[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 71 (Friday, April 12, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17992-17993]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-8956]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6628-2]


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 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.

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-BLM-L60107-OR Rating NS, Coos County Natural Gas

[[Page 17993]]

Transmission Pipeline, Construction, Operation and Maintenance of a 
Natural Gas Pipeline from Roseburg to Coos Bay, Right-of-Way Grant, 
Coos Bay District, Coos County, OR.
    Summary: EPA Region 10 used a screening tool to conduct a limited 
review of the draft EIS. Based on the screen, EPA does not foresee 
having any environmental objections to the proposed action. Therefore, 
EPA did not conduct a detailed review.
    ERP No. D-FHW-G40169-AR Rating EC2, Springdale Northern Bypass 
Project, US Highway 412 Construction, Funding and NPDES Permit 
Issuance, Benton and Washington Counties, AR.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the proposed 
action and requested additional information regarding stormwater best 
management practices, noise mitigation and stream bank restoration.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-L65368-ID Curfew National Grassland Land and Resource 
Management Plan, Implementation, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, 
Oneida County, ID.
    Summary:The final EIS addressed most of EPA's comments on the draft 
EIS and EPA has no objection to the proposed action.
    ERP No. F-FHW-G40160-OK I-40 Crosstown Expressway Transportation 
Improvements, I-235/I-35 Interchange west to Meridian Avenue, Funding, 
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma County, OK.
    Summary: EPA had no further comments.
    ERP No. F-FHW-G40165-NM US 70 Corridor Improvement, Ruidoso Downs 
to Riverside, Funding and Right-of-Way Acquisition, Lincoln County, NM.
    Summary: EPA has no further comments.
    ERP No. F-FHW-K40236-HI Kihei-Upcounty Maui Highway Transportation 
Improvements, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Maui 
County, HI.
    Summary: EPA welcomes the mitigation presented in the FEIS to avoid 
and/or reduce adverse water quality impacts from the project's 
construction and operation. EPA asked that commitments to protect water 
quality and recycle construction-related solid waste be included in 
FHWA's Record of Decision.
    ERP No. F-FHW-K40240-CA CA-70 Two-Lane Expressway Upgrade to a 
Four-Lane Expressway/Freeway south of Striplin Road to south of McGowan 
Road Overcrossing, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, 
Sutter and Yuba Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA found the FEIS adequately addresses most of the issues 
raised in our comment letter on the DEIS. However, EPA reiterated 
environmental concerns about air quality impacts and wetland 
mitigation, and requested this information be provided in the Record of 
Decision.
    ERP No. FS-BLM-J67019-MT Zortman and Landusky Mines Reclamation 
Plan, Modifications and Mine Life Extensions, Updated Information to 
Analyze Additional Reclamation Alternatives, Mine Operations Approval, 
Mine Reclamation and US Army COE Section 404 Permits Issuance, Little 
Rocky Mountains, Phillip County, MT.
    Summary: EPA expressed lack of objections with selection of the 
preferred alternatives, Z-6 and L-4. However, EPA noted that the 
implementation of these alternatives will require additional funding. 
EPA would have objections with the selection of within bond 
alternatives Z-3 and L-3 based on substantial risk of not attaining 
water quality standards in the long-term due to increased contaminated 
leachate.

    Dated: April 9, 2002.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 02-8956 Filed 4-11-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P