[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 231 (Friday, December 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61697-61698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29335]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5230-9]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared November 13, 1995 Through
November 17, 1995 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) 260-5076.
An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 1995 (60
FR 19047).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-AFS-D61044-PA Rating LO, Allegheny National Wild and
Scenic River Management Plan, Implementation, Allegheny National
Forest, Venango, Warren and Forest Counties, PA.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed lack of objections to the Allegheny Wild and
Scenic River Management Plan Draft EIS.
ERP No. D-AFS-J65242-MT Rating EC2, Checkerboard Land Exchange,
Plan of Approval and Implementation, Kootenai, Lolo and Flathead
National Forests, Lincoln, Flathead and Sanders Counties, MT.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
adverse impacts to water quality and fisheries. EPA believed that
specific modifications and mitigations to protect watersheds, water
quality and fisheries should be presented in the FEIS which would
demonstrate compliance with Montana's Water Quality Standards and
Nondegradation Policy.
ERP No. D-AFS-K67031-NV Rating EO2, Dash Open Pit and Underground
Mining Project, Implementation, Expanding existing Gold Mining
Operations at the Jerritt Canyon Project, Plan of Operation Approval
and COE Section 404 Permit, Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest,
Independence Mountain Range, Elko County, NV.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed
project's potential impacts to water quality from design and placement
of waste rock dumps in drainages. The FEIS should address impacts to
water quality, waste rock handling, waste rock dump design, mitigation
measures, baseline water quality, alternatives to the proposed project,
air quality impacts and cumulative impacts.
ERP No. D-BLM-J02009-00 Rating EC2, Express Crude Oil Pipeline
Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Issuance of Right-of-
Way Grant, Hill, Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Wheatland, Golden
Valley, Stillwater and Carbon Counties, MT and Bighorn, Washakies, Hot
Springs, Freemont and Watrona Counties, WY.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the
proposed pipeline crossings of rivers, streams and wetlands, and asked
that additional information on the proposed leak detection systems and
emergency spill response plans be provided. EPA requested that the
final EIS include additional resource information to fully assess and
mitigate environmental impacts.
ERP No. D-BLM-K67020-AZ Rating EO2, Cyprus Bagdad Copper Mine, Mill
Tailings and Waste Rock Storage Expansion, Plan of Operation Approval,
[[Page 61698]]
NPDES and COE Section 404 Permits Issuance, Yavapai County, AZ.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental objections based on the
projects potential impacts to water quality and need for additional
information in the final EIS on surface water, groundwater,
geochemistry, monitoring, alternatives to the proposed action, facility
design and hazardous materials management.
ERP No. D-FHW-E40762-AL Rating EC2, Montgomery Outer Loop
Construction, US 80 southwest of Montgomery to I-85 east of Montgomery,
Funding and COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Montgomery County, AL.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns with all the proposed
alternatives due to potential impacts to wetland and upland forest
resources and the lack of detail contained in the proposed mitigation
plan. EPA requested that additional information on these issues be
provided in the final document.
ERP No. D-FHW-J40212-CO Rating LO, CO-82 Highway Transportation
Project, Improvements to ``Entrance to Aspen'', Funding and COE Section
404 Permit, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO.
SUMMARY: EPA expressed lack of objections to the proposed action.
ERP No. D-FHW-K40214-CA Rating EC2, Alternatives to Replacement of
the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal Separator Structure, (Formerly
CA-480) Implementation, Permit Approvals and Funding, San Francisco
County, CA.
SUMMARY: EPA raised environmental concerns over the cumulative
impacts of the project, since there are several transportation
development projects in the area, as well as environmental concerns
with runoff, erosion and hazardous materials found in the soils at the
project site.
ERP No. D-FRC-J05076-MT Rating LO, Kerr Hydroelectric Project (FERC
No. 5-021), License Modification Issuance to Existing License, Flathead
River, Flathead and Lake Counties, MT.
Summary: While EPA had no objection to the proposed action it did
recommend that some clarification on shore stabilization and water
flows be provided in the final EIS.
ERP No. D-NPS-G61035-NM Rating LO, Petroglyph National Monument,
General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan, Implementation,
Bernalillo County, NM.
Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed action described in
the DEIS.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-AFS-J65222-ND, Southern Little Missouri and Cedar River
Oil and Gas Leasing, Approvals, Custer National Forest, Medora Ranger
District, Cedar River National Grassland, Grant River Ranger District,
Billings, Golden Valley, Slope, Grant and Sioux Counties, ND.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about project impacts
to air and water resources. EPA recommended a Conditions of Approval
section be included in the document to describe development subsurface
requirements for protecting water resources. EPA suggested that
screening models be run with emissions calculated for the EIS, to
evaluate potential impacts to air quality and visibility.
ERP No. F-AFS-J65228-UT, Jacob/Swale Vegetation Management Project,
Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Escalante Ranger District,
Garfield County, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns over wildlife habitat
and potential adverse impacts from road management practices to elk and
deer and the Northern Goshawk.
ERP No. F-BLM-J03022-WY, Greater Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas
Development Project, Approvals and Permits Issuance, Carbon and
Sweetwater Counties, WY.
Summary: EPA continued to express environmental concerns about
cumulative effects of the anticipated intensive development through out
southwest Wyoming.
ERP No. F-BOP-G81008-LA, Pollock US Penitentiary and Federal Prison
Camp (FPC), Construction and Operation and Site Selection of a former
World War II Military Installation, Grant Parish, LA.
Summary: EPA's previous environmental concerns have been addressed,
therefore EPA has no objection to the proposed action.
ERP No. F-FAA-C51013-NJ, Expanded East Coast Plan, Changes in
Aircraft Flight Patterns over the State of New Jersey, Implementation,
NJ.
Summary: EPA believed that the proposed project, including the
Solberg Mitigation Proposal, will not result in significant adverse
environmental impacts; therefore, EPA has no objection to its
implementation.
ERP No. F-FHW-E40728-AL, I-59/I-759 Interchange to US 11 and US
431/US 278, Construction, Funding, Etowah County, AL.
Summary: EPA's review found that the proposed alternative would
have no major impacts on the natural environment provided Best
Management Practices and mitigation are utilized.
ERP No. F-GSA-K80036-CA, Fresno--United States Courthouse, Site
Selection and Construction, City of Fresno, Fresno County, CA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-NOA-C91002-PR, U. S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico
Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management
Plan, Implementation and NPDES Permit, PR and VI.
Summary: EPA believed that the proposed project will not result in
significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore, EPA had no
objection to its implementation.
Regulations
ERP No. R-NRC-A06177-00, 10 CFR Parts 60, 72, 73 and 75--Safeguards
for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste RIN-3150-AF32.
Summary: EPA had no comments to the proposed rule.
Dated: November 28, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-29335 Filed 11-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
