Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Federal RegisterSep 2, 1994

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-4714-9]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared August 15, 1994 Through

August 19, 1994 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 8, 1994 (59 FR

16807).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-AFS-G65059-NM Rating EC2, Santa Fe Ski Area Master

Development Plan, Upgrading and Expansion, Special-Use-Permit, Sante Fe

National Forest, Espanola Ranger District, Santa Fe County, NM.

Summary: EPA requested additional information to: (1) Determine the

potential of the citizens' alternative in meeting the objectives of the

Santa Fe Ski Area Master Development Plan, (2) evaluate impacts from

year-round use of the Ski Area, (3) describe alpine wetland resources,

and (4) consideration of additional mitigation measures.

ERP No. D-COE-G30013-LA Rating EC2, West Bank of the Mississippi River

Hurricane Protection Plan, Implementation, east of the Harvey Canal,

New Orleans, LA.

Summary: EPA requested that additional information and analysis be

provided in the Final EIS on the following areas: (1) secondary and

cumulative effects, (2) description of remaining natural resources

within the project area, and (3) the basis for using preservation as

mitigation for impacts to bottomland hardwoods and cypress swamps.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-L65224-OR, Newberry Geothermal Pilot Project,

Construction and Operation of a 33-megawatt Power Plant, Approvals,

Deschutes National Forest, Fort Rock Ranger District, Deschutes County,

OR.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS has been completed and the project

found to be satisfactory.

ERP No. F-DOE-L03007-OR, Hermiston Generating Project, Construction of

a Gas-fired Cogeneration Power Plant, Approval of Permits, Umatilla

County, OR.

Summary: The final EIS addressed EPA's concerns with this project.

ERP No. F-DOE-L08051-OR, Coyote Springs Cogeneration Project, General

Transmission Agreement Revision for Construction and Operations of the

Coyote Springs Interconnection, Implementation and COE Permits, Morrow

County, OR.

Summary: EPA had environmental concerns based on potential

significant cumulative CO2 emissions from coal and cogeneration

plants within the project area and because no further analysis was

provided of other possible gas pipeline alternatives that were

considered but dropped from further consideration.

ERP No. F-UAF-G11024-TX, Carswell Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal and

Reuse, Implementation, Tarrant County, TX.

Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed project.

Dated: August 30, 1994.

Richard E. Sanderson,

Director, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 94-21782 Filed 9-1-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments | Frix