Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 17860-17861 [E9-8862]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 73 (Friday, April 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17860-17861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-8862]


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

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