Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments, 39507-39508 [05-13468]

Download as PDF Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Notices into bedrock where arsenic may occur naturally. Recent testing of well water indicates that about 10 percent of the private wells in Maine have arsenic concentrations above the Federal drinking water standard of 0.10 mg/l. Although people on public water supplies are protected from elevated levels of arsenic in their tap water, households with private wells are not afforded such protection. Chronic exposure to low concentrations of arsenic through drinking water causes cancer, and arsenic is the only carcinogen with a demonstrated causal link between drinking-water exposure and bladder cancer. Households with elevated levels of arsenic in their well water can undertake a variety of actions to avoid exposure. They can purchase bottled water to drink or install pointof-use (e.g., kitchen sink) or point-ofentry (e.g., complete household) systems. This study will scrutinize the behavioral response of households to information regarding levels of arsenic in drinking water from private wells. To fully assess behavioral responses to exposure to arsenic in drinking water, this study will combine the results of three analyses: a hedonic property-value study, an averting behavior study, and a conjoint analysis. One survey instrument, with two versions, will be used to collect data for the averting behavior and conjoint studies. This instrument is the subject of this information collection request. The survey will focus on public support for government programs aimed at reducing arsenic levels in drinking water and household decisions to avoid risks associated with arsenic in drinking water. The results of this research will facilitate the estimate of value of statistical life and value of statistical cancer estimates which will assist in assessing the value households place on programs aimed at reducing such exposure. Responses to both the focus groups and full survey are voluntary and will be kept confidential. This project is being conducted in conjunction with the University of Maine via a cooperative agreement. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. The EPA would like to solicit comments to: (i) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including VerDate jul<14>2003 16:32 Jul 07, 2005 Jkt 205001 whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) Evaluate the accuracy of the Agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. Burden Statement: The public reporting burden for this information collection request is estimated to average 2 hours per response for the focus groups and 24 minutes per response for the full survey. Estimated Number of Focus Group Respondents: 36. Estimated Reporting Burden for Focus Group Respondents: 2 hours. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Focus Group Respondents: 72 hours. Estimated Number of Survey Respondents: 2000. Estimated Reporting Burden for Survey Respondents: 0.4 hours. Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: 1. Estimated Total Annual Burden on Survey Respondents: 800 hours. Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 872 hours. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information; search data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. Dated: June 30, 2005. Al McGartland, Director, National Center for Environmental Economics, Office of Policy, Economics and Innovation. [FR Doc. 05–13488 Filed 7–7–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 39507 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6665–2] 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 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815). Draft EISs EIS No. 20050030, ERP No. D–NPS– K61160–CA, Non-Native Deer Management Plan of Axis Deer (Axis axis) and Fallow Deer (Dama dama), Implementation, Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) and Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Marin County, CA. Summary: EPA had no objections to this project. Rating LO EIS No. 20050096, ERP No. D–NRC– F06026–IL, Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Exelon ESP Site, Application for ESP on One Additional Nuclear Unit, within the Clinton Power Station (CPS), NUREG–1815, DeWitt County, IL. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns due to impacts to wetlands and impaired water bodies. EPA also requested clarification of the purpose and need and radiation issues. Rating EC2 EIS No. 20050105, ERP No. D–AFS– F65050–MI, Huron-Manistee National Forests, Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Several Counties, MI. Summary: EPA expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to water quality from the restoration of 58,000 acres of large-scale (500+ acres) clearings and from mining. EPA also requested clarification of potential impacts to wildlife and habitat from the proposed increase in snowmobile trails. Rating EC2 EIS No. 20050107, ERP No. D–AFS– F65051–IL, Shawnee National Forest Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan Revision, Implementation, Alexander, Gallatin, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Pope, Union and Williamson Counties, IL. E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM 08JYN1 39508 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 130 / Friday, July 8, 2005 / Notices Summary: EPA has no objections to the preferred alternative. Rating LO EIS No. 20050113, ERP No. D–BLM– K65439–NV, Sloan Canyon National Conservation Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Cities of Las Vegas and Henderson, Clark County, NV. