2, Idaho High-Level Waste and 
Facilities Disposition, Construction and Operation, Bannock, Bingham, 
Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Jefferson and Madison Counties, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed concerns about, and requested additional 
information on: (1) The effectiveness of the grout containing the low-
level waste (LLW) in preventing contamination of the aquifer for 500 
years, (2) the reclassification of waste stream products as LLW, (3) 
the existence of adequate facilities for handling LLW, (4) the 
feasibility of the Hanford alternative, and (5) the accuracy of the 
cost analysis.
    No. D-SFW-L36100-WA Rating EC2, Tacoma Water Green River Water 
Supply Operations and Watershed Protection Habitat Conservation Plan, 
Implementation, Issuance of a Multiple Species Permit for Incidental 
Take, King County, WA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding flow 
management, fish passage, and adaptive management. Additional 
information was requested on gravel enrichment, water conservation, 
cumulative effects, and the need to integrate the terms of the HCP with 
the TMDL for 303(d) listed waters.
    ERP No. D-SFW-L65335-WA Rating EC2, Crown Pacific Project, Issuance 
of a Multiple Species Permit for Incidental Take, Hamilton Tree Farm, 
Habitat Conservation Plan, Whatcom and Skaget County, WA.
    Summary: EPA had environmental concerns regarding the issuance of 
the Incidental Take Permit. EPA suggested that Crown Pacific should 
improve the

[[Page 20158]]

approach to riparian management; apply the mass wasting prescriptions 
on a limited area/trial basis; and establish quantitative, measurable 
performance targets for resource management objectives. In addition, 
EPA recommended that adaptive management commitments be incorporated 
into the HCP and/or that a shorter term for the ITP, with an option to 
renew, be considered.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-DOE-L09812-WA Hanford Remedial Action, Revised and New 
Alternatives, Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Hanford Site lies in the 
Pasco Basin of the Columbia Plateau, WA.
    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. F-SFW-L64045-00 Grizzly Bear (Ursus arctos horribilus) 
Recovery Plan in the Bitterroot Ecosystem, Implementation, Endangered 
Species Act, Proposed Special Rule 10(j) Establishment of a 
Nonessential Experimental Population of Grizzly Bears in the Bitterroot 
Area, Rocky Mountain, Blaine, Camas, Boise, Clearwater, Custer, Elmore, 
Idaho, Lemhi, Shoshone.
    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: April 11, 2000.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-9371 Filed 4-13-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U