[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 116 (Friday, June 16, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 31715-31716]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-14821]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-4724-1]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared May 08, 1995 Through May 12, 
1995 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 14, 1995 (60 
FR 19047).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-BLM-J65226-WY Rating EC2, Grass Creek Resource Management 
Plan, Implementation, Big Horn, Washakie, Hot Springs and Park 
Counties, WY.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the range of 
alternatives, cumulative impacts, water quality and ecosystem impacts. 
EPA requested that additional clarification be provided in the final 
document on these issues.
    ERP No. D-FHW-L40194-WA Rating LO, WA-3/WA-304 Bremerton Ferry 
Terminal to the vicinity of Gorst Highway Improvement Project, 
Implementation, Funding, Right-of-Way Grant, NPDES Permit and COE 
Section 404 Permit, City of Bremerton, Kitsap County, WA.
    Summary: EPA used a regional screening process to conduct a limited 


[[Page 31716]]
review of the draft document. Based upon this limited screen, EPA has 
not identified any significant issues.
    ERP No. D-FRC-L05209-WA Rating LO, Nisqually Hydroelectric Project 
(FERC. No. 1862) Issuing New License (Relicense), Nisqually River, 
Pierce, Thurston and Lewis Counties, WA.
    Summary: EPA review found no issues of concern that relate to EPA's 
responsibilities. Therefore EPA had no objection to the action as 
proposed.
    ERP No. D-FTA-C40133-PR Rating EC2, Tren Urbano Transit Project, 
Improvement, San Juan Metropolitan Area, Funding, NPDES Permit, U.S. 
Coast Guard Bridge Permit and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, PR.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the proposed 
project's potential impacts to wetlands, ground water, and historically 
significant resources. Additionally, EPA requested that further 
analysis be conducted with regard to air conformity requirements.
    ERP No. D-GSA-L40195-WA Rating LO, Pacific Highway Port of Entry 
(POE) Facility Expansion, Construction of WA-543 in Blaine, near the 
United States/Canada Border in Blaine, Whatcom County, WA.
    Summary: EPA has not identified any significant statutory or 
jurisdictional issues of concern.
    ERP No. D-USA-K11059-CA Rating EC2, Hamilton Army Airfield Disposal 
and Reuse, Implementation, City of Novato, Marin County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns that air quality was 
not adequately considered; that deed restrictions and mitigation 
measures were not clearly stated; that wetlands and natural resource 
issues were not explained sufficiently; and that Scenario E (open 
space) requires further explanation to ensure adequate protection of 
habitat and specie.
    ERP No. DB-COE-E36013-MS Rating EC2, Mississippi River and 
Tributaries Flood Control Plan, Big Sunflower River Maintenance 
Project, Yazoo Basin, Sunflower, Washington, Humphreys, Sharkey and 
Yazoo Counties, MS.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns of potential adverse 
consequences associated with channelizing over 100 miles of streams in 
the Big Sunflower watershed. EPA requested additional information 
before a decision is made on the project's feasibility.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-FHW-C40100-NY I-26 Mohawk River Crossing connecting NYS 
Thruway Interchange 26, I-890, NYS-5S and NYS-5 Construction, Funding, 
U.S. Coast Guard Permits and COE Section 404 Permit, Towns of Rotterdam 
and Glenville, Schenectady County, NY.
    Summary: EPA believed that the implementation of the proposed 
project will not have an adverse effect on the environment; and 
therefore, does not object to its implementation.

Other

    ERP No. LD-AFS-L61200-ID Rating LO, North Fork of the Clearwater 
River Drainage, Kelly Creek and Cayuse Creek, Wild and Scenic River 
Study, Suitability or Nonsuitability for Designation or Nondesignation 
in the National Wild and Scenic River System, Clearwater National 
Forest, Clearwater and Idaho Counties, ID.
    Summary: EPA regional screening process identified no significant 
statutory or jurisdictional issues of concern, thus EPA had no 
objection to the action.

    Dated: June 13, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-14821 Filed 6-15-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U