Imagens das páginas
PDF
ePub

are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (published in the FEDERAL REGISTER each February with supplements on the first Tuesday of each month), the responsible official shall comply with the procedures of the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (36 CFR Part 800), including determining the need for a Memorandum of Agreement among EPA, the State Historic Preservation Officer and the Advisory Council. If a Memorandum of Agreement is executed, it shall be included in an EIS whenever one is prepared on a proposed action. See § 6.512 (c) for additional procedures for the construction grants program under Title II of the FWPCA, as amended.

(2) If an EPA action may cause irreparable loss or destruction of significant scientific, prehistoric, historic or archaeological data, the responsible official shall consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer in compliance with the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act (P.L. 93–291).

[blocks in formation]

(1) If an EPA action may affect wetlands, the responsible official shall consult with the appropriate offices of the Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers during the environmental review to determine the probable impact of the action on the pertinent fish and wildlife resources and land use of these areas.

(2) If an EPA action may directly cause or induce the construction of buildings or other facilities in a floodplain, the responsible official shall evaluate flood hazards in connection with these facilities as required by Executive Order 11296 and shall, as far as practicable, consider alternatives to preclude the uneconomic, hazardous or unnecessary use of floodplains to minimize the exposure of facilities to potential flood damage, lessen the need for future Federal expenditures for flood protection and flood disaster relief and preserve the unique and significant public value of the floodplain as an environmental resource.

(3) If an EPA action may affect coastal zones or coastal waters as defined in Title

III of the Costal Zone Management Act of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-583), the responsible official shall consult with the appropriate State offices and with the appropriate office of the Department of Commerce during the environmental review to determine the probable impact of the action on coastal zone or coastal water resources.

(4) If an EPA action may affect portions of rivers designated wild and scenic or being considered for this designation under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (Pub. L. 90-542), the responsible official shall consult with appropriate State offices and with the Secretary of the Interior or, where national forest lands are involved, with the Secretary of Agriculture during the environmental review to determine the status of an affected river and the probable impact of the action on eligible rivers.

(5) If an EPA action will result in the control or structural modification of any stream or other body of water for any purpose, including navigation and drainage, the responsible official shall consult with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (Department of the Interior), the National Marine Fisheries Service of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Department of Commerce), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the head of the agency administering the wildlife resources of the particular State in which the action will take place with a view to the conservation of wildlife resources. This consultation shall follow the procedures in the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (Pub. L. 85-624) and shall occur during the environmental review of an action.

(6) If an EPA action may affect threatened or endangered species defined under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93-205), the responsible official shall consult with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, according to the procedures in section 7 of that act.

(7) Requests for consultation and the results of consultation shall be documented in writing. In all cases where consultation has occurred, the agencies consulted should receive copies of either the notice of intent and EIS or the negative declaration and environmental appraisal prepared on the proposed action. If a decision has already been made to

prepare an EIS on a project and wetlands, floodplains, coastal zones, wild and scenic rivers, fish or wildlife may be affected, the required consultation may be deferred until the preparation of the draft EIS.

§ 6.216 Availability of documents.

(a) EPA will print copies of draft and final EIS's for agency and public distribution. A nominal fee may be charged for copies requested by the public.

(b) When EPA no longer has copies of an EIS to distribute, copies shall be made available for public inspection at regional and headquarters Offices of Public Affairs. Interested persons also should be advised of the availability (at cost) of the EIS from the Environmental Law Institute, 1356 Connecticut Avenue NW., Washington, D.C. 20036.

(c) Lists of EIS's prepared or under preparation and lists of negative declarations prepared will be available at both the regional and headquarters Offices of Public Affairs.

Subpart C-Content of Environmental
Impact Statements

[blocks in formation]

The cover sheet shall indicate the type of EIS (draft or final), the official project name and number, the responsible EPA office, the date, and the signature of the responsible official. The format is shown in Exhibit 5.

§ 6.302 Summary sheet.

The summary sheet shall conform to the format in Exhibit 6, based on Appendix I of the August 1, 1973, CEQ Guidelines, or the latest revision of the CEQ Guidelines.

§ 6.304 Body of Statement.

The body of the EIS shall identify, develop, and analyze the pertinent issues discussed in the seven sections below; each section need not be a separate chapter. This analysis should include, but not be limited to, consideration of the impacts of the proposed project on the environmental areas listed in Appendix A which are relevant to the project. The EIS shall serve as a means for the responsible official and the public to assess the environmental impacts of a proposed EPA action, rather than as a

justification for decisions already made. It shall be prepared using a systematic, interdisciplinary approach and shall incorporate all relevant analytical disciplines to provide meaningful and factual data, information, and analyses. The presentation of data should be clear and concise, yet include all facts necessary to permit independent evaluation and appraisal of the beneficial and adverse environmental effects of alternative actions. The amount of detail provided should be commensurate with the extent and expected impact of the action and the amount of information required at the particular level of decision making. To the extent possible, an EIS shall not be drafted in a style which requires extensive scientific or technical expertise to comprehend and evaluate the environmental impact of a proposed EPA action.

