Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Federal RegisterJul 24, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5494-1]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared July 6, 1998 Through July 10,

1998 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)

564-5076. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental

impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1998 (63

FR 17856).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-FRC-J05078-MT Rating EO2, Missouri-Madison Hydroelectric

(FERC No. 2188) Project, Issuing a New licence (Relicense) for Nine

Dams and Associated Facilities, MT.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections regarding FERC's

rejection of Section 10 (j) recommendations; inadequacies in the

analysis of thermal issues; the potential for impairment to the

beneficial uses; and the rejection of some State Clean Water Act 401

conditions. EPA believes FERC should ensure license conditions that

require hydropower operations be done in the best practicable manner to

minimize harm to beneficial uses. License conditions also need to

incorporate thermal success criteria and appropriate language to reopen

the license if success criteria are not adequately attained by proposed

mitigation. EPA believes additional information is needed to fully

assess and mitigate all potential impacts of the management actions.

ERP No. D-IBR-J28020-UT Rating EO2, Narrows Dam and Reservoir

Project, Construction of Supplemental Water Supply for Agricultural and

Municipal Water Use, Gooseberry Creek, Sanpete and Carbon Counties, UT.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed

project, and stated that it believes additional, less damaging

alternatives are available which would reduce the project related

impacts. EPA requested additional detail on mitigation, project

impacts, and alternatives.

ERP No. D-IBR-K39045-CA Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Central

Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 Implementation, Central

Valley, Trinity, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Benito

Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed strong support for the overall intent of

CVPIA implementation; alternatives which provide a strong two-pronged

commitment to ecosystem restoration and flexible, efficient use of

developed water supplies; and use of CVPIA tools to provide efficient

management of existing, developed water supplies. EPA requested

additional information and explanation on the range of implementation,

relationship between PEIS and subsequent rules and regulations, and to

the relationship of the PEIS to interim implementation programs and the

``Garamendi process''

ERP No. DR-DOI-K40222-TT Rating EO2, Palau Compact Road

Construction, Revision to Major Transportation and Communication Link

on the Island of Babeldaob, Implementation, Funding, Republic of Palau,

Babeldaob Island, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections because the RDEIS

did not provide sufficient documentation that all practicable means

have been undertaken by the Corps and the Republic of Palau to avoid

and minimize adverse impacts associated with placing dredged or fill

material in wetlands and other aquatic resources protected under CWA

Section 404.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-L65285-AK, Chasina Timber Sale, Harvesting Timber and

Road Construction, Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District,

Ketchikan Administrative Area, AK.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-AFS-L65300-AK, Canal Hoya Timber Sale, Implementation,

Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest, Value Comparison Unit (VCU), AK.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

Dated: July 21, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98-19884 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.