22388 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices

the goal of virtual elimination.

Therefore, the Lake Michigan LaMP

does not require virtual elimination of

pollutants, unless it is determined that

virtual elimination of a specific

substance is necessary to restore and

protect a beneficial use. The LaMP

process will take steps to reduce loads

of LaMP Pollutants, thereby ensuring

reasonable progress in attaining the

goals of the Agreement.

Several commentors stated that many

of the references cited in the draft Lake

Michigan LaMP need to be updated,

references to unpublished studies are

not appropriate in this document, and

that more complete data should be

incorporated into the LaMP.

USEPA has revised the proposed

LaMP to include more recent data and

a greater amount of data in general.

USEPA concurs that unpublished

studies should not be used to draw

conclusions, and that only information

pertinent to Lake Michigan, or at least

to the Great Lakes, should be presented

in the Lake Michigan LaMP.

X. Future LaMP Revisions

The proposed Lake Michigan LaMP

will be revised following the public

comment period to incorporate the

comments received. The next iteration

of the Lake Michigan LaMP will again

be published in the Federal Register, to

be followed by periodic revisions of the

LaMP. These updates, on an ongoing

basis, will ensure that the most recent

data are incorporated into the

document, that pollutant lists, sources,

and loads are reviewed and updated by

participating Agencies, and that new,

emerging issues are identified and

addressed. USEPA will continue to

solicit public input and comment on

LaMP activities and products during

these future updates.

Dated: April 20, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 95–11146 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

[ER–FRL–4722–7]

Environmental Impact Statement and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared March 27, 1995 through March

31, 1995 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. Request for

copies of EPA comments can be directed

to the Office of Federal Activities at

(202) 260–5076.

An explanation of the ratings assigned

to draft environmental impact

statements (EISs) was published in FR

dated April 14, 1995 (72 FR 19047).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D–AFS–K65168–CA Rating

EC2, San Bernardino National Forest,

Realignment and Reconstruction, Falls

Road, Implementation, San Bernardino

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns on two water

quality issues. EPA requested that the

final EIS should clarify whether any

aspect of the project will require a

permit under Clean Air Act Section 404;

and should carefully explore all feasible

water quality mitigation for project

construction due to existing erosion

problems in the area and its steep

terrain.

ERP No. D–DOE–E22000–PC Rating

EC2, Savannah River Site Waste

Management Facilities, Implementation,

Aiken, Allendale and Barnwell

Counties, SC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns for potential

impacts to sensitive ecological and

cultural resources under the maximum

waste volume forecast. EPA found the

Extensive Treatment Configuration to be

the environmentally preferable

alternative for long-term benefits.

ERP No. D–SFW–K99024–NV Rating

EC2, Desert Tortoises (Gopherus

Agassizii) Habitat, Issuance of Permit to

Allow Incidental Take, Federal Land

and Non-Federal Land, Clark County,

NV.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns. EPA

applauded the regional effort

represented by the CCDCP and the longterm incidental take permit. EPA

proposed that the FEIS include

additional information on existing

conditions and potential impacts to air

and water quality. EPA also

recommended describing contingency

plans in the FEIS in the event that

development projections are exceeded

and/or mitigation and conservation

measures and unsuccessful.

Final EISs

ERP No. F–AFS–G61033–NM, Sipapu

Ski Area Expansion, Master

Development Plan Approval and

Special Use Permit, Carson National

Forest, Camino Real Ranger District,

Taos County, NM.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to the proposed action. EPA’s

concerns have been adequately

addressed in the final EIS.

ERP No. F–AFS–L81011–AK,

Helicopter Glacier Landing Tours,

Implementation, Issuance of SpecialUse-Permits, Tongass National Forest,

Chatham Area, Juneau Ranger District,

Alaska.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the preferred alternative as described in

the EIS. Review of the final EIS has been

completed and the project found to be

satisfactory.

ERP No. F–BLM–J65203–MT, Big Dry

Land and Resource Management Plan,

Implementation, Miles City District,

several counties, MT.

Summary: EPA continued to express

environmental concerns regarding

environmental effects, including

cumulative effects, and lack of

meaningful, detailed monitoring plans,

particularly addressing fisheries, nonpoint pollution sources and water

quality monitoring. EPA believed that

water quality impacts of land

management activities need to be

monitored, assessed, and evaluated on a

continuing basis to detect and measure

impacts, so that the necessary

adjustments in activities to prevent and

minimize adverse impacts can be made.