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to mitigation measures and the cumulative impacts analysis for air quality and water resources. Rating EC2 EIS No. 20050114, ERP No. D–AFS– F65053–IN, Hoosier National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Brown, Crawford, Dubois, Jackson, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Orange, Perry Counties, IN. Summary: EPA expressed concerns related to early- and late-successional management and the timeline for conversion of non-native pines/ restoration of oak-hickory habitat and the seasonal trail closures in the wilderness area. Rating EC2 EIS No. 20050118, ERP No. D–AFS– F65054–MI, Ottawa National Forest, Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan, Forest Plan Revision, Implementation, Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette and Ontonagan Counties, MI. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to potential impacts to water quality and on the management ATVs, deer, and old growth habitat. EPA suggested the final alternative emphasize late successional northern hardwoods and producing an old growth continuous canopy. Rating EC2 EIS No. 20050128, ERP No. D–AFS– L65480–ID, Porcupine East, 9 Allotment Grazing Analysis Project, Authorizing Livestock Grazing, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Dubois Ranger District, Centennial Mountains, Clark County, ID. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to alternatives, and potential impacts to water quality/source water for drinking water. Rating EC2 EIS No. 20050134, ERP No. D–AFS– L65481–00, Caribou Travel Plan Revision, Determine the Motorized Road and Trail System, Implementation, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Westside, Soda Spring and Montpelier VerDate jul<14>2003 16:32 Jul 07, 2005 Jkt 205001 Ranger Districts, Bannock, Bear River, Bonneville, Caribou, Franklin, Oneida and Power Counties, ID. Summary: EPA has concerns with adverse impacts to water quality, air quality and wilderness. Rating EC2 Final EISs EIS No. 20050185, ERP No. F–NRC– F03009–MI, Generic—Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units No. 1 and 2, (TAC No. MC1221 and MC1222) License Renewal, Supplement 20 to NUREG 1437, Berrien County, MI. Summary: EPA continues to express environmental concerns related to radiological impacts/risk estimates and reducing the entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages. EPA recommends that additional information on these issues be included in the Record of Decision. EIS No. 20050219, ERP No. F–BLM– K65275–00, California Coastal National Monument Resource Management Plan, To Protect Important Biological and Geological Values: Islands, Rocks, Exposed Reefs, and Pinnacles above Mean High Tide, CA, OR, and Mexico. Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed plan. Dated: July 5, 2005. Ken Mittelholtz, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities. [FR Doc. 05–13468 Filed 7–7–05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [ER–FRL–6665–1] Environmental Impacts Statements; Notice of Availability Responsible Agency: Office of Federal Activities, General Information (202) 564–7167 or https://www.epa.gov/ compliance/nepa/ Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements Filed 06/27/2005 Through 07/01/2005 Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9. EIS No. 20050274, Draft EIS, AFS, ND, NE McKenzie Allotment Management Plan Revisions, Proposes to Continue Livestock Grazing on 28 Allotments, Dakota Prairie Grasslands Land and Resource Management Plan, Dakota Prairie Grasslands, McKenzie Ranger District, McKenzie County, ND, Comment Period Ends: 08/22/2005, Contact: Libby Knotts 701–842–3008. EIS No. 20050275, Final EIS, FHW, WI, WI–26 State Trunk Highway (STH) Improvements, Janesville at IH–90 to STH–60–East north of Watertown PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Road, Funding, (Project ID 1390–04– 00), Rock, Jefferson and Dodge Counties, WI, Wait Period Ends: 08/ 08/2005, Contact: Johnny Gerbitz 608–829–7511. EIS No. 20050276, Final EIS, FRC, 00, Entrega Pipeline Project, Construction and Operation New Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline System, Right-of-Way Grant Issue by BLM, Meeker Hub and Cheyenne Hub, Rio Blanco and Weld Counties, CO, and Sweetwater County, WY, Wait Period Ends: 08/ 08/2005, Contact: Thomas Russo 1– 866–208–3372. EIS No. 20050277, Final EIS, FHW, MO, U.S. Route 67 Corridor Project, Improvements from South of Fredericktown to the South of Neelyville, Madison, Wayne and Butler Counties, MO, Wait Period Ends: 08/08/2005, Contact: Peggy Casey 573–636–7104. EIS No. 20050278, Draft Supplement, AFS, WA, Upper Charley Subwatershed Ecosystem Restoration Projects, Proposing to Amend the Umatilla National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan to Incorporate Management for Canada lynx, Pomeroy Ranger District, Umatilla National Forest, Garfield County, WA, Comment Period Ends: 08/22/2005, Contact: Monte Fujishin 509–843–1891. This document is available on the Internet at: https:// www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/projects/ readroom/pomeroy/upcharley_dseis.pdf. EIS No. 20050279, Final EIS, NPS, AL, Selma to Montgomery National Historic Trail Comprehensive Management Plan, Implementation, Dallas, Lowndes and Montgomery Counties, AL, Wait Period Ends: , 08/ 08/2005 Contact: John Barrett 404– 562–3124 Ext 637. EIS No. 20050280, Final EIS, COE, FL, Herbert Hoover Dike Major Rehabilitation Evaluation Study, Proposed to Reduce the Probability of a Breach of Reach One, Lake Okeechobee, Martin and Palm Beach Counties, FL, Wait Period Ends: 08/ 08/2005, Contact: Rebecca Weis 904– 232–1577. EIS No. 20050281, Draft EIS, AFS, CA, North Fork Eel Grazing Allotment Management Project, Proposing to Authorize Cattle Grazing on Four Allotment, Six Rivers National Forest, Mad River Ranger District, North Fork Eel River and Upper Mad River, Trinity County, CA, Comment Period Ends: 08/22/2005, Contact: Julie Ranieri 707–441–3673. EIS No. 20050282, Final EIS, FHW, OH, US 33 Nelsonville Bypass Project, To Upgrade Existing Four-Lane E:\FR\FM\08JYN1.SGM 08JYN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 130 (Friday, July 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39507-39508]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13468]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6665-2]


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 1, 2005 (70 FR 16815).

