Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 17845-17846 [E6-5113]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2006 / Notices wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES Thompson (‘‘Petitioner’’) petitioned the EAB for review of the Permit. C. What Did the EAB Decide? Petitioner, acting pro se, raised the following issues on appeal: (1) EPA Region 10 failed to address the human health or environmental effects of the proposed facility on ‘‘both majority and minority populations’’; (2) EPA Region 10 improperly treated emission from nonroad heavy duty diesel engines differently than emission from power plants such as the Facility; (3) Region 10 failed to perform a cumulative impact analysis; (4) EPA Region 10 improperly considered meteorological data from Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington; (5) EPA Region 10 should have treated the airshed around the proposed Facility in the same manner as a Class I or Class II wilderness or scenic area; (6) EPA Region 10 did not consider a Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) study of regional air quality; (7) EPA Region 10 erred in establishing the Permit’s volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions limitation; and (8) EPA Region 10 erred by failing to include permit conditions addressing emissions from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines that will be used during construction of the proposed Facility. The EAB denied review of the following four issues because these issues were not raised during the public comment period on the draft Permit or during the public hearing on the draft Permit: (1) EPA Region 10 failed to address the human health or environmental effects of the proposed facility on ‘‘both majority and minority populations’’; (2) EPA Region 10 did not consider a BPA study of regional air quality; (3) EPA Region 10 erred in establishing the Permit’s VOC emissions limitation; and (4) EPA Region 10 erred by failing to include permit conditions addressing emissions from nonroad heavy-duty diesel engines that will be used during construction of the proposed Facility. Moreover, the EAB found that, even if these four issues had been preserved for review, Petitioner failed to demonstrate that EPA Region 10’s permit determination was clearly erroneous or otherwise warranted review. The EAB denied review of the following four remaining issues because the Petitioner failed to demonstrate why the Region’s response to public comments was clearly erroneous or otherwise warrants review: (1) EPA Region 10 improperly treated emission from nonroad heavy duty diesel engines differently than emission from power plants such as the Facility; (2) Region 10 failed to perform a cumulative impact VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:13 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 analysis; (3) EPA Region 10 improperly considered meteorological data from Spokane and Walla Walla, Washington; and (4) EPA Region 10 should have treated the airshed around the proposed Facility in the same manner as a Class I or Class II wilderness or scenic area. For these reasons, the EAB denied review of the petition for review in its entirety. Pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(1), for purposes of judicial review, final agency action occurs when a final PSD permit is issued and agency review procedures are exhausted. This notice is being published pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19(f)(2), which requires notice of any final agency action regarding a PSD permit to be published in the Federal Register. This notice constitutes notice of the final agency action denying review of the PSD Permit and, consequently, notice of the EPA Region 10’s issuance of PSD Permit No. R10PSD–OR–05–01 to Diamond. If available, judicial review of these determinations under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA may be sought only by the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, within 60 days from the date on which this notice is published in the Federal Register. Under section 307(b)(2) of the Clean Air Act, this determination shall not be subject to later judicial review in any civil or criminal proceedings for enforcement. Dated: March 1, 2006. L. Michael Bogert, Regional Administrator, Region 10. [FR Doc. E6–5109 Filed 4–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 17845 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. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Adequacy of the Impact Statement [ER–FRL–6674–1] 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. Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments repared 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 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Category 1—Adequate 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, E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM 07APN1 17846 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 2006 / Notices data, analyses, or discussion should be included in the final EIS. wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES 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. 20050530, ERP No. D–FHW– L40229–ID, ID–75 Timmerman to Ketchum—US–20 to Saddle Road, Increase Roadway and Transportation Safety, Cities of Bellevue, Hailey, Ketchum and the City of Sun Valley, Blaine County, ID Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the aquatic resources, ecological connectivity, habitat permeability for wildlife, and air toxic, and is also concerned about the limited range of alternatives analyzed and the secondary effects of induced travel demand and land use change. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20050544, ERP No. D–FHW– E40805–KY, Newtown Pike Extension Project, Road Connection from West Main Street to South Limestone Street in Lexington, Fayette County, KY Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the air quality impacts, noise impacts, and the adequacy of mitigation for environmental justice issues. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060011, ERP No. D–BLM– J02050–UT, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach Area Natural Gas Development, Drilling and Production Operations of Natural Gas Wells and Associated Access Road, and Pipelines, Uintah County, UT Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to riparian areas along the White River and wildlife habitat in specific locations VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:13 Apr 06, 2006 Jkt 208001 of the project area, and recommended that the final EIS should include analysis and comparison of the full range of alternatives considered. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060032, ERP No. D–AFS– L65502–AK, Kuiu Timber Sale Area, Proposes to Harvest Timer and Build Associated Temporary Roads, US. Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, North Kuiu Island, Petersburg Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, AK Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about sediment loading to streams from timber harvesting, and recommended Alternative 2 because it would minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality and aquatic habitat. Rating EC1. EIS No. 20060036, ERP No. D–BLM– L65503–OR, North Steens Ecosystem Restoration Project, To Reduce Juniper-Related Fuels and Restore Various Plant Communities, Implementation, Andrews Resource Area, Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), Harney County, OR Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to air quality, water quality and riparian areas, and requested that the above impacts be avoided and/or mitigated. Rating EC2. EIS No. 20060038, ERP No. D–BLM– J02051–UT, Greater Deadman Bench Oil and Gas Producing Region, Proposes to Develop Oil and Gas Resources, Right-of-Way Grants and Applications for Permit to Drill, Vernal, Uintah County, UT Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential impacts to riparian areas and wildlife habitat, and recommended that the final EIS provide a detailed management plan, including mitigation and monitoring for the duration of the proposed action. Rating EC2. Final EISs EIS No. 20060039, ERP No. F–FAA– K51042–AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport (PHX), Construction and Operation of a Terminal, Airfield and Surface Transportation, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, AZ Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project but continues to recommend additional voluntary mitigation measures for constructionrelated air emissions. EIS No. 20060049, ERP No. F–FHW– L40217–AK, South Extension of the PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Coastal Trail Project, Extending the existing Tony Knowles Coastal Trail from Kincaid Park through the Project Area to the Potter Weigh Station, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Municipality of Anchorage, Anchorage, AK Summary: EPA does not object to the preferred alternative. Dated: April 4, 2006. Robert W. Hargrove, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E6–5113 Filed 4–6–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6673–9] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/. Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed March 27, 2006 Through March 31, 2006 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20060108, Revised Final EIS, AFS, CO, Gold Camp Road Plan, Develop a Feasible Plan to Manage the Operation of Tunnel #3 and the 8.5 mile Road Segment, Pike National Forest, Pikes Peak Ranger District, Colorado Springs, El Paso County, CO, Wait Period Ends: May 8, 2006, Contact: Frank Landis 719–477–4203. EIS No. 20060109, Draft EIS, NPS, KY, Abraham Lincoln Birthplace National Historic Site, General Management Plan, Implementation, LaRue County, KY, Comment Period Ends: June 5, 2006, Contact: Matthew Safford 303– 969–2898. EIS No. 20060110, Draft EIS, AFS, MT, Whitetail-Pipestone Travel Management, Develop Site-Specific Travel Management Plan, Jefferson and Butte Ranger Districts, Beaverhead-Deerlodge National Forest, Jefferson and Silver Bow Counties, MT, Comment Period Ends: May 22, 2006, Contact: Cheryl Martin 406–287–3223 Ext 107. EIS No. 20060111, Final Supplement, COE, MO, St. Johns Bayou and New Madrid Floodway Project, Channel Enlargement and Improvement, Revised Information to Clarify and Address Issues of Concern, Flood Control National Economic Development (NED), New Madrid, Mississippi and Scott Counties, MO, E:\FR\FM\07APN1.SGM 07APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17845-17846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-5113]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6674-1]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments repared 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,

