[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 67 (Friday, April 7, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17845-17846]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing 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