Jump to main content.

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: January 29, 1999 (Volume 64, Number 19)]
[Notices]               
[Page 4647-4648]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr29ja99-56]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5499-4]

 
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared January 11, 1999 Through 
January 15, 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, 1998 (62 
FR 17856).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-AFS-J65287-UT Rating LO, South Spruce Ecosystem 
Rehabilitation Project, Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Cedar 
City Ranger District, Iron and Kane Counties, UT.
    Summary: EPA review has not identified any potential environmental 
impacts which require substantive changes to the proposal.
    ERP No. D-AFS-J65289-UT Rating EC2, Pine Tract Project, 
Implementation, Coal Lease Tract (UTU-76195); Modification to Federal 
Coal Lease (U-63214 Quitchupah Lease) and Permit Amendment Application 
to Subside Box Canyon, Manti-La Sal National Forest, Ferron/Price 
Ranger District, Emery and Sevier Counties, UT.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the narrow 
scope, air quality analysis, coal/methane conflicts and impacts from 
transportation of coal. EPA requested further information on cumulative 
impacts.
    ERP No. D-AFS-K61145-CA Rating EC2, Ansel Adams, John Muir, Dinkey 
Lakes and Monarch Wildernesses, Proposed New Management Direction, 
Amending the Land and Resource Management Plans for the Inyo, Sierra 
and Sequoia National Forests, Implementation, Inyo, Madera, Mono and 
Fresno Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding proposed 
management direction for four Wilderness Areas, and particularly noted 
the lack of analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts 
associated with cattle and sheep grazing. Some comments were held 
pending the release of a revised NEPA document to address issues 
related to recreational stock and commercial

[[Page 4648]]

outfitters that emerged during the public comment period.
    ERP No. D-AFS-L65309-ID Rating EC2, Spruce Moose and Moose Lake 
Right-of-Way Analysis Area, Implementation, Timber Harvesting, Road 
Construction, Reforestation and Watershed Restoration, Clearwater 
National Forest, Lochsa Ranger District, Idaho County, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns on the continued 
cutting of Old Growth forest, and the potential for contributing 
additional sediment to streams that are currently degraded by sediment. 
The DEIS does not disclose adequate information concerning water 
quality, status of stream listings under CWA Section 303(d), and 
cumulative effects.
    ERP No. DR-AFS-L65261-AK Rating EC2, Port Houghton/Cape Fanshaw 
Timber Harvest Sale Project, Implementation, Revision to Tongass 
National Forest Land Management Plan, Tongass National Forest, Chatham 
and Stikine Area, South of Juneau, AK.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to the 
potential adverse impact of the project on the marine environment.
    ERP No. DS-AFS-K65193-NV Rating EO2, Griffon Mining Project, 
Implementation, Updated Information, Revision for Expanding Gold 
Mining, Plan of Operations, Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forests, Ely 
Ranger District, White Pine County, NV.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections based on the 
potential for significant environmental degradation of the project-
affected watershed. EPA requested additional information in the Final 
Supplement (EIS) regarding water quality impacts, mitigation/monitoring 
measures, and waste rock characterization of material from the proposed 
mine expansion and whether the project impacts were consistent with the 
Clean Water Act and applicable permit conditions. Mitigation 
recommendations were provided.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-J65281-UT, Spruce Ecosystem Recovery Project, 
Implementation, Dixie National Forest, Cedar City Ranger District, Iron 
County, UT.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. F-BLM-K65275-CA, Fourmile Hill Geothermal Development 
Project, Construction, Operation and Maintenance, 49.9 megawatt (MW) 
Geothermal Power Plant, Federal Geothermal Leases CA-21924 and CA-
21926, Glass Mountain Known Geothermal Resource Area, Klamath and Modoc 
National Forests, Siskiyou and Modoc Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA continued to express environmental objections based on 
potential adverse impacts to water resources. These impacts would 
likely be less than significant, assuming proper implementation of 
mitigation, monitoring and contingency plans. EPA also acknowledged the 
strong public opposition to the proposed project, and questioned the 
need for the project at this time, based on information provided in the 
Final EIS by the lead agencies, and the agencies' obligations under 
NEPA to balance environmental amenities and values with economic and 
technical consideration in decision making.
    ERP No. F-NPS-L61217-OR, Oregon Caves National Monument, General 
Management Plan, Development Concept Plan, Josephine County, OR.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. F-NPS-L65277-WA, Lake Crescent Management Plan, 
Implementation, Olympic National Park, WA.
    Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No 
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

    Dated: January 26, 1999.
B. Katherine Biggs,
Associated Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal 
Activities.
[FR Doc. 99-2210 Filed 1-28-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.