[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 64 (Friday, April 2, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17403-17405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-7479]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6649-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared pursuant to the Environmental

[[Page 17404]]

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 EIS

ERP No. D-AFS-F65045-MN

    Rating EC1, Virginia Forest Management Project Area, Resource 
Management Activities on 101,000 Acres of Federal Land, Implementation, 
Superior National Forest, Eastern Region, St. Louis County, MN.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with potential 
impacts from mining activities and requested that more specific 
information on mitigation and monitoring be included in the final EIS.

ERP No. D-BLM-L65446-AK

    Rating EO2, Alpine Satellite Development Plan, Construction and 
Operation of Five Oil Production Pads, Associated Well, Roads, 
Airstrips, Pipelines and Powerlines, Northeast Corner of the National 
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska, Colville River Delta, North Slope Borough, 
AK.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections with Alternatives A 
and C because of the potential for significant adverse impacts to 
environmental and subsistence resources and the users of the plan area. 
Neither alternative would be consistent with oil and gas lease 
stipulations in the 1998 NW NPR-A Record of Decision. In addition, the 
Draft EIS does not contain adequate information regarding other 
reasonable alternatives, such as the State of Alaska's proposed road to 
Nuiqsut, and additional mitigation for impacts if stipulations are 
excepted or amended. EPA recommends changes to the proposed alternative 
to address these issues and that the final EIS include mitigation 
measures and environmental safeguards to minimize significant adverse 
impacts.

ERP No. D-COE-K36138-AZ

    Rating LO, EL Rio Antigua Feasibility Study, Ecosystem Restoration 
along the Rillito River, Pima County, AZ.
    Summary: EPA supported the goals and objectives of the proposed El 
Rio Antiquo Restoration, and had no objections to the proposed project. 
EPA requested clarification on the recreation and parking improvements 
proposed as part of the project.

ERP No. D-HUD-C81018-NY

    Rating EC2, Generic EIS--World Trade Center Memorial and 
Redevelopment Plan, To Remember, Rebuild and Renew what was lost on 
September 11, 2001, Construction in the Borough of Manhattan, New York 
County, NY.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding both the 
direct and cumulative impacts to air quality (NOX, ozone, 
and conformity with the SIP), and impacts to water quality (storm water 
discharge). Additional information and discussion to address these 
concerns should be included in the final EIS.

ERP No. DB-NOA-A91065-00

    Rating LO, Proposed Rule to Implement Management Measures for the 
Reduction of Sea Turtle Bycatch and Bycatch Mortality in the Atlantic 
Pelagic Longline Fishery.
    Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed action.

ERP No. DS-BOP-K81025-CA

    Rating LO, Fresno Federal Correctional Facility Development, 
Additional Information, Orange Cove, Fresno County, CA.
    Summary: EPA supports the proposed alternative for the Fresno 
Correctional

[[Page 17405]]

Facility in Fresno County. EPA has no objections to the proposed 
project.

Final EIS

ERP No. F-AFS-E65061-SC

    Sumter National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, 
Implementation, Oconee, Chester, Fairfield, Laurens, Newberry, Union-
Abbeville, Edgefield, Greenwood, McCormick and Saluda Counties, SC.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about 
designation of watershed restoration areas and provided additional 
comments on strengthening forestwide standards and monitoring 
commitments to protect water quality.

ERP No. F-AFS-E65062-TN

    Cherokee National Forest Revised Land and Resource Management Plan, 
Implementation, Carter, Cocke, Greene, Johnson, McMinn, Monroe, Polk, 
Sullivan and Unicoil, TN.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about 
designation of source water protection areas and provided additional 
comments on strengthening forestwide standards to protect water 
quality.

ERP No. F-AFS-E65063-GA

    Chattahoochee-Oconee National Forests Revised Land and Resource 
Management Plan, Implementation, several Counties, GA.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about 
development of management plans for wild and scenic rivers and provided 
additional comments on strengthening forestwide standards to protect 
water quality.

ERP No. F-FHW-E40797-MS

    Airport Parkway Extension, Improvements to MS-475 from I-20 to Old 
Brandon Road, U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Rankin County, MS.
    Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. EPA does 
recommend that MDOT include a draft mitigation plan regarding wetland 
and stream impacts in the Record of Decision.

ERP No. F-FHW-K40224-CA

    I-880/CA-92 Interchange Reconstruction, I-880 from Winton Avenue to 
Tennyson Road and CA-92 from Hesperian Boulevard to Santa Clara Street, 
Updated Information, Funding, City of Hayward, Alameda County, CA.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns with the 
proposed project regarding construction-related air quality impacts and 
the potential for environmental justice impacts. EPA recommends that 
the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) develop a detailed 
construction emissions mitigation plan for adoption in the ROD and that 
FHWA elicit and consider the views of effected minority and low-income 
populations on the construction mitigation plan.

ERP No. F-IBR-K39079-CA

    Programmatic EIS--Environmental Water Account Project, Water 
Management Strategy to Protect the At-Risk Native Delta-Dependent Fish 
Species and Water Supply Improvements, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Endangered Species Act Section 7 and U.S. Army Corps Section 10 Permits 
Issuance, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed continued environmental concerns with the 
project, including the need to strengthen the scientific basis for EWA 
actions, incorporate upcoming proposed facilities and operations, and 
address in more detail potential impacts to, and monitoring and 
protection of, water quality for drinking water and other uses. EPA 
recommended that these issues be addressed in a separate long-term EWA 
EIR/EIS, which is being prepared for release later this year.

ERP No. F-NRS-K36137-HI

    Lahaina Watershed Flood Control Project, Flooding and Erosion 
Problems Reduction, U.S. Army COE Section 404 and NPDES Permits 
Issuance, Maui County, HI.
    Summary: EPA has continuing environmental concerns regarding 
impacts to the near shore marine environment and water quality.

ERP No. FC-NOA-B91017-00

    Atlantic Sea Scallop Fishery Management Plan (FMP), Amendment 10, 
Introduction of Spatial Management of Adult Scallops, Essential Fish 
Habitat (EFH), from the Gulf of Maine and Georges Banks to Cape 
Hatteras, NC.
    Summary: EPA's previous issues were resolved, EPA has no objection 
to the action as proposed.

ERP No. FR-DOE-A09824-00

    Hanford Site Solid (Radioactive and Hazardous) Waste Program, New 
Information on Waste Management Alternatives, Waste Management 
Practices Enhancement for Low-Level Radioactive Waste, Mixed Low-Level 
Radioactive Waste and Transuranic Waste, Richland, Benton County, WA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the 
characterization that affects from past and current activities result 
in irreversible and irretrievable impacts to groundwater and recommend 
that the record of decision clarify that groundwater impacts from the 
proposed project do not represent irreversible and irretrievable 
effects. EPA also recommended that additional analysis be conducted if 
T Plant is not included in the preferred alternative or implemented 
project.

ERP No. FS-AFS-K65226-00

    Sierra Nevada Forest Plan Amendment, New Information on a Range of 
Alternatives for Amending Land and Resource Management Plans, Modoc, 
Lasser, Plumas, Tahoe, Eldorado, Sequoia, Stanislaus, Sierra, Inyo and 
Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest and the Lake Tahoe Basin Management 
Unit, Several Counties, CA and NV.
    Summary: EPA expressed continuing environmental objections to the 
proposed management plans on the basis of impacts to water quality and 
habitat, and the removal of mitigation measures to protect old-growth 
forest and dependent species.

    Dated: March 30, 2004.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 04-7479 Filed 4-1-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P