Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5498-6]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared December 21, 1998 Through

December 25, 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).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-DOE-E09802-00 Rating EC2, Commercial Light Water Reactor

for the Production of Tritium at one or more Facilities:

Watts Bar 1. Spring City, TN; Sequoyah 1 and 2 Soddy Daisy, TN;

Bellefonte Units 1 and 2, Hollywood, AL, Approval of Permits and

Licenses, TN and AL.

Summary: EPA had environmental concerns about the project; and

requested more information about the comparative costs of the Tritium

production alternatives, processes, and potential environmental

impacts.

ERP No. D-SFW-K65115-CA Rating EO2, Headwaters Forest Acquisition

and the Palco Sustained Yield Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan,

Implementation, Humboldt, Del Norte and Mendocino Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections and has identified

key issues which need to be better addressed to fashion a more

environmentally beneficial package. EPA key issues primarily focus on

improvements EPA would like to see in the aquatics section of the HCP:

cumulative watershed effects analysis process, Mass Wasting Strategy,

wider riparian buffer zones consistent with recent State legislation,

road storm-proofing program and wet weather road use, herbicide/forest

chemical use, implementation, compliance, and monitoring.

ERP No. D-USA-K11092-AZ Rating EC2, Yuma Proving Ground

Multipurpose Installation, Diversification of Mission and Changes to

Land Use, NPDES General Permit and COE Section 404 Permit, Yuma and La

Pas Counties, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns due to the lack of

detailed analyses pertaining to actions associated with implementing

the preferred alternative.

ERP No. D-USA-K26001-HI Rating LO, Schofield Barracks Wastewater

Treatment Plant (WWTP), Effluent Treatment and Disposal, NPDES Permit

and COE Section 404 Permit, City of County of Honolulu, Oahu, HI.

Summary: EPA expressed a lack of objection to the proposed project.

ERP No. D-USN-K11094-00 Rating EC2, Developing Home Port Facilities

For Three NIMITZ-Class Aircraft Carriers in Support of the U.S. Pacific

Fleet, Construction and Operation, Coronado, CA; Bremerton and Everett,

WA, Pearl Harbor, HI.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns at the three

alternative sites in California and Washington State that were

identified as part of the Proposed Action regarding dredging and

dredged material disposal; impacts to marine water quality and aquatic

biological resources; air quality; pollution prevention; and cumulative

impacts. EPA noted that are dredging and dredged material disposal

issues that need to be examined by EPA should the Navy decide to

homeport a Nimitz-class carrier at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii.

ERP No. DS-NOA-K90020-CA Rating EC2, Coastal Pelagic Species

Fishery Management Plan Amendment 8, (Formerly Known as Northern

Anchovy Fishery Management Plan), Approval and Implementation, WA, CA

and OR.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern with potential impacts

to endangered marine mammals and birds, the minimal development of

stock recovery plans (rebuilding program, pg B-81), and scarcity of

firm data upon which to base management decisions. Additional

information and clarification were requested regarding EPA above

concerns.

ERP No. DS-UMC-K24018-CA Rating EO2, Sewage Effluent Compliance

Project, Updated and Additional Information, Implementation, Lower

Santa Margarita Basin, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, San Diego

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed

project based on potential adverse impacts to waters of the United

States, and special aquatic sites. EPA requested additional data and

assurances of mitigation, to avoid potential degradation of a riparian

habitat mitigation area and a coastal salt marsh, from disposal of

sewage effluent.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-DOE-J22005-CO Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site

Management of Certain Plutonium Residues and Srub Alloy Stored, Golden,

CO.

Summary: EPA had no comments on the final document.

ERP No. F-FAA-E51045-FL Miami International Airport Master Plan

Update for the Proposed New Runway, Funding and COE Section 404 Permit,

Miami-Dade County, FL.

[[Page 1199]]

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about a number of

noise related issues raised in the DEIS were not adequately addressed

in the FEIS. Concern was also expressed that, in spite of significant

noise to residents near the airport, adequate mitigation is lacking.

ERP No. F-NOA-L90027-AK Kachemak Bay National Estuarine Research

Reserve (KBNERR) Management Plan, Operations and Development,

Southcentral, AK.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. F-USN-E11039-FL Cecil Field Naval Air Station Disposal and

Reuse, Implementation, City of Jacksonville, Duval and Clay Counties,

FL.

Summary: EPA had a lack of objection to the proposed project.

Dated: January 5, 1999.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 99-430 Filed 1-7-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U