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: December 22, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 247)]
[Notices]
[Page 80856-80857]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22de00-80]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6613-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared December 4, 2000 Through
December 8, 2000 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

[[Page 80857]]

explanation of the ratings assigned to draft environmental impact
statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 14, 2000 (65 FR
20157).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-AFS-L67039-ID Rating EO2, El Luky Duk Gold Suction
Dredging, Proposal to Mine Gold, Plan-of-Operation, Implementation, Nez
Perce National Forest, Red River Ranger District, ID.

Summary

    EPA expressed objections due to the potential of the project to
further degrade water quality and fish habitat in the South Fork
Clearwater River, a listed water body due to sediment, temperature, and
habitat alteration. EPA recommend that the EIS better quantify the risk
to water quality, listed species, and their habitats from proposed
suction dredging and demonstrate that water quality standards (e.g.,
turbidity) could be met at ``end-of-pipe'' allowing for the issuance of
an NPDES permit.
    ERP No. D-JUS-L81012-WA Rating EC2, Tacoma/Seattle Area Detention
Center, Construction and Leasing, Pierce County, WA.

Summary

    EPA expressed concerns regarding the manner in which the proposed
action alternatives were evaluated, how stormwater runoff would be
managed, the lack of a clear strategy for site remediation, and the
failure to initiate consultations with potentially affected Native
American Tribes. EPA requested that the EIS be revised to better
differentiate the potential effects of the action alternatives, clarify
how stormwater discharges would be controlled, explain the relationship
of hazardous waste cleanup to the site selection process, and reflect
that appropriate consultations with the Nisqually and Puyallup Tribes
have taken place.
    ERP No. D-NPS-K61151-CA Rating LO, Lassen Volcanic National Park
General Management Plan, Implementation, Lassen, Plumas, Shasta and
Tehama Counties, CA.

Summary

    EPA expressed no objection to the proposed action. However, EPA
requested the inclusion of a cumulative impacts analysis and additional
information on proposed actions and environmental impacts.
    ERP No. D-UAF-G11039-TX Rating LO, Brooks City Base Project, To
Improve Mission Effectiveness and Reduce Cost of Quality Installation
Support, Implementation, Brooks Air Force Base, Bexar County, TX.

Summary

    EPA expressed no objection to the lead agency's proposed action.
EPA requested some additional information to be included in the FEIS to
strengthen the document.
    ERP No. DR-NPS-K65212-CA Rating LO, Mojave National Preserve
General Management Plan, Revised and New Alternatives the Proposed
Management Approach and Two Alternatives for the Management of the 1.6
Million-Acre, Implementation, San Bernardio County, CA.

Summary

    While EPA had no objection to the proposed action, EPA did request
that the Final EIS include a more thorough description of the impacts
to water resources and projections of future visitor use and traffic
levels.
    ERP No. DS-FTA-L40210-WA Rating NS, Central Link Light Rail Transit
Project, (Sound Transit), Construction and Operation, Alternative Route
Considered, Tukwila Freeway Route, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,
Cities of Tukwila, SeaTac, Seattle, King County, WA.

Summary

    EPA Region 10 used a screening tool to conduct a limited review of
this action. Based upon this screen, EPA does not foresee having any
environmental objections to the proposed project. Therefore, EPA did
not conduct a detailed review.
    ERP No. DS-NPS-K65209-00 Rating LO, Death Valley National Park
General Management Plan, Proposed Management Approach and Two
Alternatives for the Management of the 3.3 Million Acres,
Implementation, Mojave Desert, Inyo and San Bernardino Counties, CA and
Nye and Esmeralda Counties, NV.

Summary

    While EPA had no objection to the proposed action, EPA did request
that the Final EIS include a comparison of current and expected levels
of visitor activity and how changes in visitor use will be accomodated
in area specific plans.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-J67028-MT Rocky Mountain Front Mineral Withdrawal,
Implementation, Helena and Lewis and Clark National Forests, Great
Falls, MT.

Summary:

    EPA had no objection with the proposed action.
    ERP No. F-AFS-L65362-ID West Mountain North Project, Timber
Harvest, Road Construction and Reconstruction), Boise National Forest,
Cascade Ranger District, Valley County, ID.

Summary

    No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
    ERP No. F-COE-H36109-MO Chesterfield Valley Flood Control Study,
Improvement Flood Protection, City of Chesterfield, St. Louis County,
MO.

Summary

    EPA continues to express objections over three significant issues,
cumulative impacts, floodplain management issues, and project
alternatives.

    Dated: December 19, 2000.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-32771 Filed 12-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.