[Federal Register: April 11, 2008 (Volume 73, Number 71)]
[Notices]
[Page 19833-19834]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11ap08-50]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6697-8]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared 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 202-564-7167.
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.
EO--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.
EU--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
EIS No. 20070488, ERP No. D-DOE-A09800-00, Programmatic--Designation of
Energy Corridors in 11 Western States, Preferred Location of Future
Oil, Gas, and Hydrogen Pipelines and Electricity Transmission and
Distribution Facilities on Federal Land, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM,
UT, WA and WY.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
underestimation of wetlands in the designated corridors.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20080042, ERP No. D-AFS-J65508-MT, Debaugan Fuels Reduction
Project, Proposed Fuels Reduction Activities, Lolo National Forest,
Superior Ranger District, Mineral County, MT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about water quality
impacts. EPA requested additional analysis and information to assess
and mitigate impacts of the management actions.
Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20080047, ERP No. D-USN-A11080-00, Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar
Training Program, To Provide Mid- and High-Frequency Active Sonar
Technology and the Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) System during
Atlantic Fleet Training Exercises, Along the East Coast of United
States (US) and in the Gulf of Mexico.
Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
Rating LO.
EIS No. 20080054, ERP No. D-DOE-J05080-MT, MATL 230-kV Transmission
Line Project, To Construct, Operate, Maintain, and Connect a 230-kV
Electric Transmission Line, Issuance of Presidential Permit for Right-
to-Way Grant, Cascade, Teton, Chouteau, Pondera, Toole and Glacier
Counties, MT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about water quality
and wetland impacts. EPA recommended a modified preferred alternative
that would better optimize the environmental, social and economic
trade-offs for this project. EPA requested additional information
regarding mitigation of impacts.
Rating EC2.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20070457, ERP No. F-UAF-B15000-MA, Final
[[Page 19834]]
Recommendations and Associated Actions for the 104th Fighter Wing
Massachusetts Air National Guard, Base Realignment and Closure,
Implementation, Westfield-Barnes Airport, Westfield, MA.
Summary: EPA had no objection to the project and encouraged the
National Guard Bureau to work closely with local communities.
EIS No. 20080062, ERP No. F-USA-A11079-00, Permanent Home Stationing of
the 2/25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBECT), To Address a Full Range
of Alternatives for Permanently Stationing the 2/25th SBCT, Hawaii and
Honolulu Counties, HI; Anchorage and Southeast Fairbanks Boroughs, AK;
El Paso, Pueblo, and Fremont Counties, CO.
Summary: EPA's previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA
does not object to the proposed project.
EIS No. 20080073, ERP No. F-FHW-F40812-IL, Prairie Parkway Study,
Transportation System Improvement between I-80 and I-88, Widening IL-47
to 4 Lanes from I-80 to Caton Farm Road, Funding, U.S. Army COE section
404, Grundy, Kendall and Kane Counties, IL.
Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about water
quality and aquatic life impacts due to road salt and other pollutants.
Dated: April 8, 2008.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E8-7784 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P