Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 34754-34755 [E9-17090]

Download as PDF mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES 34754 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices Placentia and Anaheim, Orange County, CA, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/ 2009, Contact: Scott K. McHenry 916– 498–5854. EIS No. 20090237, Draft EIS, UMC, NC, U.S. Marine Corps Grow the Force at MCB Camp Lejeune, MCAS New River, and MCAS Cherry Point, To Provide the Infrastructure to Support the Permanent Increases at these three Installations, U.S. Army Corps Section 404 and 10 Permits, City of Jacksonville, NC, Comment Period Ends: 09/01/2009, Contact: Michael H. Jones 757–322–4942. EIS No. 20090238, Final EIS, USN, VA, Norfolk Harbor Channel, Proposed Dredging to Deepen Five Miles of the Federal Navigation Channel in the Elizabeth River from Lamberts Bend to the Norfolk Naval Shipyard (NNSY), Norfolk and Portsmouth, VA, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/2009, Contact: John Conway 904–542–6159. EIS No. 20090239, Draft EIS, AFS, OR, Big Summit Allotment Management Plan, Proposes to Reauthorize Cattle Term Grazing Permits, Construct Range Improvements, and Restore Riparian Vegetation on Five Allotments, Lookout Mountain Ranger District, Ochoco National Forest, Crook County, OR, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2009, Contact: Marcy Anderson 541–416–6463. EIS No. 20090240, Final EIS, FhW, NC, NC–119 Relocation Project, Transportation Improvement from the I–185/40 Interchange Southwest of Mebane to Existing NC–119 south of NC–1918 (Mrs. White Lane) Mebane, Right-of-Way Acquisition, Alamance County, NC, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/ 2009, Contact: John F. Sullivan 919– 856–4346 Ext. 122. EIS No. 20090241, Draft EIS, IBR, KS, Aquifer Storage Recharge and Recovery Project, To Provide Municipal and Industrial (M&I) Water to City and Surrounding Region, Equus Beds Division, Wichita Project, Kansas, Harvey, Sedgwick, and Reno Counties, KS, Comment Period Ends: 09/11/2009, Contact: Charles Webster 405–470–4807. EIS No. 20090242, Draft EIS, IBR, CA, Delta-Mendota Canal/California Aqueduct Intertie Project, Construction and Operation of a Pumping Plant and Pipeline Connection, San Luis Delta-Mendota Water Authority Project, Central Valley Project, Alameda and San Joaquin Counties, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/31/2009, Contact: Sharon McHale 916–978–5086. EIS No. 20090243, Final EIS, COE, FL, C–111 Spreader Canal Western Project, To Restore Ecosystem VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:20 Jul 16, 2009 Jkt 217001 Function in Taylor Slough and Florida Bay Areas, Central and Southern Florida Project, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), Everglades National Park, Miami-Dade County, FL, Wait Period Ends: 08/17/2009, Contact: Alisa Zarbo 561–472–3516. Amended Notices EIS No. 20090170, Draft EIS, FHW, WI, Zoo Interchange Corridor Study, Reconstruction to I0–94 from 70th Street to 124th Street and on US 45 from Burleigh Street to I–894/US 45 and Lincoln Avenue in Milwaukee County, WI, Comment Period Ends: 08/10/2009, Contact: Allen Radliff 608–829–7500. Revision to FR Notice Published 05/29/2009: Extending Comment Period from 07/13/2009 to 08/10/2009. EIS No. 20090232, Draft EIS, BIA, CA, Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Horseshoe Grande Fee-to-Trust Project, Construction of a Hotel and Casino, City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 09/15/2009, Contact: Pat O’Mallan 916–978–6044. Revision to FR Notice Published 07/10/2009: Correction to the Telephone number from 916–978– 6043 to 916–978–6044. Dated: July 14, 2009. Clifford Rader, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E9–17089 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–8595–5] 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. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) as follows: Summary of Rating Definitions Environmental Impact of the Action LO—Lack of Objections The EPA review has not identified any potential environmental impacts Frm 00045 Fmt 4703 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 should 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 Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments PO 00000 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. Sfmt 4703 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, E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 136 / Friday, July 17, 2009 / Notices 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. 20090133, ERP No. D–NPS– D61064–MD, Monocacy National Battlefield, General Management Plan, Implementation, Frederick County, MD. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. EIS No. 20090145, ERP No. D–NPS– H61024–IA, Effigy Mounds National Monument General Management Plan, Implementation, Clayton and Allamakee Counties, IA. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO. EIS No. 20090151, ERP No. D–NPS– K65365–CA, Prisoners Harbor Coastal Wetland Restoration Project, Proposes to Restore a Functional, SelfSustaining Ecosystem at a Coastal Wetland Site, Channel Islands National Park, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, CA. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project, but offered suggestions to reduce the impact of invasive species and dust during construction. Rating LO. mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES Final EISs EIS No. 20090129, ERP No. F–AFS– K65346–CA, Round Valley Fuels Reduction and Vegetation Management Project, Proposes to Reduce Fuel and Manage Vegetation, Funding, Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National Forest, Siskiyou County, CA. VerDate Nov<24>2008 19:20 Jul 16, 2009 Jkt 217001 Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. EIS No. 20090182, ERP No. F–USA– K11038–HI, Makua Military Reservation (MMR) Project, Proposed Military Training Activities, To Conduct the Necessary Type, Level, Duration, and Intensity of Live-Fire and other Military Training Activities, in Particular Company-Level Combined-Arms, Live-Fire Exercises (CALFEX), 25th Infantry Division (Light) and U.S. Army, HI. Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about the contamination of soil and water resources at Makua Military Reservation. EIS No. 20090187, ERP No. F–CGD– A11083–00, PROGRAMMATIC— Future of the US Coast Guard Long Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN–C) Program, Implementation. Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action. Dated: July 14, 2009. Clifford Rader, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. E9–17090 Filed 7–16–09; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL–8931–2] Casmalia Disposal Site; Notice of Proposed CERCLA Administrative De Minimis Settlement AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice; request for public comment. SUMMARY: In accordance with section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended (CERCLA) and section 7003 of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), the EPA is hereby providing notice of a proposed administrative de minimis settlement concerning the Casmalia Disposal Site in Santa Barbara County, California (the Casmalia Disposal Site). Section 122(g) of CERCLA provides EPA with the authority to enter into administrative de minimis settlements. This settlement is intended to resolve the liabilities of 35 settling parties for the Casmalia Disposal Site under sections 106 and 107 of CERCLA and section 7003 of RCRA, and also to resolve their liability for response costs and potential natural resource damage claims by the United PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 34755 States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the United States Air Force (USAF). These parties, identified below, originally received settlement offers in 1999 or 2000 but raised an issue that has now been resolved. Most of those resolving their liability to the EPA have also elected to resolve their liability for response costs and potential natural resource damage claims by the USFWS, NOAA and the USAF. The settling parties sent 12,776,838 lbs. of waste to the Site, which represents 0.228% of total Site waste. This settlement requires these parties to pay over $1.25 million to EPA. EPA is simultaneously publishing another Federal Register Notice relating to another settlement with de minimis parties that had received offers between 2005 and 2008. Settling Parties: Parties that have elected to settle their liability at this time are as follows: Advanced Coatings & Chemical; AK Steel Corporation, Successor by Merger to Armco, Inc.; Barron Anodizing & Paint; BioResearch, Inc.; C&W Pallet Enterprises, Inc.; City of San Jose; CTS Corporation (CTS Keene, Inc.); CTS Printex Inc.; E.C. Loomis & Son; General Atomics; Goleta Water District; Guadalupe Union School District; Kevex Corporation; Lear Siegler Diversified Holdings Corp.; Paccar, Inc.; Plessey Semiconductors, Inc.; Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose; Rosemary Farm; Santa Palm Car Wash; Saticoy Lemon Association; Siemens Communications, Inc.; Siemens Energy & Automation Inc.; Siemens Medical Systems, Inc., Oncology Care Systems Group; SMI Holding, LLC; Sweetwater Union High School District; Technitron Incorporated; Texas Instruments Tucson Corporation (f/k/a Burr-Brown Research Corporation); Tenneco Packaging, Inc. (n/k/a Pactiv Corporation); Thermo Finnigan LLC, Formerly Finnigan Corporation; Thermo Securities Corporation (as Successor to Cal-Doran Metallurgical Service); Thermo Separation Products, Inc.; U.S. Coast Guard; U.S. Department of Interior; U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. DATES: EPA will receive written comments relating to the settlement until August 17, 2009. EPA will consider all comments it receives during this period, and may modify or withdraw consent to the settlement if any comments disclose facts or considerations indicating that the settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. E:\FR\FM\17JYN1.SGM 17JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34754-34755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17090]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8595-5]


