[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 142 (Friday, July 24, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 39866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-19884]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5494-1]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared July 6, 1998 Through July 10,
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)
564-5076. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 10, 1998 (63
FR 17856).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-FRC-J05078-MT Rating EO2, Missouri-Madison Hydroelectric
(FERC No. 2188) Project, Issuing a New licence (Relicense) for Nine
Dams and Associated Facilities, MT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections regarding FERC's
rejection of Section 10 (j) recommendations; inadequacies in the
analysis of thermal issues; the potential for impairment to the
beneficial uses; and the rejection of some State Clean Water Act 401
conditions. EPA believes FERC should ensure license conditions that
require hydropower operations be done in the best practicable manner to
minimize harm to beneficial uses. License conditions also need to
incorporate thermal success criteria and appropriate language to reopen
the license if success criteria are not adequately attained by proposed
mitigation. EPA believes additional information is needed to fully
assess and mitigate all potential impacts of the management actions.
ERP No. D-IBR-J28020-UT Rating EO2, Narrows Dam and Reservoir
Project, Construction of Supplemental Water Supply for Agricultural and
Municipal Water Use, Gooseberry Creek, Sanpete and Carbon Counties, UT.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed
project, and stated that it believes additional, less damaging
alternatives are available which would reduce the project related
impacts. EPA requested additional detail on mitigation, project
impacts, and alternatives.
ERP No. D-IBR-K39045-CA Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Central
Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) of 1992 Implementation, Central
Valley, Trinity, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara and San Benito
Counties, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed strong support for the overall intent of
CVPIA implementation; alternatives which provide a strong two-pronged
commitment to ecosystem restoration and flexible, efficient use of
developed water supplies; and use of CVPIA tools to provide efficient
management of existing, developed water supplies. EPA requested
additional information and explanation on the range of implementation,
relationship between PEIS and subsequent rules and regulations, and to
the relationship of the PEIS to interim implementation programs and the
``Garamendi process''
ERP No. DR-DOI-K40222-TT Rating EO2, Palau Compact Road
Construction, Revision to Major Transportation and Communication Link
on the Island of Babeldaob, Implementation, Funding, Republic of Palau,
Babeldaob Island, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections because the RDEIS
did not provide sufficient documentation that all practicable means
have been undertaken by the Corps and the Republic of Palau to avoid
and minimize adverse impacts associated with placing dredged or fill
material in wetlands and other aquatic resources protected under CWA
Section 404.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-AFS-L65285-AK, Chasina Timber Sale, Harvesting Timber and
Road Construction, Tongass National Forest, Craig Ranger District,
Ketchikan Administrative Area, AK.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-AFS-L65300-AK, Canal Hoya Timber Sale, Implementation,
Stikine Area, Tongass National Forest, Value Comparison Unit (VCU), AK.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: July 21, 1998.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-19884 Filed 7-23-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U