Draft EISs

    EIS No. 20050030, ERP No. D-NPS-K61160-CA, Non-Native Deer 
Management Plan of Axis Deer (Axis axis) and Fallow Deer (Dama dama), 
Implementation, Point Reyes National Seashore (PRNS) and Golden Gate 
National Recreation Area, Marin County, CA.
    Summary: EPA had no objections to this project.

Rating LO

    EIS No. 20050096, ERP No. D-NRC-F06026-IL, Early Site Permit (ESP) 
at the Exelon ESP Site, Application for ESP on One Additional Nuclear 
Unit, within the Clinton Power Station (CPS), NUREG-1815, DeWitt 
County, IL.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns due to impacts to 
wetlands and impaired water bodies. EPA also requested clarification of 
the purpose and need and radiation issues.

Rating EC2

    EIS No. 20050105, ERP No. D-AFS-F65050-MI, Huron-Manistee National 
Forests, Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan, Implementation, 
Several Counties, MI.
    Summary: EPA expressed concerns regarding potential impacts to 
water quality from the restoration of 58,000 acres of large-scale (500+ 
acres) clearings and from mining. EPA also requested clarification of 
potential impacts to wildlife and habitat from the proposed increase in 
snowmobile trails.

Rating EC2

    EIS No. 20050107, ERP No. D-AFS-F65051-IL, Shawnee National Forest 
Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan Revision, Implementation, 
Alexander, Gallatin, Hardin, Jackson, Johnson, Massac, Pope, Union and 
Williamson Counties, IL.

[[Page 39508]]

    Summary: EPA has no objections to the preferred alternative.

Rating LO

    EIS No. 20050113, ERP No. D-BLM-K65439-NV, Sloan Canyon National 
Conservation Area, Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Cities of 
Las Vegas and Henderson, Clark County, NV.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to mitigation 
measures and the cumulative impacts analysis for air quality and water 
resources.

Rating EC2

    EIS No. 20050114, ERP No. D-AFS-F65053-IN, Hoosier National Forest 
Land and Resource Management Plan, Implementation, Brown, Crawford, 
Dubois, Jackson, Lawrence, Martin, Monroe, Orange, Perry Counties, IN.
    Summary: EPA expressed concerns related to early- and late-
successional management and the timeline for conversion of non-native 
pines/restoration of oak-hickory habitat and the seasonal trail 
closures in the wilderness area.

Rating EC2

    EIS No. 20050118, ERP No. D-AFS-F65054-MI, Ottawa National Forest, 
Proposed Land and Resource Management Plan, Forest Plan Revision, 
Implementation, Baraga, Gogebic, Houghton, Iron, Marquette and 
Ontonagan Counties, MI.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to potential 
impacts to water quality and on the management ATVs, deer, and old 
growth habitat. EPA suggested the final alternative emphasize late 
successional northern hardwoods and producing an old growth continuous 
canopy.

Rating EC2

    EIS No. 20050128, ERP No. D-AFS-L65480-ID, Porcupine East, 9 
Allotment Grazing Analysis Project, Authorizing Livestock Grazing, 
Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Dubois Ranger District, Centennial 
Mountains, Clark County, ID.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns related to 
alternatives, and potential impacts to water quality/source water for 
drinking water.

Rating EC2

    EIS No. 20050134, ERP No. D-AFS-L65481-00, Caribou Travel Plan 
Revision, Determine the Motorized Road and Trail System, 
Implementation, Caribou-Targhee National Forest, Westside, Soda Spring 
and Montpelier Ranger Districts, Bannock, Bear River, Bonneville, 
Caribou, Franklin, Oneida and Power Counties, ID.
    Summary: EPA has concerns with adverse impacts to water quality, 
air quality and wilderness.

Rating EC2

Final EISs

    EIS No. 20050185, ERP No. F-NRC-F03009-MI, Generic--Donald C. Cook 
Nuclear Plant, Units No. 1 and 2, (TAC No. MC1221 and MC1222) License 
Renewal, Supplement 20 to NUREG 1437, Berrien County, MI.
    Summary: EPA continues to express environmental concerns related to 
radiological impacts/risk estimates and reducing the entrainment of 
fish and shellfish in early life stages. EPA recommends that additional 
information on these issues be included in the Record of Decision.
    EIS No. 20050219, ERP No. F-BLM-K65275-00, California Coastal 
National Monument Resource Management Plan, To Protect Important 
Biological and Geological Values: Islands, Rocks, Exposed Reefs, and 
Pinnacles above Mean High Tide, CA, OR, and Mexico.
    Summary: EPA has no objections to the proposed plan.

    Dated: July 5, 2005.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 05-13468 Filed 7-7-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.