[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 24 (Friday, February 4, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-2606]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: February 4, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-4708-2]

 

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared January 17, 1994 through 
January 21, 1994 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) 260-5076.
    An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1993 (58 
FR 18392).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-AFS-K67021-NV Rating EC2, Jerritt Canyon Gold Mine 
Expansion Project, Implementation, Plan of Operation and COE Section 
404 Permit, Humboldt National Forest, Mountain City Ranger District, 
Elko County, NV.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the 
proposed alternative due to potential impacts to water quality, water 
quantity, air quality and vegetation. EPA recommended that the final 
EIS provide additional information on these issues as well as 
cumulative impacts and wetlands mitigation.
    ERP No. D-FRA-B53010-00 Rating LO1, Northeast Corridor Improvement 
Project, Implementation, Electrification of the Rail Main Line from New 
Haven to Boston, Funding, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, New Haven, CT 
and Boston, MA.
    Summary: EPA stated that the proposed project had the potential to 
improve region air quality and that other environmental resources 
within EPA's jurisdiction and expertise would not be significantly 
adversely affected by the proposed project.
    ERP No. DC-FHW-B40050-MA Rating EC2, Central Artery/I-93 Third 
Harbor Tunnel/I-90 Extension, Updated and Additional Information, 
Design Alternatives for the Charles River Crossing, Funding, US COE 
Section 10 and 404 Permits, US CGD Permits and EPA NPDES Permit, 
Suffolk County, MA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns for Clean Air Act 
conformity requirements to be addressed, and the analysis of shading 
impacts and compensatory mitigation for adverse environmental impacts 
to waters of the United States. EPA commented that all three new design 
alternatives presented in the draft supplemental EIS would have less 
adverse environmental impact, and less adverse impact on parks and open 
space, than the alternative (Scheme Z) presented in the 1991 final 
supplemental EIS as the proposed action.
    ERP No. DS-AFS-K65136-CA Rating LO, Casa-Guard Timber Sale, Timber 
Harvesting, Updated Information concerning Impacts on the California 
Spotted Owl and Fish Creek Watershed and Reforestation, Sequoia 
National Forest, Cannell Meadow Ranger District, Tulare County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed lack of objections with the proposed action.
    ERP No. DS-AFS-K65137-CA Rating LO, Cottonwood and Gulf Timber 
Sales, Timber Harvesting in the Breckenridge Compartment, Updated 
Information Concerning Withdrawal of the Golf Timber Sale and Impacts 
on the California Spotted Owl and Reforestation for the Cottonwood 
Timber Sale, Sequoia National Forest, Greenhorn Ranger District, Kern 
County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed lack of objections with the proposed action.

Final EISs

    No. F-COE-B40062-NH, Nashua-Hudson Circumferential Highway 
Improvements, Approval and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Towns of 
Hudson, Nashua and Litchfield, Hillsborough County, NH.
    Summary: EPA had environmental objections to the proposed action 
due to (1) significant degradation of waters of the United States, 
including wetlands; (2) potential adverse impacts to water supply 
resources; and (3) the lack of specific mitigation to offset the 
impacts to waters of the U.S. and drinking water supplies. EPA stated 
that the proposed action is a likely candidate for action under EPA's 
Section 404 (c) authority and recommended that the Corps of Engineers 
deny the Section 404 permit application.


    Dated: February 1, 1994.
Richard E. Sanderson,
Director, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 94-2606 Filed 2-3-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P