Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5490-9]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared March 30, 1998 Through April

03, 1998 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

[[Page 19253]]

ratings assigned to draft environmental impact statements (EISs) was

published in FR dated April 11, 1997 (62 FR 16154).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-FHW-B40082-VT Rating EC2, Rutland Transportation

Improvement Project, between US 4 and US 7 in the City of Rutland and

the Towns of Rutland, Mendon, Clarendon and Shrewsbury, Funding, EPA

Permit and COE Section 404 Permit, Rutland County, VT.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding wetland,

water supply and secondary impacts of the various alternatives studied

in the DEIS. EPA also requested additional traffic analysis information

and asked FHWA to consider a modified Upgrade Alternative to achieve

the project purpose.

ERP No. D-FHW-B40083-NH Rating EC2, Manchester Airport Access Road

Highway Improvement Project, Bedford-Manchester-Londonderry-Litchfield-

Merrimack, Funding and NPDES Permit and COE Section 404 Permit,

Hillsborough and Rockingham Counties, NH.

Summary: EPA had environmental concerns that the alternatives

analysis in the DEIS does not rebut the presumption that practicable

and less damaging alternatives exist to the preferred option. EPA

requested additional information concerning direct and indirect

impacts, and measures to protect groundwater and drinking water

resources. Additionally, until various issues concerning the analysis

of alternatives and the final shape of the mitigation plan are

resolved, EPA believes the project does not comply with the EPA Section

404(b)(1) guidelines and should not receive a permit.

ERP No. D-FHW-G40147-NM Rating EC2, Paseo del Volcon Corridor,

Acquisition of Right-of-Way and Construction of Roadway, from the

Intersection of I-40 to Intersection of NM-44 near the Town of

Bernalillo, Bernalillo and Sandoval Counties, NM.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding compliance

with the National Historic Preservation Act, noise attenuation and

barrier design, Environmental Justice, and NEPA compliance assurances

for future or planned east to west arterial connectors.

ERP No. D-FHW-K40230-CA Rating EO2, CA-58 Transportation Corridor,

Route Adoption and Purchases Right-of-Way Acquisition Project, between

CA-99 in the Bakerfield Metropolitan Area and Interstate 5 in Kern

County, Funding and COE Section 404 Permit, Kern County, CA.

Summary: EPA raised environmental objections with the corridor

alignment alternatives. EPA suggested that other alternatives be

examined and raised concerns with the Purpose and Need, alternatives

analysis, impacts to water resources, threatened and endangered

species, and cumulative effects of the project.

ERP No. D-FTA-E40775-FL Rating EC1, Miami North Corridor Project,

Transit Improvements between NW 62 Street at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Station and NW 215th Street at the Dade/Broward Counties Line, Funding,

Major Investment Study, Dade County, FL.

Summary: EPA had environmental concerns because of the

unavoidability of some impacts, mitigation will be very important to

this project.

ERP No. D-IBR-K28019-CA Rating EO2, East Bay Municipal Utility

District, Supplemental Water Supply Project, American River Division of

the Central Valley Project (CVP), Sacramento County, CA.

Summary: EPA objected to the narrow scope of alternatives and the

restrictive alternative screening criteria which inherently limited

feasible alternatives to those with diversions from the American River.

EPA urged evaluation in detail of a wider range of alternatives that

encompass water management measures and water supply sources other than

just American River water. If a diversion from the American River is

deemed necessary, EPA urged selection of diversion points on the

Sacramento River below the confluence with the American River or as far

downstream on the American River as feasible. Given the significant

adverse cumulative impacts of additional American River diversions and

the fact that other utilities are able to utilize other water sources.

EPA recommended that the Final EIS clearly demonstrate that high

quality American River water is essential for meeting drinking water

standards and that the use other water sources is not feasible.

ERP No. D-TVA-E09801-MS Rating EC2, Red Hills Power Project,

Proposal to Purchase 440 megawatts (MW) of Electrial Energy, COE

Section 404 Permit, Town of Ackerman, Choctaw County, MS.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern regarding forested

wetland impacts and mitigation, truck noise, air toxics screening

against state thresholds and identification of water uses of wells and

springs potentially impacted by mining.

ERP No. D-UAF-A11074-00 Rating EC2, Evolved Expandable Launch

Vehicle (EELV) Program, Development, Operation and Deployment, Proposed

Launch Locations are Cape Canaveral Air Station (AS), Florida and

Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), California, Federal Permits and

Licenses, FL and CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding air issues

resulting from ozone depleting substance; the effects on plant-life;

and waste disposal.

ERP No. DA-COE-K36009-CA Rating EC2, Napa River and Napa Creek

Flood Protection Project, New Information, City of Napa, Napa County,

CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns that the Corps may

not be taking advantage of the numerous opportunities to avoid, reduce

and minimize adverse impacts to wetlands and other aquatic resources.

EPA expressed concerns because the EIS did not provide discussion or

data regarding construction-related emissions of particulates from

sources other than equipment; indicate whether PCBs are present in

electrical equipment or other utilities subject to removal or

relocation; and discuss whether vegetation maintenance would use

herbicides, potentially impacting water quality, fish and wildlife,

public health and non-target species.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-FHW-B53012-RI, Rhode Island Northeast Corridor Freight

Rail Improvement Project, Major Investment Study, Implementation,

Boston Switch in Central Falls to the Quonset Point/Davisville

Industrial Park in North Kingtown, Funding, COE Section 10 and 404

Permits, Providence County, RI.

Summary: EPA had lack of objection to the FHWA preferred

alternative and indicated that several water supply and water quality

issues should be resolved prior to construction of the project.

ERP No. F-FHW-L50005-AK, Kenai River Bridge Crossing Project,

Construction from Sterling Highway to Funny River Road, Funding, COE

Section 10 and 404 Permits, US CGD Permit and EPA NPDES Permit, Kenai

Peninsula, AK.

Summary: EPA continued to have environmental objections based on

lack of mitigation for wetland 3 and potential impacts to the Brown

Bear.

ERP No. F-GSA-L80016-WA, Seattle New Federal Courthouse,

Construction, King County, WA.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

[[Page 19254]]

Dated: April 14, 1998.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 98-10240 Filed 4-16-98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-U