[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8609]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4721-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 6, 1995 through March 
10, 1995 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) 
260-5076.

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.
EU--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-BLM-J03022-WY Rating EC2, Greater Wamsutter Area II 
Natural Gas Development Project, Approvals and Permits Issuance, Carbon 
and Sweetwater Counties, WY.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the plugging 
program and possible ground water degradation. EPA requested additional 
information on these issues, as well as, a discussion to reduce the 
projected disturbance of 5 acres (per well) pad.
    ERP No. D-NPS-E65048-TN Rating EC2, Foothills Parkway Section 8D, 
Construction, between Wear Valley Road (US 321) and Gatlinburg Pigeon 
Forge Spur (US 441/321), Right-of-Way and COE Section 404 Permits, 
Great Smoky Mountain National Park, Blount, Sevier and Cocke Counties, 
TN.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding potential 
acid drainage and requested that the final EIS discuss possible 
secondary or backup mitigation plans should the proposed strategies 
fail. ERP No. D-USA-K11058-CA Rating EC2, San Onofre Area Sewage 
Effluent Compliance Project, Cease and Desist Orders, Camp Pendleton 
Marine Corps Base, San Diego and Orange Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding impacts to 
wetlands, biological resources and water quality. Additional 
information is requested for the project description and its 
alternatives analysis.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-FTA-L54003-OR, New Eugene Transfer Station, Site 
Selection and Construction, Funding, McDonald Site or IHOP Site, Lane 
County, OR.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS has been completed and no 
environmental concerns with the project were identified. No formal 
comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: April 4, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-8609 Filed 4-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U