Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5485-4]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared September 15, 1997 through

September 20, 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-AFS-J65276-CO Rating EC2, Dome Peak Timber Sale, Timber

Harvesting and Road Construction, White River National Forest, Eagle

Ranger District, Glenwood Spring, Eagle and Garfield Counties, CO.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerned about potential

sedimentation and water quality impacts. EPA requested data clarifying

potential for impacts and information related to helicopter yarding and

wildlife impacts.

ERP No. D-AFS-K65272-CA Rating EC2, Chico Genetic Resource Center

for Pest Management Program, Implementation, Mendocino National Forest,

Willow, Butte County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern about data gaps in the

DEIS's analysis of water quality impacts.

ERP No. D-AFS-K65273-AZ Rating LO, Grand Canyon/Tusayan Growth Area

Improvements, General Management Plan (GMP), Special-Use-Permit,

Approvals and Licenses Issuance, Coconino County, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of objections and commended the

Forest Service for its excellent analysis of issues related to the

expansion of lodging and related services.

ERP No. D-BLM-K67045-NV Rating EC2, Florida Canyon Mine Expansion

Project and Comprehensive Reclamation Plan, Construction and Operation

of New Facilities and Expansion of Existing Gold Mining Operations in

Imlay Mining District, Plan-of-Operation Approval and Right-of-Way

Permit Issuance, Pershing County, NV.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns because the Proposed

Alternative would disturb 143

[[Page 54107]]

acres more than another alternative assessed in the DEIS, and the DEIS

did not clearly indicate which action alternative is the least

environmentally damaging to aquatic resources under Clean Water Act

Section 404. EPA also expressed concerns regarding how the site was

geochemically characterized and offered recommendations for facility

design and additional monitoring.

ERP No. D-DOA-G31002-TX Rating LO, Bexar-Medina-Atascosa Counties

Water Conservation Plan, Renovation and Installation, Funding, Medina

Lake, Bexar, Medina and Atascosa Counties, TX.

Sumary: EPA had no objection to the selection of the lead agency's

preferred alternative as described in the draft EIS.

ERP No. D-DOE-C06013-NY Rating LO, Disposal of the Defueled S3G and

D1G Prototype Reactor Plants, Implementation, Located at the Knolls

Atomic Power Laboratory Kesselring Site near West Milton, Saratoga

County, NY.

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

ERP No. D-IBR-K28018-CA Rating EC2, Central Valley Project,

Municipal and Industrial Water Supply Contracts, Sacramento County

Water Agency and San Juan Water District, City of Folsom, Sacramento

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the identified

additional adverse cumulative impacts of the proposed new water supply

diversions, and urged selection of diversion points on the Sacramento

River below the confluence with the American River or as far downstream

on the American River as feasible.

EPA expressed support for water conservation, water pricing

strategies, water reclamation, conjunctive use, and other demand

reduction measures as means to achieving additional water supply. EPA

suggested a more aggressive water conservation approach as part of the

proposed action, integration of other demand reduction measures, and

continued pursuit of conservation alternatives (e.g. metering, water

reclamation), whether or not new contract water is provided.

ERP No. D-ICC-G53007-LA Rating EC2, Kansas City Southern Railway

(KCS) Construction and Operation to Connect the Geismar Industrial Area

to KCS' Mainline near Sorrento, Construction Exemption Approval,

Ascension Parish, LA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns for the lead agency's

preferred alternative and requests additional information,

environmental justice alternatives analysis, and cumulative impacts

assessment.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-FHW-E40759-AL Birmingham Northern Beltline Project,

Construction, I-59/20 west to I-59 northeast in the City of Birmingham,

Funding and Possible COE Section 404 Permit, Jefferson County, AL.

Summary: EPA's review revealed that all alternatives will have

major impacts on environmental resources in the highway corridor. EPA

recommends that the shortest alternative, ``D'', be reconsidered with

modification.

ERP No. F-FHW-J40212-CO CO-82 Highway Transportation Project,

Improvements to ``Entrance to Aspen'', Funding and COE Section 404

Permit, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO.

Summary: EPA's review has not identified any potential

environmental impacts requiring substantive changes to the Preferred

Alternative.

ERP No. F-FTA-C40137-NY Wassaic Extension Project, Expand Metro-

North, Funding and Right-of-Way, Dutchess and Litchfield Counties, NY.

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

significant adverse environmental impacts, and therefore, has no

objections to its implementation.

Dated: October 14, 1997.

B. Katherine Biggs,

Associate Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal

Activities.

[FR Doc. 97-27628 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U