Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6242-8]

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of

EPA Comments

Availability of EPA comments prepared April 26, 1999 Through April

30, 1999 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 9, 1999 (64 FR

17362).

Draft EISs

ERP No. D-BLM-A99217-00 Rating EO2, Programmatic EIS-Surface

Management Regulations for Locatable Mineral Operations, (43 CFR part

3809), Public Land.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections regarding

environmental performance standards and goals; bonding, reclamation and

monitoring plans; and implementing of the definition of unnecessary and

undue degradation. EPA also commented on state government coordination,

most appropriate technology and practices, and protections for riparian

areas. EPA requested that these issues be addressed in the final EIS

and proposed rule.

ERP No. D-COE-E39046-00 Rating EC2, Apalachicola-Chattahochee-Flint

(AFC) River Basin Water Allocation, Allocation Formula Approval, FL and

GA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental concern that the Draft EIS may

not adequately assess the impacts of the water allocation formulas. EPA

recommended that comprehensive river basin water quality models be

developed to predict impacts to indigenous fish and aquatic life, water

quality, consumptive uses, groundwater and recreation for the affected

reservoirs and rivers within each basin. EPA also recommended that a

baseline be established that would define the water needs for the river

basins to function in an acceptable manner and that would delineate the

limit for maximum water withdrawals.

ERP No. D-COE-E39047-AL Rating EC2, Jackson Port Project, Proposal

for the Public Port Facilities on the Tombigbee River, City of Jackson,

Clark County, AL.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns over the potential impacts to the

federal portion of this project, i.e., the spur canal. In regard to the

City of Jackson's planned phased development, which will convert

important bottom land hardwood habit to commercial property, EPA

expressed objections and requested additional information.

ERP No. D-COE-L32010-OR Rating EC2, Columbia and Lower Willamette

River Federal Navigation Channel, Improvement Channel Deepening, OR and

WA.

Summary: EPA expressed concern regarding the lack of information on

upland and instream dredged disposal sites; impacts of the new channel

and sediment regimes in the Columbia and Willamette Rivers; cumulative

impacts from past, present and future activities in the project area;

the absence of firm commitments to implement and follow through on the

referenced proposed Ecosystem Restoration measures; and the

relationship between the proposed dredging activities and the future

decision on whether to draw down the John Day Reservoir and selected

dams on the Lower Snake River.

ERP No. D-FHW-K50013-00 Rating EC2, US 93 Hoover Dam Bypass

Project, Construction of a New Bridge and Highway, Funding, Right-of-

Way Easement, US Coast Guard, NPDES and COE Section 404 Permits,

Federal Lands--Lake Mead National Recreation Area and Hoover Dam

Reservation, Clark County, NV and Mohave County, AZ.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns regarding cumulative effects,

indirect impacts (particularly regarding utility relocations),

excavation, erosion and runoff impacts, hazardous materials impacts and

recreational impacts.

ERP No. D-FTA-L40210-WA Rating EC2, Central Link Light Rail

Transmit Project, (Sound Transit) Construct and Operate an Electric

Rail Transit System, Funding and COE Section 10 and 404 Permits in the

Cities of Seattle, Sea Tac and Tuckwila, King County, WA.

Summary: EPA's concerns relate to the lack of evaluation of options

to offset impacts to salmon, ecosystems, and neighborhoods; the need to

expand the cumulative effects analysis; and the need to have clearly

defined mitigation measures in the EIS.

ERP No. D-IBR-K39056-CA Rating EC2, Contra Loma Reservoir Project,

[[Page 27783]]

Future Use and Operation of Contra Costa Water District, COE Section

404 Permit, Contra Costa County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed concerns over the proposed action's ability

to safeguard the drinking water supply. EPA believes that additional

information concerning the quality of the water and a more complete

analysis of the alternatives is necessary to fully assess the potential

environmental and public health impacts.

ERP No. DB-COE-E32022-NC Rating EO1, Manteo (Shallowbag) Bay

Project, Enlarging and Deepening Basin at Wanchese, Dare County, NC.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the construction

of the proposed jetty system for Oregon Inlet, and urged the Corps to

consider a ``dredging-only'' alternative as means to meet the

navigation expectations of local interests.

ERP No. DS-FHW-K40157-CA Rating EO2, CA-1 Improvement, Carmel River

Bridge to CA-1/Pacific Grove (Route 68) Interchange, Updated and

Additional Information, Funding and COE Section 404 Permit, Monterey

County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections due to adverse

impacts to wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the United

States, which are subject to regulatory provisions of Section 404 of

the Clean Water Act as well as potential impacts to the Monterey Pine

Forest.

Final EISs

ERP No. F-BLM-K65205-CA, Telephone Flat Geothermal Power Plant

within the Glass Mountain Known Geothermal Resource Area, Construction,

Operation and Decommissioning of a 48 megawatt (MW) Geothermal Plant,

Modoc National Forest, Siskiyou County, CA.