ERP No. F–FHW–K40207–CA, CA–41

Route Adoption of Alignment Project,

between El Paso Avenue and CA–145,

Funding, Right-of-Way Acquisition and

COE Section 404 Permit, Fresno and

Madera Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA provided comments

regarding EPA’s role in the mitigation

plan and implementation schedule for

wetland impacts under Clean Water Act

Section 404 as well as the infiltration

and detention basins used to hold

stormwater runoff. Both issues will be

discussed in greater detail in the

project’s Tier II environmental

documentation for facility construction.

ERP No. F–FHW–L50004–WA,

Stillaguamish River Bridges WA–9/132

(Haller) and WA–530/120 (Lincoln)

Bridge Replacement Project,

Improvements, Funding, COE Section

404 Permit and Right-of-Way

Acquisition, City of Arlington,

Snohomish County, WA.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the preferred alternative as described in

the EIS. Review of the Final EIS has

been completed and the project found to

be satisfactory.

ERP No. F–NPS–C80023–NY,

Hamilton Grange National Memorial,

General Management Plan,

Implementation, New York County, NY.

Summary: EPA expressed lack of

objections to implementing the project

as proposed.

ERP No. F–USN–K11024–CA, U.S.

Navy Lease of Fleet and Industrial

Supply Center, (Naval Supply Center)
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 87 / Friday, May 5, 1995 / Notices 22389

Property of the Port of Oakland for

Development of Intermodal Rail

Facilities and Maritime Cargo-Related

Tenant Uses, Alameda County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns with the Navy

undocumented cumulative effects

placed upon nearby communities.

However, the Navy addressed EPA’s

concerns in response to comments.

ERP No. F–VAD–K11056–HI,

Veterans Affairs Medical and Regional

Office Center Relocation to Tripler

Army Medical Center, Construction and

Renovation, Approval and NPDES

Permit, Oahu, HI.

Summary: EPA continued to express

environmental concerns regarding

endangered species and environmental

justices documentation.

Dated: May 5, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–11171 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[ER–FRL–4722–6]

Environmental Impact Statements;

Notice of Availability

Responsible Agency: Office of Federal

Activities, General Information (202)

260–5076 or (202) 260–5075. Weekly

receipt of Environmental Impact

Statements Filed April 24, 1995

Through April 28, 1995 Pursuant to 40

CFR 1506.9.

EIS No. 950164, Final EIS, BLM, AZ,

Cypus Tohono Open Pit Mine

Expansion Project, Plan of Operation

Approval and Drilling Permit,

Implementation, Tohono O’odham

Nation, Papago Indian Reservation,

Pinal County, AZ, Due: June 5, 1995,

Contact: Moon Hom (602) 650–0225.

EIS No. 950165, Final EIS, BLM, CA,

Rand Open Pit Heap Leach Gold Mine

Project, Construction, Expansion and

Operation, Conditional-Use-Permit

and Plan of Operations and

Reclamation Plan, Randburg, Kern

County, CA, Due: June 5, 1995,

Contact: Ahmed Mohsen (619) 384–

5400.

EIS No. 950166, Final Supplement,

AFS, WA, East Curlew Creek Analysis

Area Harvesting Timber and Road

Construction, Updated Information,

Portion of Profanity Roadless Area,

Colville National Forest, Republic

Ranger District, Ferry County, WA,

Due: June 5, 1995, Contact: Patricia

Egan (509) 775–3305.

EIS No. 950167, Draft Supplement,

DOE, WA, Puget Power Northwest

Washington Electric Transmission

Project, Updated Information,

Construction and Operation, Whatcon

and Skagit Counties, WA, Due: June

19, 1999, Contact: Ken Barnhart (503)

230–3667.

