27346 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 106 / Friday, May 31, 1996 / Notices

For further information, please

contact the project manager, Ms.

Rebecca Martin, at (202) 219–2650.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13670 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

[Project No. 10856 Michigan]

Upper Peninsula Power Company;

Notice of Availability of Draft

Environmental Assessment

May 24, 1996.

In accordance with the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and

the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission’s (Commission’s)

regulations, 18 CFR Part 380 (Order No.

486, 52 F.R. 47897), the Office of

Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the

application for an original license for

the Au Train Hydroelectric Project,

located near the towns of Au Train and

Munising, Michigan in Alger County,

and has prepared a Draft Environmental

Assessment (DEA) for the project. In the

DEA, the Commission’s staff has

analyzed the potential environmental

impacts of the un-licensed, existing

project and has concluded that approval

of the project, with appropriate

environmental protection or

enhancement measures, would not

constitute a major federal action

significantly affecting the quality of the

human environment.

Copies of the DEA are available for

review in the Public Reference Branch,

Room 2A, of the Commission’s offices at

888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C.

20426.

Any comments should be filed within

45 days from the date of this notice and

should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426. Please affix

‘‘Au Train Hydroelectric Project No.

10856’’ to all comments. For further

information, please contact John Blair at

(202) 219–2845.

Lois D. Cashell,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 96–13637 Filed 5–30–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717–01–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

[ER–FRL–5470–1]

Environmental Impact Statements and

Regulations; Availability of EPA

Comments

Availability of EPA comments

prepared May 13, 1996 Through May

17, 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 (EIS) was published

in F.R. dated April 05, 1996 (61 F.R.

15251).

Draft EIS

ERP No. D–COE–E32076–NC Rating

EC2, Cape Fear-Northeast Cape Fear

Rivers Feasibility Study for Deepening

of the Wilmington Harbor Ship Channel,

Navigation Improvement, New Hanover

and Brunswick Counties, NC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about the

potential adverse impacts associated

with use of explosives to excavate the

enlarged channel and awaits the results

of on-going studies to determine the

significance of this dredging technique.

ERP No. D–COE–K36116–CA Rating

EC2, San Pedro Creek Section 205 Flood

Control Project, Construction, Flood

Protection, COME Section 10 and 404

Permits and Permits Approval, San

Mateo County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns over potential

impacts to riverain habitat, impacts to

air quality, and potential cumulative

impacts of the project, including

possible increased runoff and siltation.

ERP No. D–FRC–L05215–OR Rating

EO2, Leaburg-Walterville Hydroelectric

(FERC. No. 2496) Project, Issuance of

New License (Relicense), Funding and

Land Trust Acquisition, McKenzie

River, Lane County, OR.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental objections over

continued impacts on fish and other

aquatic life in the McKenzie River due

to project operation. In addition, EPA

commented that the draft EIS did not

provide a comprehensive analysis of

cumulative impacts, nor was the noaction alternative appropriately

characterize.

ERP No. D–USN–K11067–AZ Rating

EC2, Yuma Training Range Complex

Management, Operation and

Development, Marine Corps Air Station

Yuma, Goldwater Range, Yuma and La

Paz Cos; and Chocolate Mountain

Range, Imperial and Riverside Counties,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding

alternatives analysis, cumulative

impacts issues, and biological impacts.

ERP No. D–USN–K11069–CA Rating

EC2, Port Hueneme Naval Civil

Engineering Laboratory (NCEL) Disposal

and Reuse, Implementation, Ventura

County, CA.

Summary: EPA requested further

information on air quality and wetlands

NEPA issues.

ERP No. DB–COE–E30032–FL Rating

EC2, Palm Beach County Beach Erosion

Project, Updated Information

concerning Shore Protection for the

Ocean Ridge Segment from the Martin

County line to Lake Worth Inlet and

from the South Lake Worth Inlet to the

Broward County Line, Palm Beach,

Martin and Broward Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns regarding the

long-term consequences of this action

and other beach nourishment projects

planned for the county’s shoreline. The

additional information derived from the

mitigation and subsequent monitoring

plan will be necessary to determine how

this project fits into the larger issue of

the environmental consequences of

proposed shoreline protection.

ERP No. DS–COE–E32192–NC Rating

EC2, Wilmington Harbor Channel

Widening and Navigation Improvement,

Updated Information, Cape Fear River,

Port of Wilmington, New Hanover and

Brunswick Counties, NC.

Summary: EPA expressed

environmental concerns about the

potential adverse impacts associated

with use of explosives to excavate the

enlarged channel and seeks additional

data on the long-term consequences of

these excavation techniques.

ERP No. DS–COE–E36169–FL Rating

LO, Central and Southern Florida Flood

Control Project, Restoration of the

Upper Kissimmee River Basin through

the Headwater Revitalization Project

and the Lower Kissimmee River Basin

through the Level II Backfilling Plan,

Implementation, Updated Information,

Glades, Osceda Highlands, Polk,

Okeechobee and Orange Counties, FL.

Summary: EPA had no objections to

this proposal.

Final EIS

ERP No. F–COE–C36071–PR Rio

Fajardo Flood Control Feasibility Study

for Flood Protection, Implementation,

PR.

Summary: EPA had no objection to

the proposed action.