[[Page 17846]]

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. 20050530, ERP No. D-FHW-L40229-ID, ID-75 Timmerman to Ketchum--
US-20 to Saddle Road, Increase Roadway and Transportation Safety, 
Cities of Bellevue, Hailey, Ketchum and the City of Sun Valley, Blaine 
County, ID

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the aquatic 
resources, ecological connectivity, habitat permeability for wildlife, 
and air toxic, and is also concerned about the limited range of 
alternatives analyzed and the secondary effects of induced travel 
demand and land use change. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20050544, ERP No. D-FHW-E40805-KY, Newtown Pike Extension 
Project, Road Connection from West Main Street to South Limestone 
Street in Lexington, Fayette County, KY

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the air quality 
impacts, noise impacts, and the adequacy of mitigation for 
environmental justice issues. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20060011, ERP No. D-BLM-J02050-UT, Chapita Wells-Stagecoach 
Area Natural Gas Development, Drilling and Production Operations of 
Natural Gas Wells and Associated Access Road, and Pipelines, Uintah 
County, UT

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to 
riparian areas along the White River and wildlife habitat in specific 
locations of the project area, and recommended that the final EIS 
should include analysis and comparison of the full range of 
alternatives considered. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20060032, ERP No. D-AFS-L65502-AK, Kuiu Timber Sale Area, 
Proposes to Harvest Timer and Build Associated Temporary Roads, US. 
Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, North Kuiu Island, Petersburg 
Ranger District, Tongass National Forest, AK

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about sediment 
loading to streams from timber harvesting, and recommended Alternative 
2 because it would minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality 
and aquatic habitat. Rating EC1.

EIS No. 20060036, ERP No. D-BLM-L65503-OR, North Steens Ecosystem 
Restoration Project, To Reduce Juniper-Related Fuels and Restore 
Various Plant Communities, Implementation, Andrews Resource Area, 
Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA), Harney County, OR

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to air 
quality, water quality and riparian areas, and requested that the above 
impacts be avoided and/or mitigated. Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20060038, ERP No. D-BLM-J02051-UT, Greater Deadman Bench Oil 
and Gas Producing Region, Proposes to Develop Oil and Gas Resources, 
Right-of-Way Grants and Applications for Permit to Drill, Vernal, 
Uintah County, UT

    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential 
impacts to riparian areas and wildlife habitat, and recommended that 
the final EIS provide a detailed management plan, including mitigation 
and monitoring for the duration of the proposed action. Rating EC2.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20060039, ERP No. F-FAA-K51042-AZ, Phoenix Sky Harbor 
International Airport (PHX), Construction and Operation of a Terminal, 
Airfield and Surface Transportation, City of Phoenix, Maricopa County, 
AZ

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project but continues 
to recommend additional voluntary mitigation measures for construction-
related air emissions.

EIS No. 20060049, ERP No. F-FHW-L40217-AK, South Extension of the 
Coastal Trail Project, Extending the existing Tony Knowles Coastal 
Trail from Kincaid Park through the Project Area to the Potter Weigh 
Station, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Municipality of Anchorage, 
Anchorage, AK

    Summary: EPA does not object to the preferred alternative.

    Dated: April 4, 2006.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E6-5113 Filed 4-6-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.