[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16510-16511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 03-8260]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6639-1]


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 EIS

    ERP No. D-AFS-F65036-WI Rating EC2, Hoffman-Sailor West Project, 
Timber Harvest, Regeneration Activities, Connected Road Construction 
and Decommissioning, Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, Medford/Park 
Falls Ranger District, Price County, WI.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with project impacts 
and overall forest health, including commutative impacts. The Final EIS 
should address how the emphasis on managing for aspen and the potential 
for overpopulation of species that could impact forest in and

[[Page 16511]]

outside the project area and especially how roadless and wilderness 
areas will be managed.
    ERP No. D-AFS-J65375-MT Rating EC2, Sheep Creek Range Analysis, 
Grazing and Special Use Allotments Reorganization, Grazing and Special 
Use Permits Issuance, Lewis and Clark National Forest, White Sulphur 
Springs Ranger District, Meagher and Cascade Counties, MT.
    Summary: While EPA supports the proposed grazing improvements and 
preferred alternative, EPA did express environmental concerns regarding 
potential impacts to the watershed, effects on wetlands and springs and 
stream flows from proposed water development. Uncertainties with the 
availability of adequate funds and resources to implement proposed 
range improvements and the proposed riparian monitoring program should 
be addressed in the final EIS.
    ERP No. D-NPS-G65085-AR Rating LO, Arkansas Post National Memorial 
General Management Plan, Implementation, Osotouy Unit, Arkansas and 
Mississippi Rivers, Arkansas County, AR.
    Summary: EPA has no objection to the management plan.

Final EIS

    ERP No. F-BLM-L65391-OR, Lakeview Resource Management Plan, Unified 
Land Use Plan to Replace All or Portions of Three nearly Twenty Year 
Old Existing Land Use Plans, Implementation, Lake and Bend Counties, 
OR.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the adequacy of 
information on noxious weeds, water quality, protection of tribal 
cultural sites, air quality and impacts from new roads. These issues 
and a mitigation strategy from future energy development activities 
should be addressed in the final EIS.
    ERP No. F-FHW-F40405-IL, US 34/FAP-313 Transportation Facility 
Improvement Project, U.S. 34 from the Intersection of Carman Road east 
of Gulfport to Monmouth, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 and NPDES 
Permits Issuance, Henderson and Warren Counties, IL.
    Summary: EPA has determined that FHWA has adequately addressed 
previous concerns related to Botanical Site 3. However, EPA 
continues to have environmental concerns regarding impacts to impaired 
waters as well as to the adequacy of water quality information.
    ERP No. FS-AFS-J65295-MT, Clancy-Unionville Vegetation Manipulation 
and Travel Management Project, Updated and New Information concerning 
Cumulative Effects and Introduction of Alternative F, Clancy-Unionville 
Implementation Area, Helena National Forest, Helena Ranger District, 
Lewis and Clark and Jefferson Counties, MT.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the potential 
continued impacts to the watershed and wildlife habitat from road 
impacts and suggested the action incorporate lower road densities.

    Dated: April 1, 2003.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 03-8260 Filed 4-3-03; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P