[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16154-16155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8704]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5478-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 17, 1997 through March 
21, 1997 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

[[Page 16155]]

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-L65279-ID Rating EO2, Musselshell Analysis Area, 
Implementation, Pierce Ranger District, Clearwater National Forest, 
Clearwater County, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections about the 
cumulative effects of road construction, timber harvesting, grazing and 
other anthropogenic activities in the basin. There is insufficient 
information to evaluate project compliance with the Clean Water Act, 
the potential for proposed actions to further exacerbate existing 
``impaired'' Musselshell Creek water quality and degraded aquatic 
habitat.
    ERP No. D-AFS-L65282-OR Rating LO, Robinson-Scott Landscape 
Management Project, Timber Harvest and other Vegetation Management, 
Willamette National Forest, McKenzie Ranger District, Lane and Linn 
Counties, OR.
    Summary: Our abbreviated review has revealed no EPA environmental 
concerns on this project.
    ERP No. D-AFS-L65283-WA Rating LO, Long Draw Salvage Sale, 
Implementation, Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket Ranger District, 
Okanogan County, WA.
    Summary: Our abbreviated review has revealed no EPA environmental 
concerns on this project.
    ERP No. D-AFS-L82014-00 Rating LO, Priest Lake Ranger District 
Noxious Weed Control Project, Implementation, Idaho Panhandle National 
Forest, Bonner County, ID and Pend Oreille County, WA.
    Summary: EPA believed that the alternatives are generally well 
described and there is adequate detail contained in the descriptions of 
the biochemical and herbicidal application proposed for use. EPA had no 
objection to the proposed action.
    ERP No. D-GSA-E81037-FL Rating LO, 9300-9499 NW 41st Street 
Immigration and Naturalization Service Facility Consolidation, 
Development, Construction and Operation, Leasing, Dade County, FL.
    Summary: EPA has no objection to the proposed action, although it 
was suggested that the final document provide additional information on 
pollution prevention.
    ERP No. D-SFW-L91002-00 Rating LO, Programmatic EIS--Impact of 
Artificial Salmon and Steelhead Production Strategies in the Columbia 
River Basin, Implementation, WA, OR, ID, WY, MT, NV and UT.
    Summary: Our abbreviated review has revealed no EPA environmental 
concerns on this project.
    ERP No. D-USN-D11025-DC Rating EC2, Naval Sea Systems Command 
Headquarters (NAVSEA), Base Realignment and Closure Action, Relocation 
from Arlington, VA to Washington Navy Yard (WNY) in southeast 
Washington, DC.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the 
historic preservation of buildings in the preferred alternative; the 
lack of information on environmental impacts associated with the 
demolition and renovation of buildings, and the need for mitigation to 
protect water quality of the Anacostia River.
    ERP No. DS-COE-C36030-NJ Rating EC2, Green Brook Sub-Basin Flood 
Control Plan, Updated Information concerning a Revised Recommended Plan 
and Mitigation Plan, Implementation, Middlesex, Union and Somerset 
Counties, NJ.
    Summary: EPA had environmental concerns about the project's 
potential impacts to wetlands and associated mitigation. EPA 
recommended that additional information be presented in the Final 
Supplement EIS to address these concerns.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-K61140-CA Dinkey Allotment Livestock Grazing 
Strategies, Implementation, Sierra National Forest, Fresno County, CA.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. F-COE-K39040-CA San Diego County Water Authority Emergency 
Water Storage Project, Construction and Operation, COE Section 404 
Permit and Permit Application, San Diego County, CA.
    Summary:
    Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No formal comment 
letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-FRC-L05214-WA

    Priest Rapids Project (FERC No. 2114-024), Evaluation of Downstream 
Fish Passage Facilities, New License Issuance with Conditions to 
Protect the Migratory Juvenile Salmon (Smolts), Columbia River Basin, 
Grant County, WA.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. FS-NOA-E91007-00 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 supports five regulatory actions designed to improve 
the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery and therefore has no objection to the 
proposed action. EPA recommended clarification of how Bycatch Reduction 
Devices might impact threatened and endangered sea turtles in Special 
Management Areas.

    Dated: April 1, 1997.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 97-8704 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U