[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 135 (Friday, July 12, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36725-36726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17797]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5471-3]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared June 24, 1996 Through June
28, 1996 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 05, 1996 (61
FR 15251).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-APH-A99207-00 Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Veterinary
Services (VS) Programs, Implementation, to Detect, Prevent, Control,
and Eradicate Domestic and Foreign Animal Diseases and Pests, All 50
States and the United States Territories.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the program
regarding contamination of ground water from carcass disposal and
issues concerning pesticide use. EPA suggested that the final EIS
include additional alternatives and assessment of their impacts,
consideration of mitigation of chemical use, applicator training
requirements, and several changes to inaccuracies pertaining to
pesticide use.
ERP No. D-COE-F35042-IN Rating EC2, Indiana Harbor and Canal
Dredging and Confined Disposal Facility, Construction and Operation,
Comprehensive Management Plan, East Chicago, Lake County, ID.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding dredging
depth impacts to water quality, cumulative impacts, and TSCA and RCRA
issues. EPA requested that additional information be provided in the
final EIS to address these issues.
ERP No. FRC-L05216-WA Rating EU3, Cushman Hydroelectric Project
(FERC No. 460), Relicensing, North Fork Skokomish River, Mason County,
WA.
Summary: EPA's review concluded that the proposed alternative is
environmentally unsatisfactory. In addition, EPA has significant
concerns regarding the adequacy of the draft EIS. In particular, the
draft EIS does not (1) provide a comprehensive analysis of cumulative
impacts; (2) appropriately characterize the no-action alternative; (3)
assess impacts on Tribal Trust/ Treaty resources; (4) give equal
consideration to power and nonpar values when assessing project
``benefits''; and (5) provide sufficient information and support
conclusions regarding alternatives and mitigation measures, especially
with regard to restoration of more natural flows to the North Fork
Skokomish River. EPA noted that if this proposal is carried forward to
the final EIS without correcting unacceptable impacts, it will be a
candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality.
ERP No. D-IBR-K39043-CA Rating EU3, American River Water Resources
Investigation, Implementation, Placer, Suter, EL Dorado, Sacramento and
San Joaquin Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA's review concluded that one of the alternatives, the
proposed Auburn Dam on the American River, is environmentally
unsatisfactory. EPA noted that if this proposal is carried forward to
the Final EIS without correcting unacceptable impacts, it will be a
candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality. EPA
urged the Bureau of Reclamation and other program sponsors to pursue
development of a non-Auburn Dam alternative which modifies elements of
the Conjunctive Use alternative to guarantee adequate instream flows
and Bay/Delta outflow.
ERP No. D-USN-A11073-00 Rating EC2, United States Navy Shipboard
Solid Waste Disposal, Implementation, MARPOL Special Areas: Designated
Baltic Sea, North Sea, Wilder Caribbean, Antarctic Ocean, Mediterranean
Sea, Black Sea and Red Sea, Gulfs Region: Persian Gulf and Gulf of
Oman.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns for additional
measures to protect special resources (e.g., coral reefs) and to ensure
that future designs of ships provide for storage space for wastes; EPA
also requested additional impacts analysis and clarification regarding
planned actions in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and Antarctic Waters.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-COE-E30036-MS Coldwater River Watershed Demonstration
Erosion Control Project, Flood and Sediment Control Measures,
Implementation, Yazoo Basin, Marshall, Benton and Tate Counties, MS.
Summary: EPA had no significant environmental objections with
implementation of the proposed flood control measures. No formal
comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
[[Page 36726]]
ERP No. FS-COE-K32028-CA Richmond Harbor Deep Draft Navigation
Improvements, Updated and Additional Information to Improve Navigation
Efficiency into the Potrero, San Francisco Bay, Contra Costa County,
CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the Corps'
failure to select an alternative with a greater degree of beneficial
use, in line with the goals of the Long Term Management Strategy for
San Francisco Bay dredged material disposal. EPA also expressed a need
for monitoring and appropriate mitigation of impacts to eelgrass beds
and shallow subtidal habitat.
Dated: July 9, 1996.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 96-17797 Filed 7-11-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
