[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 136 (Friday, July 17, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34754-34755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17090]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-8595-5]


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 202-564-7146.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) as follows:

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 should 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 is within the spectrum of 
alternatives analyzed in the draft EIS, which could reduce the 
environmental impacts of the action. The identified additional 
information,

[[Page 34755]]

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 is 
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. 20090133, ERP No. D-NPS-D61064-MD, Monocacy National 
Battlefield, General Management Plan, Implementation, Frederick County, 
MD.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20090145, ERP No. D-NPS-H61024-IA, Effigy Mounds National 
Monument General Management Plan, Implementation, Clayton and Allamakee 
Counties, IA.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project. Rating LO.

EIS No. 20090151, ERP No. D-NPS-K65365-CA, Prisoners Harbor Coastal 
Wetland Restoration Project, Proposes to Restore a Functional, Self-
Sustaining Ecosystem at a Coastal Wetland Site, Channel Islands 
National Park, Santa Cruz Island, Santa Barbara County, CA.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed project, but offered 
suggestions to reduce the impact of invasive species and dust during 
construction. Rating LO.

Final EISs

EIS No. 20090129, ERP No. F-AFS-K65346-CA, Round Valley Fuels Reduction 
and Vegetation Management Project, Proposes to Reduce Fuel and Manage 
Vegetation, Funding, Goosenest Ranger District, Klamath National 
Forest, Siskiyou County, CA.

    Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

EIS No. 20090182, ERP No. F-USA-K11038-HI, Makua Military Reservation 
(MMR) Project, Proposed Military Training Activities, To Conduct the 
Necessary Type, Level, Duration, and Intensity of Live-Fire and other 
Military Training Activities, in Particular Company-Level Combined-
Arms, Live-Fire Exercises (CALFEX), 25th Infantry Division (Light) and 
U.S. Army, HI.

    Summary: EPA continues to have environmental concerns about the 
contamination of soil and water resources at Makua Military 
Reservation.

EIS No. 20090187, ERP No. F-CGD-A11083-00, PROGRAMMATIC--Future of the 
US Coast Guard Long Range Aids to Navigation (LORAN-C) Program, 
Implementation.

    Summary: EPA does not object to the proposed action.

    Dated: July 14, 2009.
Clifford Rader,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. E9-17090 Filed 7-16-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P