Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5498-4]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared December 14, 1998 Through

December 18, 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

10, 1998 (62 FR 17856).

Final EISs

ERP No. F-AFS-J65265-WY, Tie Camp Timber Sale, Harvesting Timber

and Road Construction, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Brush Creek/

Hayden Ranger District, Carbon County, WY and Jackson County, CO.

Summary: EPA concerns were addressed in the Final EIS.

ERP No. F-AFS-J65283-CO, North Fork Salvage Timber Analysis Area,

Implementation, Medicine Bow-Routt National Forest, Routt County, CO.

Summary: EPA concerns were addressed in the preferred alternative.

ERP No. F-AFS-K61143-CA, Emigrant Wilderness Management Direction,

Implementation, Stanislaus National Forest, Tuolume 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-AFS-L61216-WA, White Pass Ski Area Expansion, Special-

Use-Permit, Pigtail Basin and Hogback Basin, Wenatchee and Gifford,

Pinchot National Forests, Yakima and Lewis Counties, WA.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-COE-K32050-CA, Oakland Harbor Inner and Outer Deep

Navigation (-50 Foot) Improvement Project, Implementation, Feasibility

Study, Port of Oakland, Alameda and San Francisco Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA continued to have specific comments and concerns on

several issues, although the FEIS generally responded to many issues

raised by EPA on the DEIS. EPA provided comments on mitigation for air

quality impacts, the need for a new general air quality conformity

applicability analysis should dredged material be transported to

different locations, the projected volumes of dredged material in

future years from maintenance dredging of channel and berth areas, and

adverse noise impacts in the City of Alameda.

ERP No. F-COE-K36122-CA, Upper Guadalupe River Feasibility Study,

Flood Control Protection, Construction, National Economic Development

Plan (NED), Santa Clara Valley Water District, City of San Jose, Santa

Clara County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns that the Corps' two

separate EIS's for the project (one EIS for Federal funding, a second

EIS on issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit) should have

been addressed in a single consolidated FEIS.

ERP No. F-COE-K39046-AZ, Rio Salado Environmental Restoration of

two Sites along the Salt River; (1) Phoenix Reach and (2) Tempe Reach,

Feasibility Report, in the Cities of Phoenix and Tempe, Maricopa

County, AZ.

Summary: EPA provided comments regarding the Clean Water Act

Section 402 (NPDES) permits that would be required for the project's

construction and operation, the location of groundwater production

wells required by the project in connection with the 19th Avenue

Landfill Federal Superfund site, and monitoring of groundwater derived

from these production wells.

ERP No. F-USN-K11086-CA, US Pacific Fleet F/A 18 E/F Aircraft for

Development of Facilities to Support

[[Page 72311]]

Basing on the West Coast of the United States, Possible Installations

are (1) Lemoore Naval Air Station and (2) El Centro Naval Air Facility,

Fresno, King and Imperial Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA concerns were not addressed in the Navy's response to

comments on the DEIS or in the FEIS text. EPA recommended that an

addendum to the document be created to answer the comments that were

overlooked, that the comments and the Navy's response be circulated to

all interested parties, and the public comment be invited by means of

extending the review period.

Dated: December 28, 1998.

Ken Mittelholtz,

Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98-34714 Filed 12-30-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M