Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Federal RegisterJan 30, 1998

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5488-5]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared January 12, 1998 Through

January 16, 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) 564-7167.

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-BLM-K65275-CA Rating EO2, Fourmile Hill Geothermal

Development Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, 49.9

megawatt (MW) Geothermal Power Plant, Federal Geothermal Leases CA-

21924 and CA-21926, Glass Mountain Known Geothermal Resource Area,

Klamath and Modoc National Forests, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA has expressed objections to the significance of

potential environmental impacts to the freshwater system and indicated

that insufficient data was provided regarding the applied conceptual

hydrogeologic model. EPA also expressed objection because the proposed

action could establish a precedent for future action with significant

effects. EPA also recommended that a second proposed project be

included in the same EIS because it is a similiar action. ERP No. D-

USA-B11022-MA Rating EU3, Massachusetts Military Reservation Facilities

Upgrade, Implementation, 10 Projects, Towns of Bourne, Sandwich,

Falmouth and Mashpee, Barnstable County, MA.

Summaey: EPA deemed the draft EIS inadequate because it lacked

essential information relating to the environmental impacts of past,

current and future training activities at the training range and impact

area at the military reservation. EPA commented that the most critical

deficiency of the DEIS was its failure to address adequately the

contamination of Cape Cod's sole source aquifer as the result of past

military operations and the potential for future contamination from

current and proposed training activities. EPA called for the

substantial revision and reissuance of the DEIS as a SEIS in order to

provide a basis for understanding the baseline environmental conditions

and potential impacts of the expansion of the training ranges.

ERP No. DS-FHW-B40071-CT Rating EC2, I-95 at New Haven Harbor

Crossing (Quinnipac River Bridge) Updated Information for Seven

Alternatives on (Q-Bridge) Study, Funding, COE Section 404 Permit, U.S.

Coast Guard Bridge Permit, New Haven, East Haven, Branford, Madison and

Clinton, CT.

Summary: EPA commented that additional information with regard to

wetland and air quality impacts should be provided to fully evaluate

the environmental acceptability of various alternatives. EPA also

indicated that it is crucial for the final EIS to demonstrate that

funding can and will be secured for the transit features of the

project. Additionally, EPA asked CTDOT/FHWA to demonstrate the

affirmative and effective steps to assure that TSM and transit

incentive components will be implementated for the project.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-L65267-AK Helicopter Landings within Wilderness,

Implementation, Tongass National Forest, Chatham, Stikine and Ketchikan

Area, AK.

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. FA-DOE-A22076-NM Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Disposal

Phase, Updated Information, Disposal of Transuranic Waste, Carlsbad,

NM.

Summary: EPA has no further comment to offer on the NEPA process.

Final approval for operation of the WIPP facility will be based upon

EPA's completion of the certification process conducted by EPA's Office

of Radiation and Indoor Air and the RCRA permit

[[Page 4631]]

review and approval process conducted by the New Mexico Environment

Department.

Dated: January 27, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98-2376 Filed 1-29-98; 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.