[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 231 (Friday, December 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61697-61698]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29335]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5230-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared November 13, 1995 Through 
November 17, 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-AFS-D61044-PA Rating LO, Allegheny National Wild and 
Scenic River Management Plan, Implementation, Allegheny National 
Forest, Venango, Warren and Forest Counties, PA.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed lack of objections to the Allegheny Wild and 
Scenic River Management Plan Draft EIS.
    ERP No. D-AFS-J65242-MT Rating EC2, Checkerboard Land Exchange, 
Plan of Approval and Implementation, Kootenai, Lolo and Flathead 
National Forests, Lincoln, Flathead and Sanders Counties, MT.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns about potential 
adverse impacts to water quality and fisheries. EPA believed that 
specific modifications and mitigations to protect watersheds, water 
quality and fisheries should be presented in the FEIS which would 
demonstrate compliance with Montana's Water Quality Standards and 
Nondegradation Policy.
    ERP No. D-AFS-K67031-NV Rating EO2, Dash Open Pit and Underground 
Mining Project, Implementation, Expanding existing Gold Mining 
Operations at the Jerritt Canyon Project, Plan of Operation Approval 
and COE Section 404 Permit, Humboldt Toiyabe National Forest, 
Independence Mountain Range, Elko County, NV.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed 
project's potential impacts to water quality from design and placement 
of waste rock dumps in drainages. The FEIS should address impacts to 
water quality, waste rock handling, waste rock dump design, mitigation 
measures, baseline water quality, alternatives to the proposed project, 
air quality impacts and cumulative impacts.
    ERP No. D-BLM-J02009-00 Rating EC2, Express Crude Oil Pipeline 
Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, Issuance of Right-of-
Way Grant, Hill, Chouteau, Fergus, Judith Basin, Wheatland, Golden 
Valley, Stillwater and Carbon Counties, MT and Bighorn, Washakies, Hot 
Springs, Freemont and Watrona Counties, WY.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the 
proposed pipeline crossings of rivers, streams and wetlands, and asked 
that additional information on the proposed leak detection systems and 
emergency spill response plans be provided. EPA requested that the 
final EIS include additional resource information to fully assess and 
mitigate environmental impacts.
    ERP No. D-BLM-K67020-AZ Rating EO2, Cyprus Bagdad Copper Mine, Mill 
Tailings and Waste Rock Storage Expansion, Plan of Operation Approval, 

[[Page 61698]]
NPDES and COE Section 404 Permits Issuance, Yavapai County, AZ.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental objections based on the 
projects potential impacts to water quality and need for additional 
information in the final EIS on surface water, groundwater, 
geochemistry, monitoring, alternatives to the proposed action, facility 
design and hazardous materials management.
    ERP No. D-FHW-E40762-AL Rating EC2, Montgomery Outer Loop 
Construction, US 80 southwest of Montgomery to I-85 east of Montgomery, 
Funding and COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Montgomery County, AL.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns with all the proposed 
alternatives due to potential impacts to wetland and upland forest 
resources and the lack of detail contained in the proposed mitigation 
plan. EPA requested that additional information on these issues be 
provided in the final document.
    ERP No. D-FHW-J40212-CO Rating LO, CO-82 Highway Transportation 
Project, Improvements to ``Entrance to Aspen'', Funding and COE Section 
404 Permit, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, CO.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed lack of objections to the proposed action.
    ERP No. D-FHW-K40214-CA Rating EC2, Alternatives to Replacement of 
the Embarcadero Freeway and the Terminal Separator Structure, (Formerly 
CA-480) Implementation, Permit Approvals and Funding, San Francisco 
County, CA.
    SUMMARY: EPA raised environmental concerns over the cumulative 
impacts of the project, since there are several transportation 
development projects in the area, as well as environmental concerns 
with runoff, erosion and hazardous materials found in the soils at the 
project site.
    ERP No. D-FRC-J05076-MT Rating LO, Kerr Hydroelectric Project (FERC 
No. 5-021), License Modification Issuance to Existing License, Flathead 
River, Flathead and Lake Counties, MT.
    Summary: While EPA had no objection to the proposed action it did 
recommend that some clarification on shore stabilization and water 
flows be provided in the final EIS.
    ERP No. D-NPS-G61035-NM Rating LO, Petroglyph National Monument, 
General Management Plan and Development Concept Plan, Implementation, 
Bernalillo County, NM.
    Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed action described in 
the DEIS.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-J65222-ND, Southern Little Missouri and Cedar River 
Oil and Gas Leasing, Approvals, Custer National Forest, Medora Ranger 
District, Cedar River National Grassland, Grant River Ranger District, 
Billings, Golden Valley, Slope, Grant and Sioux Counties, ND.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about project impacts 
to air and water resources. EPA recommended a Conditions of Approval 
section be included in the document to describe development subsurface 
requirements for protecting water resources. EPA suggested that 
screening models be run with emissions calculated for the EIS, to 
evaluate potential impacts to air quality and visibility.
    ERP No. F-AFS-J65228-UT, Jacob/Swale Vegetation Management Project, 
Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Escalante Ranger District, 
Garfield County, UT.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns over wildlife habitat 
and potential adverse impacts from road management practices to elk and 
deer and the Northern Goshawk.
    ERP No. F-BLM-J03022-WY, Greater Wamsutter Area II Natural Gas 
Development Project, Approvals and Permits Issuance, Carbon and 
Sweetwater Counties, WY.
    Summary: EPA continued to express environmental concerns about 
cumulative effects of the anticipated intensive development through out 
southwest Wyoming.
    ERP No. F-BOP-G81008-LA, Pollock US Penitentiary and Federal Prison 
Camp (FPC), Construction and Operation and Site Selection of a former 
World War II Military Installation, Grant Parish, LA.
    Summary: EPA's previous environmental concerns have been addressed, 
therefore EPA has no objection to the proposed action.
    ERP No. F-FAA-C51013-NJ, Expanded East Coast Plan, Changes in 
Aircraft Flight Patterns over the State of New Jersey, Implementation, 
NJ.
    Summary: EPA believed that the proposed project, including the 
Solberg Mitigation Proposal, will not result in significant adverse 
environmental impacts; therefore, EPA has no objection to its 
implementation.
    ERP No. F-FHW-E40728-AL, I-59/I-759 Interchange to US 11 and US 
431/US 278, Construction, Funding, Etowah County, AL.
    Summary: EPA's review found that the proposed alternative would 
have no major impacts on the natural environment provided Best 
Management Practices and mitigation are utilized.
    ERP No. F-GSA-K80036-CA, Fresno--United States Courthouse, Site 
Selection and Construction, City of Fresno, Fresno 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-NOA-C91002-PR, U. S. Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico 
Corals and Reef Associated Plants and Invertebrates Fishery Management 
Plan, Implementation and NPDES Permit, PR and VI.
    Summary: EPA believed that the proposed project will not result in 
significant adverse environmental impacts; therefore, EPA had no 
objection to its implementation.

Regulations

    ERP No. R-NRC-A06177-00, 10 CFR Parts 60, 72, 73 and 75--Safeguards 
for Spent Nuclear Fuel or High-Level Radioactive Waste RIN-3150-AF32.
    Summary: EPA had no comments to the proposed rule.

    Dated: November 28, 1995.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 95-29335 Filed 11-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P