Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5480-9]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared May 12, 1997 Through May 16,

1997 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 04, 1997 (62

FR 16154).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-COE-K36118-CA Rating EC2, Upper Guadalupe River Flood

Control Project, Construction, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Santa

Clara County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the lack of a

full analysis of indirect and cumulative impacts; the need for more

discussion of wetland and riparian-related mitigation; the lack of

discussion of impacts associated with herbicide use; and the need to

quantify construction-related air emissions. EPA suggested that the

project can be improved by adopting pollution prevention measures in

design, construction and operation of the flood control facility.

ERP No. D-COE-K67041-CA Rating EO2, Morrison Creek Mining Reach

Downstream (South) of Jackson Highway, Mining and Reclamation Project,

COE Section 404 Permit Issuance, Sacramento County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections with the proposed

project base on adverse impacts to wetlands and other waters of the

United States that would occur. EPA expressed concern that the draft

EIS did not clearly demonstrate that all appropriate measures were

taken to avoid and minimize placing fill material in waters of the

United States. EPA strongly recommended that the project be redesigned

to avoid and minimize such adverse impacts.

ERP No. D-FHW-H40156-00 Rating LO, U.S. 61, U.S. 218 and IA-394

Highway Improvements, Construction, Funding, U.S. Army COE Section 404

Permit, Lewis and Clark Counties, MO and Lee and Henry Counties, IA.

Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed action, and

expressed preference for the ``west alignment'' as the preferred

alternative.

ERP No. D-FHW-H40160-IA Rating EC2, US 34 Roadway and Bridge

Improvements, I-29 in Mills County, IA to US 75 in Cass or Sarpy

Counties, NB, COE Section 404 and US Coast Guard Permits, Mills County,

Iowa and Cass or Sarpy Counties, Nebraska.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns base on proposed

impacts to wetlands, wildlife habitat and stormwater runoff, and

questioned whether the proposed action supports the expressed purpose

and

[[Page 29345]]

need for the project. EPA expressed support for adoption of Alternative

2.

ERP No. D-FHW-H40162-MO Rating LO, O-19, MO-107 and US 54

Improvements and Extension, US 61 near Bowling Green and New London on

the East to Mark Twain Lake and the Mexico Bypass on the West, Funding

and COE Section 404 Permits Issuance, Pike, Monroe, Ralls and Audrain

Counties, MO.

Summary: EPA had no objections to the proposed action.

ERP No. D-FRC-E03006-00 Rating EO2, North Alabama Natural Gas

Pipeline Facilities, Construction and Operation, COE Section 10 and 404

Permits, Right-of-Way and NPDES Permits, AL.

Summary: EPA believed that modification of the existing pipeline

system would result in considerably less impact than the proposed

action for a new pipeline which would directly disturb streams,

wetlands, public lands, and residential properties.

ERP No. D-NPS-H61021-00 Rating EC2, Missouri/Niobrara/Verdigre

Creek National Recreational Rivers General Management Plan,

Implementation, Gregory, Charles Mix and Bon Homme Counties, SD and

Knox and Boyd Counties, NB.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns with the proposed

action and suggested that potential actions which could be taken to

preserve biological resources, including wetlands, had been disclosed

or incorporated into the preferred alternative. EPA questioned the

scientific basis for establishing the project boundary and requested

that the final EIS be expanded to provide a full explanation of wetland

and floodplain impacts resulting from the preferred alternative.

Dated: May 27, 1997.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 97-14187 Filed 5-29-97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U