[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 66 (Friday, April 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 17156-17157]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6456]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6685-7]


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

[[Page 17157]]

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.

Final EISs

    EIS No. 20060488, ERP No. F-BLM-J02049-WY, Atlantic Rim Natural Gas 
Field Development Project, Proposed Natural Gas Development to 2000 
Wells, 1800 to Coal Beds and 200 to Other Formations, Carbon County, 
WY.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about adverse 
impacts to water quality, wildlife habitat and native vegetation, and 
suggests that the ROD include additional BMPs that avoid or reduce 
impacts to these resources.
    EIS No. 20070023, ERP No. F-AFS-L65521-WA, Buckhorn Access Project, 
To Utilize the Marias Creek Route to Construct and Reconstruct Roads, 
Funding, NPDES Permit and U.S. Army COE Section 404 Permit, Okanogan 
and Wenatchee National Forests, Tonasket Ranger District, Okanogan 
County, WA.
    Summary: The Final EIS addressed EPA's comments on the NPDES permit 
and surface water quality; however, EPA continues to have environmental 
concerns about impacts to wetlands. EPA requests that the ROD include 
detailed information on the performance bond and implementation of the 
monitoring plan based on the most recent modeling and analysis of water 
resources. Additionally, the ROD should outline how the monitoring 
activities of 3 agencies will be coordinated.
    EIS No. 20070062, ERP No. F-NPS-H65025-NE, Niobrara National Scenic 
River General Management Plan, Implementation, Brown, Cherry, Keya Paha 
and Rock Counties, NE.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    EIS No. 20070066, ERP No. F-BLM-K65294-AZ, Arizona Strip Field 
Office Resource Management Plan, which includes: Vermilion Cliffs 
National Monument, Grand-Canyon-Parashant National Monument (Parashant) 
BLM Portion, General Management Plan for the Grand Canyon-Parashant 
National Monument NPS Portion of Parashant, Implementation, AZ.
    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: April 3, 2007.
Robert W. Hargrove,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
 [FR Doc. E7-6456 Filed 4-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P