[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 19 (Friday, January 29, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4647-4648]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-2210]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5499-4]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared January 11, 1999 Through
January 15, 1999 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.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1998 (62
FR 17856).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-AFS-J65287-UT Rating LO, South Spruce Ecosystem
Rehabilitation Project, Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Cedar
City Ranger District, Iron and Kane Counties, UT.
Summary: EPA review has not identified any potential environmental
impacts which require substantive changes to the proposal.
ERP No. D-AFS-J65289-UT Rating EC2, Pine Tract Project,
Implementation, Coal Lease Tract (UTU-76195); Modification to Federal
Coal Lease (U-63214 Quitchupah Lease) and Permit Amendment Application
to Subside Box Canyon, Manti-La Sal National Forest, Ferron/Price
Ranger District, Emery and Sevier Counties, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the narrow
scope, air quality analysis, coal/methane conflicts and impacts from
transportation of coal. EPA requested further information on cumulative
impacts.
ERP No. D-AFS-K61145-CA Rating EC2, Ansel Adams, John Muir, Dinkey
Lakes and Monarch Wildernesses, Proposed New Management Direction,
Amending the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Inyo, Sierra
and Sequoia National Forests, Implementation, Inyo, Madera, Mono and
Fresno Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding proposed
management direction for four Wilderness Areas, and particularly noted
the lack of analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts
associated with cattle and sheep grazing. Some comments were held
pending the release of a revised NEPA document to address issues
related to recreational stock and commercial
[[Page 4648]]
outfitters that emerged during the public comment period.
ERP No. D-AFS-L65309-ID Rating EC2, Spruce Moose and Moose Lake
Right-of-Way Analysis Area, Implementation, Timber Harvesting, Road
Construction, Reforestation and Watershed Restoration, Clearwater
National Forest, Lochsa Ranger District, Idaho County, ID.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns on the continued
cutting of Old Growth forest, and the potential for contributing
additional sediment to streams that are currently degraded by sediment.
The DEIS does not disclose adequate information concerning water
quality, status of stream listings under CWA Section 303(d), and
cumulative effects.
ERP No. DR-AFS-L65261-AK Rating EC2, Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw
Timber Harvest Sale Project, Implementation, Revision to Tongass
National Forest Land Management Plan, Tongass National Forest, Chatham
and Stikine Area, South of Juneau, AK.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to the
potential adverse impact of the project on the marine environment.
ERP No. DS-AFS-K65193-NV Rating EO2, Griffon Mining Project,
Implementation, Updated Information, Revision for Expanding Gold
Mining, Plan of Operations, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, Ely
Ranger District, White Pine County, NV.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections based on the
potential for significant environmental degradation of the project-
affected watershed. EPA requested additional information in the Final
Supplement (EIS) regarding water quality impacts, mitigation/monitoring
measures, and waste rock characterization of material from the proposed
mine expansion and whether the project impacts were consistent with the
Clean Water Act and applicable permit conditions. Mitigation
recommendations were provided.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-AFS-J65281-UT, Spruce Ecosystem Recovery Project,
Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Cedar City Ranger District, Iron
County, UT.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-BLM-K65275-CA, Fourmile Hill Geothermal Development
Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, 49.9 megawatt (MW)
Geothermal Power Plant, Federal Geothermal Leases CA-21924 and CA-
21926, Glass Mountain Known Geothermal Resource Area, Klamath and Modoc
National Forests, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA continued to express environmental objections based on
potential adverse impacts to water resources. These impacts would
likely be less than significant, assuming proper implementation of
mitigation, monitoring and contingency plans. EPA also acknowledged the
strong public opposition to the proposed project, and questioned the
need for the project at this time, based on information provided in the
Final EIS by the lead agencies, and the agencies' obligations under
NEPA to balance environmental amenities and values with economic and
technical consideration in decision making.
ERP No. F-NPS-L61217-OR, Oregon Caves National Monument, General
Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Josephine County, OR.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-NPS-L65277-WA, Lake Crescent Management Plan,
Implementation, Olympic National Park, WA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: January 26, 1999.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associated Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal
Activities.
[FR Doc. 99-2210 Filed 1-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
