[Federal Register Volume 68, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 2003)]
[Notices]
[Pages 16510-16511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing 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