[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 71 (Friday, April 11, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19833-19834]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-7784]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6697-8]


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

EIS No. 20070488, ERP No. D-DOE-A09800-00, Programmatic--Designation of 
Energy Corridors in 11 Western States, Preferred Location of Future 
Oil, Gas, and Hydrogen Pipelines and Electricity Transmission and 
Distribution Facilities on Federal Land, AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NV, NM, 
UT, WA and WY.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential 
underestimation of wetlands in the designated corridors.
    Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080042, ERP No. D-AFS-J65508-MT, Debaugan Fuels Reduction 
Project, Proposed Fuels Reduction Activities, Lolo National Forest, 
Superior Ranger District, Mineral County, MT.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about water quality 
impacts. EPA requested additional analysis and information to assess 
and mitigate impacts of the management actions.
    Rating EC2.

EIS No. 20080047, ERP No. D-USN-A11080-00, Atlantic Fleet Active Sonar 
Training Program, To Provide Mid- and High-Frequency Active Sonar 
Technology and the Improved Extended Echo Ranging (IEER) System during 
Atlantic Fleet Training Exercises, Along the East Coast of United 
States (US) and in the Gulf of Mexico.
    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.
    Rating LO.

EIS No. 20080054, ERP No. D-DOE-J05080-MT, MATL 230-kV Transmission 
Line Project, To Construct, Operate, Maintain, and Connect a 230-kV 
Electric Transmission Line, Issuance of Presidential Permit for Right-
to-Way Grant, Cascade, Teton, Chouteau, Pondera, Toole and Glacier 
Counties, MT.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about water quality 
and wetland impacts. EPA recommended a modified preferred alternative 
that would better optimize the environmental, social and economic 
trade-offs for this project. EPA requested additional information 
regarding mitigation of impacts.
    Rating EC2.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20070457, ERP No. F-UAF-B15000-MA, Final

[[Page 19834]]

    Recommendations and Associated Actions for the 104th Fighter Wing 
Massachusetts Air National Guard, Base Realignment and Closure, 
Implementation, Westfield-Barnes Airport, Westfield, MA.
    Summary: EPA had no objection to the project and encouraged the 
National Guard Bureau to work closely with local communities.

EIS No. 20080062, ERP No. F-USA-A11079-00, Permanent Home Stationing of 
the 2/25th Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBECT), To Address a Full Range 
of Alternatives for Permanently Stationing the 2/25th SBCT, Hawaii and 
Honolulu Counties, HI; Anchorage and Southeast Fairbanks Boroughs, AK; 
El Paso, Pueblo, and Fremont Counties, CO.
    Summary: EPA's previous concerns have been resolved; therefore, EPA 
does not object to the proposed project.

EIS No. 20080073, ERP No. F-FHW-F40812-IL, Prairie Parkway Study, 
Transportation System Improvement between I-80 and I-88, Widening IL-47 
to 4 Lanes from I-80 to Caton Farm Road, Funding, U.S. Army COE section 
404, Grundy, Kendall and Kane Counties, IL.
    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about water 
quality and aquatic life impacts due to road salt and other pollutants.

    Dated: April 8, 2008.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
 [FR Doc. E8-7784 Filed 4-10-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P