United States EPA/220/B-92/013
Environmental Protection March 1992
Agency
&EPA EPA Reviewer's
Checklist
NEPA Documents
40 CFR Part 6
-------
Project Name
Project f
Name of Reviewer
Review Date
EPA REVIEWER'S CHECKLIST
Notes:
NEPA DOCUMENTS
(40 CFR Part 6)
1) Do not review an EIS under this procedure.
2) Fill out the CE section or the FNSI section,
3) Fill out the Final Section.
CE (Categorial Exclusion)
N
1. Does State use the CE Checklist? If yes,
go to 12. If no, go to 14.
2. Is CE Checklist properly checked off
to indicate eligibility for a CE?
Comment
Is CE checkoff consonant with P.P. and
Environmental documents in file, and
does the checkoff indicate understanding
of CE rules?
Comment
Go to #5.
Does project satisfy requirements for a _
CE? See 40 CFR 6.505(a) and (b) , as
applied to P.P. and environmental
documents in file. Ilf> ... .
U.S. Environments iVrfection Agency
Region 5, Library U"L.-12J)
77 West Jackson Coulevard 12th
est Jackson Coulevar
Chicago, IL 606C-4-3590
-------
-2-
Comment
Is CE Notice clearly written, with details
of project and reason for granting CE
adequately described?
Comment
FNSI (Finding of No Significant Impact
1. If any of the conditions listed in
40 CFR 6.508 exist, a FNSI is not
appropriate and an EIS should have
been undertaken.
2. Is NEPA Checklist fully completed,
citing references to file documents?
Comment
3. Does spot check of NEPA Checklist citations
indicate understanding of questions,
relevance, and accuracy in filling checklist
out?
-------
-3-
C eminent
4. Is the Environmental Assessment filled out
completely with respect to the provisions
of 40 CFR 6.506(a) and (b)?
Comment
5. Is the Environmental Assessment consonant
with the P.P., EID, and other file
sources?
Comment
6. With respect to Public Participation, were
the requirements of 40 CFR Part 25,
6.513, and the State satisfactorily
fulfilled?
Comment
-------
-4-
7. Does the public hearing record, or other
documents, indicate unresolved problems?
Comment
If relevant, were the requirements of
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A (Executive
Orders 11988 and 11990 on floodplains
and wetlands) met?
Comment
If relevant, was necessary permit
acquired or permit conditions met,
under the Coastal Zone Management
Act?
Comment
10. If relevant, were necessary coordination
procedures carried out under Endangered
Species Act and analagous State statutes?
Comme n t
-------
-5-
11. Same as 110, for Pish and Wildlife
Coordination Act?
Comment
12. Same as flO for National Historic
Preservation Act. Did SHPO give
clearance? Was a survey necessary?
Did the Advisory Council concur with
a finding of no adverse impact? If
an MOA was necessary, was it executed?
Were appropriate grant conditions placed?
Comment
13. Same as flO for sites registered, or
for registration, under the Historic
Sites, Buildings, and Antiquities
Act of 1935.
Comment
14. Same as flO for rivers registered under
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
-------
-6-
Comment
15. Same as 110 for agriculturally
significant lands. See EPA Policy
to Protect Environmentally
Significant Agricultural Lands.
Comment
16. Other problem/issues, as #10.
Comment
17. Was treatment capacity selected in
conformance with existing 208, air,
local, and regional plans?
Comment
-------
-7-
Final Section
1. Is documentation appropriate, complete
and properly filed?
Comment
2. Are State-written documents clear,
properly formatted, relevant?
Comment
3. In your opinion, did the environmental
review take all reasonable steps?
Comme n t
4. General Comment
-------
951
D-08-02-83/08-03-83/08-08-83
F-08-03-83/08-08-83
Hamilton/Brody
D-81-I-04-951ABC
•ffV.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFT1CE: 1*92 - «4H-003/407I»
------- |