Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5474-1]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared September 30, 1996 Through

[[Page 54438]]

October 4, 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

5, 1996 (61 FR 15251).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-FHW-C40138-NY Rating LO, NY-17 Highway Conversion from a

Partial to a Full Access Control Facility, Five-Mile Point to Occanum

and NY-17 Rehabilitation or Reconstruction, Funding and COE Section 404

Permit Issuance, Towns of Kirkwood and Windsor, Broome County, NY.

Summary: EPA believed that the proposed project will not result in

significant adverse environmental impacts. EPA had no objection to its

implementation.

ERP No. D-GSA-C81017-NY Rating EC2, US Brooklyn Court Project,

Demolition of the Emanuel Celler Federal Building, Construction of a

New Courthouse and Renovation/Adaptive Reuse of the General Post Office

at Cadman Plaza East, Kings County, NY.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the project's

potential impacts to air quality and lead and asbestos abatement

activities. Additional information is requested in the final EIS to

address these concerns.

ERP No. D-MMS-E02008-00 Rating LO, Central and Western Planing

Areas, Gulf of Mexico 1997 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Sales

166 (March 1997) and 168 (August 1997) Lease Offering, Offshore Marine

Environment and coastal counties, Parishes of AL, MS, TX and LA.

Summary: EPA had no objections to the selection of the preferred

alternative; however, we would ask that MMS provide commitment in the

Record of Decision to incorporate mitigation stipulations on live

bottom, topographic features, archaeological resources, and military

areas.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-FHW-E40256-AL Southern Bypass and Weatherly Road

Extension Project, Hobbs Island Road to I-565 Interchange, Funding and

COE Section 404 Permit, City of Huntsville, Madison County, AL.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding the impact

to wetlands. EPA requested that coordination continues as the

mitigation plan is finalized.

ERP No. F-FHW-E40762-AL 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 about the loss of

wetland and forest resources. EPA requested that coordination continue

as the mitigation plan is finalized.

ERP No. F-FHW-G40141-OK Canadian River Bridge Crossing

Construction, OK-37 east of Tuttle northward to OK-152 in or near

Mustang, Funding, COE Section 404 and EPA NPDES Permits Issuance,

Canadian and Grady Counties, OK.

Summary: EPA had no objection to the selection of the preferred

plan of action and has no other comment to offer.

ERP No. F-NPS-K65180-CA Lava Beds National Monument, General

Management Plan, Implementation, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, CA.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-USN-A11073-00 United States Navy Shipboard Solid Waste

Disposal, Implementation, MARPOL Special Areas: Designation 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 continued to have environmental concerns with allowing

waste disposal in the Antarctic Ocean in view of the Protocol on

Environmental Protection to the Antarctic Treaty, recently ratified by

the United States. EPA also questioned allowing disposal in the Baltic

and North Seas, urged the Navy to restrict discharges near sensitive

ecosystems and recommend research designed to assure full Navy

compliance with MARPOL Annex V.

ERP No. F-USN-K11069-CA Port Hueneme Naval Civil Engineering

Laboratory (NCEL) Disposal and Reuse, Implementation, Ventura County,

CA.

Summary: The Final EIS responds to our concerns, which involved air

quality and NEPA issues, therefore EPA had no objection to the proposed

action.

Dated: October 15, 1996.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 96-26820 Filed 10-17-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U