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: June 23, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 122)]
[Notices]
[Page 39146-39147]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23jn00-62]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6608-5]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared 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 14, 2000 (65 FR 20157).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-AFS-L65353-ID Rating EC2, Lakeface-Lamb Fuel Reduction
Project, To Reduce the Risk of Lethal Fires within a Wildland/Urban
Interface, Implementation, Idaho Panhandle National Forests, Priest
Lake Ranger District, Bonner County, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the potential
adverse impacts to water quality from sediment. EPA recommends that the
selected alternative in the final EIS address ATV use and demonstrate
that adequate funding will be allocated to maintain redeveloped roads
to environmental and safety standards.
    ERP No. D-AFS-L65354-ID Rating EO2, Iron Honey Resource Area
Project,

[[Page 39147]]

Aquatic, Vegetative and Wildlife Habitat Improvement Activities,
Implementation, Coeur d'Alene River Ranger District, Idaho Panhandle
National Forests, Kootenai and Shoshone Counties, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed objections based on the potential adverse
impacts to water quality and wildlife. EPA recommends that the final
EIS present more discussion on the relative merits of passive and
active restoration to meet project objectives.
    ERP No. DS-COE-E36167-FL Rating EO2, Central and Southern Florida
Project for Flood Control and Other Purposes, Everglades National Park
Modified Water Deliveries, New Information concerning Flood Mitigation
to the 8.5 Square Mile Area (SMA), Implementation, South Miami, Dade
County, FL.
    Summary:
    EPA expressed environmental objections to Alternative 1 since its
structural approach maximizes internal surface water and wetland
drainage. EPA had no objection with Alternative 5 since it restores the
area to its natural conditions. In addition, EPA requested that all
internal surface waters within any leveed area must be treated to
marsh-ready levels before delivery into the Everglades National Park
and that zoning within the protected area must be enforced to reduce
water quality degradation.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-AFS-J65296-MT Swamp Timber Sales Project, Implementation,
    Kootenai National Forest, Fortine Ranger District, Lincoln County,
MT.
    Summary:
    EPA continues to express environmental concerns with the preferred
alternative in comparison to alternative D, the environmentally
preferred alternative. However, the preferred alternative did include
many beneficial features such as road reconstruction, decommissioning
and access restrictions, and riparian buffers and fencing, and harvest
prescriptions to mitigate impacts.

    Dated: June 20, 2000.
Joseph C. Montgomery,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 00-15979 Filed 6-22-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.