Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 14 (Friday, January 22, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3510-3511]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-1509]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5499-2]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared January 4, 1999 through 
January 8, 1999 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 
10, 1999 (62 FR 17856).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-AFS-L65300-ID Rating EC2, Goose Creek Watershed Project, 
Harvesting Timber and Improve Watershed, Payette National Forest, New 
Meadows Ranger District, Adams County, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential 
adverse impacts on elk habitat, road density, and water quality.
    ERP No. D-BLM-J01009-WY Rating EC2, Carbon Basin Coal Project Area, 
Coal Lease Application for Elk Mountain/Saddleback Hills, Carbon 
County, WY.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about adverse impacts 
to air and water quality. EPA requested additional information for 
analysis of impacts to air and water.
    ERP No. D-FHW-C40144-NY Rating EC2, US 219 between Springville to 
Salamanca, Improvements from NY 39 to NY 17, PIN 5101.53, Funding and 
COE Section 404 Permit, Erie and Cattaraugus Counties, NY.
    Summary: EPA had environmental concerns (EC) with potential air 
quality and wetland impacts, the project's purpose and need, and 
environmental justice issues, and thinks that additional information 
(2), should be presented in the final EIS.
    ERP No. D-NPS-K65211-CA Rating EC2, Whiskeytown Unit General 
Management Plan, Implementation, Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity Natl. 
Recreation Area, Shasta County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding the lack of 
cumulative impact analysis, and recommend changes to the EIS to 
increase public disclosure of potential impacts.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-BLM-J65247-UT Dixie Land and Resource Management Plan, 
Implementation, Cedar City Ranger District, Washington County, UT.
    Summary: EPA maintains concerns about the proposed water storage 
projects and recommends a comprehensive EIS prior to approval of any 
potential reservoir.
    ERP No. F-FHW-E40359-SC Carolina Bays Parkway (better known as 
Grand Strand), Funding, NPDES Permit, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, 
Horry and Georgetown Counties, SC.
    Summary: EPA's review found that wetland impacts are significant, 
but a mitigation bank at Sandy Island will be used to offset these 
losses.
    ERP No. F-FHW-E50289-SC Cooper River Bridges Replacement Project, 
Grace Memorial/Silas N. Pearman Bridges on US 17 over Cooper River and 
Town Creek, Funding, COE Section 10/404 Permits and CGD Permit, 
Charleston County, SC.
    Summary: EPA's review found that the document adequately discussed 
concerns raised during the review of the draft document.
    ERP No. F-FHW-K40211-HI Kealakehe Parkway Completion, Queen 
Kaahumanu Highway and Honokohau Harbor Road Intersection to near the 
Mamalahoa Highway and Old Mamalahoa Highway Intersection, North Korna 
District, Hawaii County, HI.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. F-FHW-K40226-CA, CA-37 Highway Improvement, Napa River 
Bridge to the existing Freeway Section of CA-37 that begins near Diablo 
Street, Funding and US Army COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Vallejo, 
Solano 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-FHW-K40357-CA, CA-101/Cuesta Grade Highway Improvements, 
1.1 Miles north of

[[Page 3511]]

Reservoir Canyon Road to the Cuesta Grade Overhead, Funding and Permit 
Issuance, San Luis Obispo 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-FTA-K40223-CA, Mission Valley East Corridor Transit 
Improvement Project, between I-15 in Mission Valley and the East County 
community of La Mesa, Funding, COE Section 404 Permit, Metropolitan 
Transit Development Board (MTDB) and Light Rail Transit (LRT), San 
Diego County, CA.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: January 19, 1999.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 99-1509 Filed 1-21-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U