(a) Background and description of the proposed action. The EIS shall describe the recommended or proposed action, its purpose, where it is located and its time setting. When a decision has been made not to favor an alternative until public comments on a proposed action have been received, the draft EIS may treat all feasible alternatives at similar levels of detail; the final EIS should focus on the alternative the draft EIS and public comments indicate is the best. The relationship of the proposed action to other projects and proposals directly affected by or stemming from it shall be discussed, including not only other EPA activities, but also those of other governmental and private organizations. Land use patterns and population trends in the project area and the assumptions on which they are based also shall be included. Available maps, photos, and artists' sketches should be incorporated when they help depict the environmental setting.

(b) Alternatives to the proposed action. The EIS shall develop, describe, and objectively weigh feasible alternatives to any proposed action, including the options of taking no action or postponing action. The analysis should be detailed enough to show EPA's comparative evaluation of the environmental impacts, commitments of resources, costs, and risks of the proposed action and each feasible alternative. For projects

involving construction, alternative sites must be analyzed in enough detail for reviewers independently to judge the relative desirability of each site. For alternatives involving regionalization, the effects of varying degrees of regionalization should be addressed. If a cost-benefit analysis is prepared, it should be appended to the EIS and referenced in the body of the EIS. In addition, the reasons why the proposed action is believed by EPA to be the best course of action shall be explained.

(c) Environmental impacts of the proposed action, (1) The positive and negative effects of the proposed action as it affects both the national and international environment should be assessed. The attention given to different environmental factors will vary according to the nature, scale, and location of proposed actions. Primary attention should be given to those factors most evidently affected by the proposed action. The factors shall include, where appropriate, the proposed action's effects on the resource base, including land, water quality and quantity, air quality, public services and energy supply. The EIS shall describe primary and secondary environmental impacts, both beneficial and adverse, anticipated from the action. The description shall include short term and long term impacts on both the natural and human environments.

(2) Primary impacts are those that can be attributed directly to the proposed action. If the action is a field experiment, materials introduced into the environment which might damage certain plant communities or wildlife species would be a primary impact. If the action involves construction of a facility, such as a sewage treatment works, an office building or a laboratory, the primary impacts of the action would include the environmental impacts related to construction and operation of the facility and land use changes at the facility site.

(3) Secondary impacts are indirect or induced changes. If the action involves construction of a facility, the secondary Impacts would include the environmental impacts related to:

(i) induced changes in the pattern of land use, population density and related effects on air and water quality or other natural resources;

(ii) increased growth at a faster rate than planned for or above the total level planned by the existing community.

(4) A discussion of how socioeconomic activities and land use changes related to the proposed action conform or conflict with the goals and objectives of approved or proposed Federal, regional, State and local land use plans, policies and controls for the project area should be included in the EIS. If a conflict appears to be unresolved in the EIS, EPA should explain why it has decided to proceed without full reconciliation.

(d) Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided should the proposal be implemented and steps to minimize harm to the environment. The EIS shall describe the kinds and magnitudes of adverse impacts which cannot be reduced in severity or which can be reduced to an acceptable level but not eliminated. These may include water or air pollution, undesirable land use patterns, damage to fish and wildlife habitats, urban congestion, threats to human health or other consequences adverse to the environmental goals in section 101(b) of NEPA. Protective and mitigative measures to be taken as part of the proposed action shall be identified. These measures to reduce or compensate for any environmentally detrimental aspect of the proposed action may include those of EPA, its contractors and grantees and others involved in the action.

(e) Relationship betwen local short term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long term productivity. The EIS shall describe the extent to which the proposed action involves tradeoffs between short term environmental gains at the expense of long term gains or vice-versa and the extent to which the proposed action forecloses future options. Special attention shall be given to effects which narrow the range of future uses of land and water resources or pose long term risks to health or safety. Consideration should be given to windfall gains or significant decreases in current property values from implementing the proposed action. In addition, the reasons the proposed action is believed by EPA to be justified now, rather than reserving a long term option for other alternatives, including no action, shall be explained.

(f) Irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources to the proposed action should it be implemented. The EIS shall describe the extent to which the proposed action requires commitment of construction materials, personhours and funds to design and implement the project, as well as curtails the range of future uses of land and water resources. For example, induced growth in undeveloped areas may curtail alternative uses of that land. Also, irreversible environmental damage can result from equipment malfunctions or industrial accidents at the project site. Therefore, the need for any irretrievable and significant commitments of resources shall be explained fully.

