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» ------- |