Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5415-5]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared March 25, 1996 through March

29, 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-AFS-K61139-CA Trinity Alps Wilderness Plan,

Implementation, Shasta-Trinity National Forest, Klamath National Forest

and Six Rivers National Forest, Humboldt, Siskiyou and Trinity

Counties, CA.

Summary: Due to the federal furlough of December 18, 1995 through

January 5, 1996, the Environmental Protection Agency did not review the

EIS.

ERP No. D-DOE-G09801-NM Rating LO, Medical Isotopes Production

Project (MIPP), Establish and Produce a Continuous Supply of

Molybdenum-99 and Related Isotopes, Bernalillo County, NM.

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

alternative.

ERP No. D-FHW-E40355-FL Rating EC2, Miami Intermodal Center (MIC),

Construction, Bounded by FL-112 on the north, FL-836 on the south,

Miami International Airport landside terminal NW 27th Avenue on the

east, along FL-836 that extends West to NW 57th Avenue, Dade County,

FL.

Summary: EPA's review found that the document adequately addressed

most projected impacts the human environment. Additional information

was requested on the air quality analysis and mitigation of impacts.

ERP No. D-FHW-E40766-TN Rating EO2, TN 840 North from I-40 East

near Lebanon in Wilson County to I-40 West in Dickson County,

Construction, COE Section 404 and CGD Permits, Wilson, Dickson, Sumner,

Robertson, Montgomery and Cheatham Counties, TN.

Summary: EPA's review found that the proposed project could have

significant direct and induced impacts of forest and water resources.

Specific information for potential mitigation of impacts is lacking and

should be included in the final EIS.

ERP No. DS-FHW-D40242-VA Rating EU2, Southeastern Expressway

Improvements, I-464/I-64 to VA-44 (Norfolk-Virginia Beach Expressway),

Updated Information concerning Alternatives Under Consideration,

Funding , COE Section 10 and 40 Permits and US Coast Guard Bridge

Permit, Cities of Chesapeake and Virginia Beach, York and James City

Co., VA.

Summary: EPA finds the potential significant impacts of the

candidate build alternatives to wetland (319-406 acres) and important

terrestrail (300-400 acres) habitats unsatisfactory. Additionally, the

inability of the project to meet its stated purpose and need (primarily

to relieve traffic congestion); its failure to meet a project

commitment of implementation of a true multi-modal transportation

project; and potential impacts on the Federally threatened Dismal Swamp

shrew are unsatisfactory. The document also failed to commit to a

mitigation plan which would adequately compensate for direct and

indirect project impacts.

ERP No. DS-FTA-C51014-NJ Rating LO, Hudson River Waterfront

Transportation Corridor Improvements, (officially now referred to as

Hudson-Bergen Light Rail Transit System), Funding, Jersey City, Hudson

and Bergen Counties, NJ.

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

significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore, EPA had no

objection to its implementation.

ERP No. D1-FTA-C51014-NJ Rating EC2, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail

Transit System, Bayonne Extension, Improvements, Funding, Hudson and

Bergen Counties, NJ.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding potential

impacts to wetlands and water quality. Accordingly, EPA has requested

that additional information be provided in the final EIS to address

these issues.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-A65161-00 Gypsy Moth Management in the United States:

A Cooperative Approach, Implementation, US.

Summary: EPA had no objections to the preferred alternative as

described in the final EIS.

ERP No. F-AFS-K65164-00 Southwestern Region Amendment of Forest

Plans, Implementation, Standard and Guidelines for Northern Goshawk and

Mexican Spotted Owl, AZ and NM.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-BOP-C81015-NY New York Federal Detention Center,

Construction and Operation, Possible Site Selection, Alboin Site and

Batavia Site, NY.

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

significant adverse environmental

[[Page 16250]]

impacts, therefore, EPA had no objection to its implementation.

ERP No. F-FTA-C40133-PR Tren Urbano Transit Project, Improvement,

San Juan Metropolitan Area, Funding, NPDES Permit, US Coast Guard

Bridge Permit and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, PR.

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

significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore, EPA had no

objection to its implementation.

Dated: April 9, 1996.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 96-9161 Filed 4-11-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P