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.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) as follows:

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 should 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 is within the spectrum of 
alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the 
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional 
information,

[[Page 34755]]

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. 20090133, ERP No. D-NPS-D61064-MD, Monocacy National 
Battlefield, General Management Plan, Implementation, Frederick County, 
MD.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20090145, ERP No. D-NPS-H61024-IA, Effigy Mounds National 
Monument General Management Plan, Implementation, Clayton and Allamakee 
Counties, IA.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20090151, ERP No. D-NPS-K65365-CA, Prisoners Harbor Coastal 
Wetland Restoration Project, Proposes to Restore a Functional, Self-
Sustaining Ecosystem at a Coastal Wetland Site, Channel Islands 
National Park, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, CA.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project, but offered 
suggestions to reduce the impact of invasive species and dust during 
construction. Rating LO.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20090129, ERP No. F-AFS-K65346-CA, Round Valley Fuels Reduction 
and Vegetation Management Project, Proposes to Reduce Fuel and Manage 
Vegetation, Funding, Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National 
Forest, Siskiyou County, CA.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

EIS No. 20090182, ERP No. F-USA-K11038-HI, Makua Military Reservation 
(MMR) Project, Proposed Military Training Activities, To Conduct the 
Necessary Type, Level, Duration, and Intensity of Live-Fire and other 
Military Training Activities, in Particular Company-Level Combined-
Arms, Live-Fire Exercises (CALFEX), 25th Infantry Division (Light) and 
U.S. Army, HI.

    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about the 
contamination of soil and water resources at Makua Military 
Reservation.

EIS No. 20090187, ERP No. F-CGD-A11083-00, PROGRAMMATIC--Future of the 
US Coast Guard Long Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN-C) Program, 
Implementation.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
Clifford Rader,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-17090 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.