(g) Problems and objections raised by other Federal, State and local agencies and by interested persons in the review process. Final EIS's (and draft EIS's if appropriate) shall summarize the comments and suggestions made by reviewing organizations and shall describe the disposition of issues raised, e.g., revisions to the proposed action to mitigate anticipated impacts or objections. In particular, the EIS shall address the major issues raised when the EPA position differs from most recommendations and explain the factors of overriding importance overruling the adoption of suggestions. Reviewer's statements should be set forth in a "comment" and discussed in a "response." In addition, the source of all comments should be clearly identified, and copies of the comments should be attached to the final EIS. Summaries of comments should be attached when a response has been exceptionally long or the same comments were received from many reviewers.

[blocks in formation]

hearing on a draft EIS whenever a hearing may facilitate the resolution of conflicts or significant public controversy. This hearing may be in addition to public hearings held on facilities plans or section 209 plans. The responsible official may take special measures to involve interested persons through personal contact.

§ 6.402 Public hearing process.

(a) When public hearings are to be held, EPA shall inform the public of the hearing, for example, with a notice in the draft EIS. The notice should follow the summary sheet at the beginning of the EIS. The draft EIS shall be available for public review at least thirty (30) days before the public hearing. Public notice shall be given at least fifteen (15) working days before the public hearing and shall include:

(1) Publication of a public notice in a newspaper which covers the project area, identifying the project, announcing the date, time and place of the hearing and announcing the availability of detailed information on the proposed action for public inspection at one or more locations in the area in which the project will be located. "Detailed information" shall include a copy of the project application and the draft EIS.

(2) Notification of appropriate State and local agencies and appropriate State, regional and metropolitan clearinghouses.

(3) Notification of interested persons. (b) A written record of the hearing shall be made. A stenographer may be used to record the hearing. As a minimum, the record shall contain a list of witnesses with the text of each presentation. A summary of the record, including the issues raised, conflicts resolved and unresolved, and any other significant portions of the record, shall be appended to the final EIS.

(c) When a public hearing has been held by another Federal, State, or local agency on an EPA action, additional hearings are not necessary. The responsible official shall decide if additional hearings are needed.

(d) When a program office is the originating office, the appropriate regional office will provide assistance to the originating office in holding any public hearing if assistance is requested.

[blocks in formation]

(a)

Administrative actions covered. This subpart applies to the administrative actions listed below:

(1) Approval of all section 208 plans according to procedures in § 35.1067-2 of this chapter;

(2) Approval of all facilities plans except those listed in paragraph (a)(5) of this section;

(3) Award of step 2 and step 3 grants, if an approved facilities plan was not required;

(4) Award of a step 2 or step 3 grant when either the project or its impact has changed significantly from that described in the approved facilities plan, except when the situation in paragraph (a) (5) of this section exists;

(5) Consultation during the NEPA review process. When there are overriding considerations of cost or impaired program effectiveness, the Regional Administrator may award a step 2 or a step 3 grant for a discrete segment of the project plans or construction before the NEPA review is completed if this project segment is noncontroversial. The remaining portion of the project shall be evaluated to determine if an EIS is required. In

applying the criteria for this determination, the entire project shall be considered, including those parts permitted to proceed. In no case may these types of step 2 or step 3 grants be awarded unless both the Office of Federal Activities and CEQ have been consulted, a negative declaration has been issued on the segments permitted to proceed, and the grant award contains a specific agreement prohibiting action on the segment of planning or construction for which the NEPA review is not complete. Examples of consultation during the NEPA review process are: Award of a step 2 grant for preparation of plans and specifications for a large treatment plant, when the only unresolved NEPA issue is where to locate the sludge disposal site; or award of a step 3 grant for site clearance for a large treatment plant, when the unresolved NEPA issue is whether sludge from the plant should be incinerated at the site or disposed of elsewhere by other

means.

(b) Administrative actions excluded. The actions listed below are not subject to the requirements of this part:

(1) Approval of State priority lists; (2) Award of a step 1 grant; (3) Award of a section 208 planning grant;

(4) Award of a step 2 or step 3 grant when no significant changes in the facilities plan have occurred;

(5) Approval of issuing an invitation for bid or awarding a construction contract;

(6) Actual physical commencement of building or fabrication;

(7) Award of a section 206 grant for reimbursement;

(8) Award of grant increases whenever § 6.504 (a) (4) does not apply;

(9) Awards of training assistance under FWPCA, as amended, section 109 (b).

(c) Retroactive application. The new criteria in § 6.510 do not apply to step 2 or step 3 grants awarded before July 1, 1975. However, the Regional Administrator may apply the new criteria of this subpart when he considers it appropriate. Any negative declarations issued before the effective date of this regulation shall remain in effect.

§ 6.506 Completion of NEPA procedures before start of administrative actions. See 6.108 and § 6.504.

« AnteriorContinuar »