[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 135 (Friday, July 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36278-36279]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-17342]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4724-9]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared June 05, 1995 Through June
09, 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-A65161-00 Rating EC2, Gypsy Moth Management in the
United States: A Cooperative Approach, Implementation, US.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential
habitat and water quality impacts and insufficient information to
predict project effects on nontarget species.
ERP No. D-AFS-G65062-NM Rating LO, Agua/Caballos Timber Sale,
Harvesting Timber and Managing Existing Vegetation, Implementation,
Carson National Forest, El Rito Ranger District, Taos County, NM.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed project. However,
EPA requests that additional information on cumulative impacts and
environmental justice be included in the final EIS.
ERP No. D-AFS-J65230-WY Rating EO2, Tie Hack Dam and Reservoir
Construction, Special-Use-Permit, NPDES and COE Section 404 Permits,
Bighorn National Forest, Buffalo Ranger District, City of Buffalo, WY.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed
alternative due to potential adverse impacts to wetlands. EPA suggests
that the final EIS explore additional alternatives of hydropower
production. EPA believes that the conservation alternative could show
greater water savings and would be more effective in meeting the
purpose and need than stated in the draft EIS.
ERP No. D-AFS-J65232-UT Rating LO, Brian Head Recovery Project,
Timber Harvest, Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Cadar City
Ranger District, Iron County, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed lack of objections to the proposed project.
ERP No. D-AFS-L65238-WA Rating EC2, Thunder Mountain Fire Recovery
and Salvage Project, Implementation, Okanogan National Forest, Tonasket
and Methow Valley Ranger Districts, Okanogan County, WA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the
existing conditions in the Chewuch River, Thirtymile Creek, Dog Creek,
Windy Creek and Smarty Creek within the proposed project area and
whether the proposed action will meet water quality standards.
ERP No. D-UAF-K11061-GU Rating EO2, Andersen Air Force Base (AFB)
Solid Waste Management Facility, Construction, Island of Guam, GU.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections because the DEIS
does not support statements regarding landfill location, unstable areas
and monitorability of the groundwater. EPA has requested additional
information including storm water permitting and air emissions.
ERP No. DS-DOE-L08050-WA Rating EC2, Puget Power Northwest
Washington Electric Transmission Project, Updated Information,
Construction and Operation, Whatcon and Skagit Counties, WA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns based on the
project's impact on water quality.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-AFS-J65224-MT, Running Wolf Timber Sales, Implementation,
Lewis and Clark National Forest, Judith Ranger District, Stanford,
Judith Basin County, MT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding water
quality impacts, the adequacy of the water quality monitoring program
and believes additional information is needed to fully assess all
potential impacts of the proposed action.
ERP No. F-FHW-D40238-MD, US 29 Improvements, Sligo Creek Parkway to
the Patuxent River Bridge, Funding and COE Section 404 Permit Issuance,
Montgomery County, MD.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding the mass
transit HOV options and the use of old traffic data.
ERP No. F-FHW-E40742-NC, I-85 Greensboro Bypass Study Area
Transportation Improvement, I-85 South of Greensboro to I-40/85 east of
Greensboro, Funding, Possible COE Section 404 Permit, City of
Greensboro, Guilford County, NC.
Summary: EPA continued to believe that the Grand/85 alternative
would be the most environmental sound build alternative for meeting the
project's
[[Page 36279]]
transportation objective. Although we still have concerns, instituting
the identified environmental controls for construction and long term
operation would make the proposed project acceptable.
Dated: July 11, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NCD Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-17342 Filed 7-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U
