Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

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