[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 135 (Friday, July 12, 1996)] [Notices] [Pages 36725-36726] From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] [FR Doc No: 96-17797] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER-FRL-5471-3] Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments Availability of EPA comments prepared June 24, 1996 Through June 28, 1996 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 05, 1996 (61 FR 15251). Draft EISs ERP No. D-APH-A99207-00 Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Veterinary Services (VS) Programs, Implementation, to Detect, Prevent, Control, and Eradicate Domestic and Foreign Animal Diseases and Pests, All 50 States and the United States Territories. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the program regarding contamination of ground water from carcass disposal and issues concerning pesticide use. EPA suggested that the final EIS include additional alternatives and assessment of their impacts, consideration of mitigation of chemical use, applicator training requirements, and several changes to inaccuracies pertaining to pesticide use. ERP No. D-COE-F35042-IN Rating EC2, Indiana Harbor and Canal Dredging and Confined Disposal Facility, Construction and Operation, Comprehensive Management Plan, East Chicago, Lake County, ID. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding dredging depth impacts to water quality, cumulative impacts, and TSCA and RCRA issues. EPA requested that additional information be provided in the final EIS to address these issues. ERP No. FRC-L05216-WA Rating EU3, Cushman Hydroelectric Project (FERC No. 460), Relicensing, North Fork Skokomish River, Mason County, WA. Summary: EPA's review concluded that the proposed alternative is environmentally unsatisfactory. In addition, EPA has significant concerns regarding the adequacy of the draft EIS. In particular, the draft EIS does not (1) provide a comprehensive analysis of cumulative impacts; (2) appropriately characterize the no-action alternative; (3) assess impacts on Tribal Trust/ Treaty resources; (4) give equal consideration to power and nonpar values when assessing project ``benefits''; and (5) provide sufficient information and support conclusions regarding alternatives and mitigation measures, especially with regard to restoration of more natural flows to the North Fork Skokomish River. EPA noted that if this proposal is carried forward to the final EIS without correcting unacceptable impacts, it will be a candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality. ERP No. D-IBR-K39043-CA Rating EU3, American River Water Resources Investigation, Implementation, Placer, Suter, EL Dorado, Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties, CA. Summary: EPA's review concluded that one of the alternatives, the proposed Auburn Dam on the American River, is environmentally unsatisfactory. EPA noted that if this proposal is carried forward to the Final EIS without correcting unacceptable impacts, it will be a candidate for referral to the Council on Environmental Quality. EPA urged the Bureau of Reclamation and other program sponsors to pursue development of a non-Auburn Dam alternative which modifies elements of the Conjunctive Use alternative to guarantee adequate instream flows and Bay/Delta outflow. ERP No. D-USN-A11073-00 Rating EC2, United States Navy Shipboard Solid Waste Disposal, Implementation, MARPOL Special Areas: Designated Baltic Sea, North Sea, Wilder Caribbean, Antarctic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea and Red Sea, Gulfs Region: Persian Gulf and Gulf of Oman. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns for additional measures to protect special resources (e.g., coral reefs) and to ensure that future designs of ships provide for storage space for wastes; EPA also requested additional impacts analysis and clarification regarding planned actions in the Baltic Sea, the North Sea and Antarctic Waters. Final EISs ERP No. F-COE-E30036-MS Coldwater River Watershed Demonstration Erosion Control Project, Flood and Sediment Control Measures, Implementation, Yazoo Basin, Marshall, Benton and Tate Counties, MS. Summary: EPA had no significant environmental objections with implementation of the proposed flood control measures. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency. [[Page 36726]] ERP No. FS-COE-K32028-CA Richmond Harbor Deep Draft Navigation Improvements, Updated and Additional Information to Improve Navigation Efficiency into the Potrero, San Francisco Bay, Contra Costa County, CA. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the Corps' failure to select an alternative with a greater degree of beneficial use, in line with the goals of the Long Term Management Strategy for San Francisco Bay dredged material disposal. EPA also expressed a need for monitoring and appropriate mitigation of impacts to eelgrass beds and shallow subtidal habitat. Dated: July 9, 1996. William D. Dickerson, Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 96-17797 Filed 7-11-96; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-U