[Federal Register: April 17, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 73)]
[Notices]
[Page 17860-17861]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17ap09-64]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ER-FRL-8592-5]
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 202-564-7146.
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 is
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 is 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 is
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. 20080523, ERP No. D-BLM-J03022-00, UNEV Pipeline Project,
[[Page 17861]]
Construction of a 399-mile Long Main Petroleum Products Pipeline, Salt
Lake, Tooele, Juab, Millard, Iron, and Washington Counties, UT and
Lincoln and Clark Counties, NV.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
adverse impacts to human health and the environment from arsenic and
lead contaminated soils, and to wetlands and aquatic resources. In
addition, the final EIS should better characterize the existing air
quality conditions, update criteria used in determining air quality
impact projections, and include information on visibility. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20080537, ERP No. D-BLM-K65352-NV, Ely Energy Center,
Construction and Operation 1500 MW Coal-Fired Power Plant and
Associated Features, White Pine, Lincoln, Clark, Nye, Elko and Nevada
Counties, NV.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about aquatic
resource, endangered species, and construction emission impacts. Rating
EC2.
EIS No. 20090017, ERP No. D-USN-K11022-GU, Mariana Islands Range
Complex (MIRC), To Address Ongoing and Proposed Military Training
Activities, Mariana Islands, GU.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to
coral reef ecosystems, water quality, and the threatened green sea
turtle. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20090035, ERP No. D-AFS-K65357-CA, Tehachapi Renewable
Transmission Project, Construct, Operate and Maintain Ne and Upgraded
500 kV and 220kV Transmission Lines and Substations, Special Use
Authorization, Angeles National Forest, Los Angeles County, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential
adverse impacts to aquatic and biological resources. Analysis of
potential health impacts from lead and arsenic from construction on an
NPL smelter site and mitigation measures should be addressed in the
final EIS. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20090039, ERP No. D-AFS-J65531-SD, Telegraph Project Area,
Proposes to Implement Multiple Resource Management Actions, Northern
Hills Ranger District, Black Hills National Forest, Lawrence and
Pennington Counties, SD.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the water
quality and wildlife habitat impacts associated with significant new
road construction activities. Rating EC2.
EIS No. 20090043, ERP No. DR-AFS-K65342-CA, Moonlight and Wheeler Fires
Recovery and Restoration Project, Analysis of the No-Action and Action
Alternatives, Mt. Hough Ranger District, Plumas National Forest, Plumas
County, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
adverse impacts to water quality and wildlife habitat. EPA recommends
that the Forest Service consider incorporating elements of other
proposed alternatives into the preferred alternative, to minimize
adverse impacts to damaged watersheds. Rating EC2.
Final EISs
EIS No. 20090050, ERP No. F-NIG-K60038-CA, Graton Rancheria Casino and
Hotel Project, Transfer of Land into Trust, Implementation, Federated
Indians of Graton Rancheria (Tribe), Sonoma County, CA.
Summary: EPA continue to have environmental concerns about impacts
to groundwater resources.
Dated: April 14, 2009.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-8862 Filed 4-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P