Jump to main content.

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 
[Federal Register: April 6, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17156-17157]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap07-59]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6685-7]

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

[[Page 17157]]

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.

Final EISs

    EIS No. 20060488, ERP No. F-BLM-J02049-WY, Atlantic Rim Natural Gas
Field Development Project, Proposed Natural Gas Development to 2000
Wells, 1800 to Coal Beds and 200 to Other Formations, Carbon County, WY.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about adverse
impacts to water quality, wildlife habitat and native vegetation, and
suggests that the ROD include additional BMPs that avoid or reduce
impacts to these resources.
    EIS No. 20070023, ERP No. F-AFS-L65521-WA, Buckhorn Access Project,
To Utilize the Marias Creek Route to Construct and Reconstruct Roads,
Funding, NPDES Permit and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Okanogan
and Wenatchee National Forests, Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan
County, WA.
    Summary: The Final EIS addressed EPA's comments on the NPDES permit
and surface water quality; however, EPA continues to have environmental
concerns about impacts to wetlands. EPA requests that the ROD include
detailed information on the performance bond and implementation of the
monitoring plan based on the most recent modeling and analysis of water
resources. Additionally, the ROD should outline how the monitoring
activities of 3 agencies will be coordinated.
    EIS No. 20070062, ERP No. F-NPS-H65025-NE, Niobrara National Scenic
River General Management Plan, Implementation, Brown, Cherry, Keya Paha
and Rock Counties, NE.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20070066, ERP No. F-BLM-K65294-AZ, Arizona Strip Field
Office Resource Management Plan, which includes: Vermilion Cliffs
National Monument, Grand-Canyon-Parashant National Monument (Parashant)
BLM Portion, General Management Plan for the Grand Canyon-Parashant
National Monument NPS Portion of Parashant, Implementation, AZ.
    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: April 3, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E7-6456 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.