[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 62 (Friday, April 1, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16815-16816]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-6491]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6662-1]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared 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) 564-7146.

[[Page 16816]]

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.
EO--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-COE-C32036-NY Rating EC2, Hudson River at Athens, New 
York Navigation Project, Design and Construction of a Spur Navigation 
Channel, Hudson River, New York City, NY.
    Summary: EPA expressed concerns about the project's economic 
viability, the scope of the project's dredging and sediment disposal, 
the impacts to water quality, fish and wildlife species and habitat, 
and the indirect and cumulative impacts, and requested that additional 
information, especially Habitat Impairment Test results, be presented 
in the Final EIS to address these issues.
    ERP No. D-COE-E11055-NC Rating LO, Fort Bragg Headquarters for 
XVIII Airborne Corps and Army Special Operations Command, To Fully 
Integrate the Overhill Tract Training Program, Cumberland and Harnett 
Counties, NC.
    Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. ERP No. D-
FHW-F40428-OH Rating EC2, OH-823, Portsmouth Bypass Project, 
Transportation Improvements, Funding and U.S. Army COE Section 404 
Permit, Appalachian Development Highway, Scioto County, OH.
    Summary: EPA has environmental concerns about the proposed project 
related to upland forest habitat losses, forest fragmentation, and 
potential for stream sedimentation. EPA also recommends additional 
analysis of the cumulative impacts related to forest fragmentation be 
included in the FEIS.
    ERP No. D-FRC-G03024-TX Rating EC2, Vista del Sol Liquefied Natural 
Gas (LNG) Terminal Project, Construct, Install and Operate an LNG 
Terminal and Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities, Vista del Sol LNG 
Terminal LP and Vista del Sol Pipeline LP, TX.
    Summary: EPA identified environmental concerns that may require 
changes to the preferred alternative and mitigation measures to reduce 
environmental impact. EPA requested additional information to be 
included in the FEIS, including information regarding wetland impacts, 
mitigation, contaminant testing and the suitability of dredged material 
for beneficial use.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-FAA-K51039-CA, Los Angeles International Airport Proposed 
Master Plan Improvements, Alternative D Selected, Enhanced Safety and 
Security Plan, Los Angeles County, CA.
    Summary: EPA continues to express environmental concerns about 
potential effects to air quality, and requested additional mitigation 
measures to reduce airport-related emissions of particulate matter and 
air toxic. ERP No. FS-BIA-A65165-00 Programmatic EIS--Navajo Nation 10-
Year Forest Management Plan, Selected Preferred Alternative Four, 
Chuska Mountain and Defiance Plateau Area, AZ and NM.
    Summary: EPA has continuing concerns regarding cumulative impacts 
to water quality and riparian habitat from existing impaired 
conditions, including exceedances of Navajo Nation Water Quality 
Standards.

    Dated: March 29, 2005.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05-6491 Filed 3-31-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P