[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 229 (Friday, November 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 63331-63332]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31250]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5486-8]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared November 10, 1997 Through 
November 14, 1997 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 11, 1997 (62 
FR 16154).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-FHW-K40227-CA Rating EC2, I-880 Interchange at Dixon 
Landing Road Reconstruction Improvements, Funding and COE Section 404 
Permit, Fremont, Milpitas, Alameda and Santa Clara Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the lack of 
full disclosure of alternatives impacts due to the proposed width of 
the overcrossing. EPA requested clarification of these issues and 
mitigation involving revegetation and restoring old road beds be 
discussed.
    ERP No. D-NOA-E70000-GA Rating LO, State of Georgia Coastal 
Management Program, Comprehensive Coastal Land and Water Use 
Activities, Approval and Implementation, GA.
    Summary: EPA had lack of objections with the proposed project. EPA 
did not identify any potential environmental impacts requiring 
substantial change to the proposal, and that the alternatives and their 
consequences were reasonably disclosed.
    ERP No. D-SCS-G36146-OK Rating LO, Middle Deep Red Run Creek 
Watershed Plan, Implementation, Funding and Possible COE Section 404 
Permit, Central Rolling Red Plains, Tillman, Comanche and Kiowa 
Counties, OK.
    Summary: EPA had lack of objection to the selection of the Natural 
Resources Conservation Service's preferred alternative as described in 
the Draft EIS.
    ERP No. D-USN-K11082-CA Rating EC2, San Diego Naval Training Center 
(NTC) Disposal and Reuse of Certain Real Properties, Implementation, 
City of San Diego, San Diego County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding biological 
and water resources cumulative impacts and environmental justice. EPA 
requested that these issues be clarified in the Final EIS.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-BOP-E80001-KY, United States Penitentiary Martin County, 
Construction and Operation, Possible Sites, Bizwell and Honey Branch 
Sites, located in Martin and Johnson Counties, KY.
    Summary: EPA had lack of objections with the proposed project. All 
of EPA's

[[Page 63332]]

comments on the Draft EIS were sufficiently addressed in the Final EIS. 
The Federal Bureau of Prisons expressed their commitment to preserving 
wetlands.
    ERP No. F-DOE-G06004-TX, Pantex Plant Continued Operation and 
Associated Storage of Nuclear Weapon Components, Implementation, 
Approvals and Permits Issuance, Carson County, TX.
    Summary: EPA had lack of objections to the action as proposed. 
EPA's environmental concerns with the Draft EIS have been resolved.
    ERP No. F-FAA-E11040-NC, Adoption--Camp Lejeune Marine Corps Base 
Camp, Expansion and Realignment for Additional Training Needs, 
Implementation, Onslow County, NC.
    Summary: After reviewing the new information relating to airspace 
issues. EPA's initial concerns have not been resolved.
    ERP No. F-FHW-G40144-AR, US 71 Relocation, Construction extending 
from US 70 in DeQueen to I-40 near Alma, AR, Funding and COE Section 
404 Permit, Sevier, Polk, Scott, Sebastian and Crawford Counties, AR.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS has been completed and the project 
found to be satisfactory.
    ERP No. F-USN-C10003-00, Relocatable over the Horizon Radar (ROTHR) 
System Construction and Operation, New and Updated Information on Fort 
Allen as Potential Site, Commonwealth of Puerto Rico and Chesapeake, 
VA.
    Summary: EPA had no objection to the implementation of the proposed 
project. Based on the review of the Final EIS EPA does not anticipate 
that the proposed project will result in significant adverse 
environmental impacts, provided the mitigation measures are followed.

    Dated: November 24, 1997.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. 
[FR Doc. 97-31250 Filed 11-26-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U