EIS No. 950168, Final EIS, FHW, NC, I–

85 Greensboro Bypass Study Area

Transportation Improvement, I–85

South of Greensboro to I–40/85 east of

Greensboro, Funding, Possible

Section 404 Permit, City of

Greensboro, Guilford County, NC,

Due: June 5, 1995, Contact: Nicholas

L. Graf (919) 856–4350.

EIS No. 950169, Draft EIS, FAA, WA,

Seattle-Tacoma (Sea-Tac)

International Airport Master Plan

Update for Development Actions,

Funding, Airport Layout Plan

Approval and COE Section 404

Permit, King County, WA, Due:

August 3, 1995, Contact: Dennis

Ossenkop (206) 227–2611.

EIS No. 950170, Draft EIS, FHW, WI, US

12 Highway Improvement, Sauk City

of Middleton, Funding and COE

Section 404 Permits Issuance, Sauk

and Dane Counties, WI, Due: June 26,

1999, Contact: Richard Madrzak (608)

264–5968.

EIS No. 950171, Final Supplement,

NRC, TN, Watts Bar Nuclear Plant

Units 1 and 2, Operating License,

Rhea County, TN, Due: June 6, 1995,

Contact: Scott Flanders (301) 415–

1172.

EIS No. 950172, Final EIS, AFS, CA,

Shasta-Trinity National Forests Land

and Resource Management Plan,

Implementation, Humboldt, Modoc,

Shasta, Siskiyou, Tehama and Trinity

Counties, CA, Due: June 5, 1995,

Contact: Steve Fitch (916) 246–5222.

EIS No. 950173, Draft EIS, USN, TX,

Mine Warfare Center of Excellence

(MWCE) Establishment, Construction

and Operations, Magnitic Silencing

Facility (MSF), Aviation Mine Count

Measures (AMCM) and Sled Facility,

Possible NPDES Permit, COE Section

10 and 404 Permits, Corpus Christi

Bay Area, TX, Due: June 19, 1995,

Contact: Will Sloger (803) 743–0797.

EIS No. 950174, Draft EIS, BOP, LA,

Pollock US Penitentiary and Federal

Prison Camp (FPC), Construction and

Operation, Site Selection of a former

World War II Military Installation,

Grant Parish, LA, Due: June 19, 1995,

Contact: David J. Dorworth (202) 514–

6470.

EIS No. 950175, Final EIS, AFS, CA,

Cottonwood Fire Restoration Project,

Implementation, Tahoe National

Forest, Sierraville Ranger District,

Sierra County, CA, Due: June 5, 1995,

Contact: Karen Walden (916) 478–

6253.

EIS No. 950176, Draft Supplement,

BLM, NM, Fence Lake Federal Coal

Project, Updated Information for

Approval or Disapproval of Salt River

Project Agricultural Improvement and

Power District (SRP), Lease Approval,

Mining Plan Permit Application,

Catron and Cibola, Cos, NM and

Apache County, AZ, Due: June 28,

1995, Contact: Robert H. Block (303)

672–5610.

EIS No. 950177, Draft Supplement, COE,

TX, OK, Red River Chloride Control

Project, Construction and Operation

Methods, Updated and additional

Information, several counties TX and

OK, Due: June 19, 1995, Contact:

David L. Combs (918) 669–7188.

EIS No. 950178, Final EIS, DOD, CA,

California Acoustic Thermometry of

Ocean Climate (ATOC) Program and

Marine Mammal Research Program

(MMRP), Funding, Marine Mammal

Research Permit and COE Nationwide

Permits Issuance, Monterey County,

CA, Due: June 5, 1995, Contact: Pat

Aguilar (619) 534–3860.

Dated: May 2, 1995.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office

of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 95–11170 Filed 5–4–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–M

[FRL–5203–5]

Waste Analysis Guidance Manual: The

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA); Extension of Comment

Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Extension of comment period

for the Waste Analysis Guidance For

Facilities That Burn Hazardous

Wastes—Draft.

SUMMARY: On April 11, 1995, the

Environmental Protection Agency

announced a draft Waste Analysis

Guidance For Facilities That Burn

Hazardous Wastes is available for public

comment (60FR18402). This guidance

document was developed by the Office

of Compliance for facilities that treat

and dispose of hazardous wastes by

using combustion technology as

regulated under 40 CFR parts 264 and

265, Subpart O and 40 CFR part 266,

Subpart H. Upon requests from several

callers ordering the document, EPA is

extending the date for which it will

accept public comments on this

document.

DATES: EPA will now accept public

comments on this draft guidance

document until June 2, 1995.