My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Res 2001-006
San-Marcos
>
City Clerk
>
03 Resolutions
>
2000 s
>
2002
>
Res 2001-006
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/21/2007 3:28:04 PM
Creation date
10/11/2005 3:41:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
City Clerk - Document
Resolutions
Number
2001-06
Date
1/14/2002
Volume Book
146
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
244
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />\\ v;r\vyg:.'4 h t1p:,'. es, epa. goY/oecn: 0 r'a/ rn c <br /> <br />"Category 2" (Insufficient Informalion) . <br /> <br />The draft EIS does not contain sufficienr information for EPA to fully assess <br />environmental impacts that should be avoided in order to fully protect the enVIronment. or the <br />EPA reviewer has identified new reasonably available alternatives mat are within the spectrum <br />of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS. which could reduce the enwonmenta! impacts of the <br />action. The identified additional information, data. analyses. or discussion should be included <br />in the final EIS. <br /> <br />"Category 3" (Inadequate) <br /> <br />EPA does not believe that the draft EIS adequately assesses potentially significant <br />environmental impacts of the action, or the EPA reviewer has ident1fied new, reasonably <br />available alternatives that are outside of the spectrum of alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, <br />which should be analyzed in order to reduce the potentially significant environmental impacts, <br />EPA believes that the identified additional information, data. analyses, or discussions are of <br />such a magnitude that they should have full public review at a draft stage. EPA does not <br />believe that the draft EIS is adequate for the purposes of the NEPA and/or Section 309 review, <br />and thus should be formally revised and made available for public comment in a supplemental <br />or revised draft EIS. On the basis of the potential significant impacts involved, this proposal <br />could be a candidate for referral to the CEQ. <br /> <br /> <br />Last Updated: January 19, 2000 Contact: Cliff Rader <br />URL: http://es,epa,gov/oeca/ofa/rating,html <br /> <br />A-46 <br /> <br />20f2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.