Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5484-7]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared August 25, 1997 through

August 29, 1997 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 11, 1997 (62

FR 16154).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-FRC-E02006-MS Rating EC2, Destin Natural Gas Pipeline

Project, Construction and Operation, Six Major Interstate Pipelines in

the Gulf of Mexico, Southern Natural Gas, COE Section 10 and 404

Permits, Right-of-Way and Special-Use Permits.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns over the loss of forested wetlands,

the need for numerous water body crossings, the need to address

potential environmental justice concerns, and the need for

documentation of annual nitrogen oxide emissions of the proposed new

compressors.

ERP No. D-MMS-E02009-00 Rating EC2, Central Planning Area, Gulf of

Mexico Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales 169, 172, 175,

178 and 182, Lease Offering, Offshore Marine Environment and Coastal

Counties/Parishes of AL, MS, LA and TX.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns regarding inadequate protection of

benthic marine habitats and MMS allowing pipeline projects to be

reviewed independent of production projects. EPA preferrers the

Alternative B.

ERP No. DS-COE-K67020-CA Rating EO2, Syar Mining Operation and

Reclamation Plan, Six Sites Selected along the Russian River, New and

Updated Information, Construction, Mining-Use-Permit and COE Section

404 Permit, City of Healdsburg, Sonoma County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections with the proposed

Project because it appears to be the alternative which is most damaging

to the aquatic environment, especially in terms of adverse impacts to

riffle-pool complexes and anadromous fisheries, including Federally-

listed

[[Page 50609]]

species. EPA was also concerned that the SDEIS did not propose

mitigation for direct and indirect impacts to Section 404 regulated

resources, including wetlands and riffle-pool complexes, over the life

of the project.

ERP No. DS-NOA-K90025-CA Rating LO, Monterey Bay National Marine

Sanctuary Management Plan, Updated Information, To Amend the

Designation Document and Regulations to Allow Jade Collecting in the

Sanctuary, San Mateo, Santa Cruz and Monterey Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA had no objection to the action as proposed.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-COE-E30037-FL, Brevard County Shore Protection Study,

Implementation, Beach Restoration Project, Brevard County, FL.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns that given the

magnitude of the coastal erosion rates in Brevard County, it is unclear

whether the proposed project would have long-term benefits despite the

adverse environmental impacts to the nearshore environment.

ERP No. F-COE-E30038-FL, Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects

Study Region III, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Shore

Protection Project, Palm Beach, Broward and Dade Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA had no additional comments regarding the Final EIS.

ERP No. F-FAA-E51044-NC, Initial Development of the North Carolina

Global TransPark (NCGTP) Complex, Implementation, Airport Layout Plan

Approval, COE Section 404 Permit, Kinston, Lenoir County, NC.

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

environmental concerns adequately. A wetland mitigation proposal was

not finalized, as had been requested.

ERP No. F-FHW-C40135-NY, I-287 Cross Westchester Expressway (CWE)

Transportation Improvements, New York State Thruway Route 303 to Route

120, Funding, Right-of-Way Acquisition, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,

Rockland and Westchester Counties, NY.

Summary: EPA had concluded that the proposed project would not

result in significant adverse environmental impacts and had no

objections to its implementation.

ERP No. F-FHW-K40197-CA, East Sonora Bypass Corridor Construction,

CA-108 from Post Mile M1.8 to Post Mile R6.9 near Sonora, Funding and

Right-of-Way, City of Sonora, Tuolumne 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-NPS-L61213-00, Nez Perce National Historical Park and Big

Hole National Battlefield General Management Plan, Implementation,

Asotin and Okanogan Counties, WA; Wallowa County, OR; Idaho, Lewis, Nez

Perce, Clearwater and Clank Counties, ID; and Blaine, Yellowstone and

Beaverhead Counties, MT.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-SCS-G36146-OK, Middle Deep Red Run Creek Watershed Plan,

Implementation, Funding and Possible COE Section 404 Permit, Central

Rolling Red Plains, Tillman, Comanche and Kiowa Counties, OK.

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

found to be satisfactory. No formal comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

ERP No. F-UAF-G11032-TX, Reese Air Force Base (AFB) Disposal and

Reuse, Implementation, NPDES Permit and COE Section 404 Permit, Lubbock

and Terry Counties, TX.

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

found to be satisfactory. No formal comment letter was sent to the

preparing agency.

Dated: September 23, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal

Activities.

[FR Doc. 97-25639 Filed 9-25-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U