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, 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.