Summary: EPA expressed continuing concerns regarding the projects

purpose and need, inconsistency with prior NEPA analysis, significant

unmitigable impacts to Native American traditional cultural values,

cumulative impacts from additional development, NEPA segmentation, and

prior agreements between Bonneville Power Administration and CalEnergy

that may prejudice the Record of Decision. EPA requested that the

Record of Decision not be issued until these issues are resolved.

ERP No. F-CGD-K50012-CA, CA-92/San Mateo Hayward Bridge,

Improvements to the East Approach and the Trestle Portion of the

bridge, Coast Guard Bridge Permit and COE Section 404 Permit, Alameda

and San Mateo Counties, CA.

Summary: EPA does not believe its previously expressed concerns

were adequately addressed and in particular that the 92/880 Interchange

project was not included in the analysis.

ERP No. F-COE-F35045-MN, Duluth-Superior Harbor Phase II, Dredge

Material Management Plan, Cities of Duluth, St. Louis County, MN and

Douglas County, WI.

Summary: The Final EIS adequately addressed most issues raised

previously by EPA. However, EPA continues to be concerned that the

sediment quality evaluation analysis was completed only for Hearding

Island Hole. EPA requested that before any other deep holes are used

for disposal, they should also be assessed.

ERP No. F-COE-F36161-IL, Chicagoland Underflow Plan, McCook

Reservoir Construction and Operation for Temporary Retention of

Floodwaters in Metropolitan Chicago, Implementation, Cook County, IL.

Summary: The Final EIS adequately responded to most issues raised

by EPA. However, EPA continues to be concerned that no information was

provided regarding operation and maintenance of the pumps around the

reservoir installed to protect the surrounding groundwater.

ERP No. F-COE-K39052-CA, Hamilton Wetland Restoration Project,

Tidal Salt Marsh Habitat, Alameda County, CA.

Summary: EPA is pleased with the selection of Alternative 5, which

would support a diversity of important wetland habitat types and

expressed no objection to the proposed action.

ERP No. F-COE-L03008-AK, Beaufort Sea Oil and Gas Development

Northstar Project, Implementation, NPDES Permit, Sea Island, Alaskan

Beaufort Sea, Offshore Marine Environment and Onshore Northslope of

Alaskan Coastal Plain, AK.

Summary: The final EIS adequately addressed EPA concerns related to

oil spill prevention and response issues and the manner in which issues

and concerns of the Inupiat Eskimo have been integrated into the NEPA

process. However, EPA indicated that the analysis of double-walled

pipeline technology should continue to be pursued and that this

technology should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for all

subsequent off-shore development projects in the Beaufort Sea.

ERP No. F-FHW-E40755-NC, US 70 Improvements Project, I-40 to the

Intersection of US 70 and US 70 Business, Funding and COE Section 404

Permit, Wake and Johnston Counties, NC.

Summary: In general FHWA satisfied EPA's concerns raised at the

DEIS stage. EPA's remaining environmental concerns are for maintenance

of surface water quality for the endangered dwarf-wedged mussel present

in the Swift Creek drainage area which will be subject to Multiple

highway projects in the foreseeable future. Also, a likely shortfall is

noted in wetlands loss mitigation.

ERP No. F-IBR-K39028-NV, Clark County Wetlands Park Master Plan,

Construction and Operation, Erosion Control Structures in Las Vegas

Wash, COE Section 404 Permit, Right-of-Way Permit and Endangered

Species Act Section 4, Clark County, NV.

Summary: EPA commend the Bureau's efforts to implement a thoughtful

Wetlands Park Plan which considers both local community and

environmental concerns. EPA has no object to the action as proposed.

ERP No. F-USA-F11036-IN, Newport Chemical Depot, Construction and

Operation, Pilot Testing of Neutralization/Supercritical Water

Oxidation of VX Agent, Vermillion County, IN.

Summary: EPA's previous objections have been resolved by the

inclusion of the requested information. Therefore, EPA has no objection

to the proposed action.

ERP No. FA-NOA-K90020-CA, Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery

Management Plan Amendment 8, (Formerly Known as Northern Anchovy

Fishery Management Plan), Approval and Implementation, WA, CA and OR.

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

formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.

ERP No. FS-TVA-E07013-TN, Kingston Fossil Plant Alternative Coal

Receiving Systems, New Rail Spur Construction near the Cities of

Kingston and Harriman, Roane County, TN.

Summary: EPA commented favorably on TVA's proposal to use a source

of cleaner (low sulfur) coal. However, there are longer coal delivery

distances (and attendant air emissions) and train lengths associated

with such sources as well as some additional noise from such deliveries

and from coal handling, crushing and blending operation.

ERP No. F1-FHW-G40140-TX, Grand Parkway Segment (TX-99) Volume IV,

Segment 1-2, Improvement Project from TX-225 to I-10 (East), Funding,

COE Section 404 Permit and Right-of-Way Grant, Harris and Chamber

Counties, TX.

Summary: Review of the Final EIS has been completed and the project

found to

[[Page 27784]]

be satisfactory. No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing

agency.

Other

ERP No. LD-USA-L11032-AK Rating E02, Alaska Army Lands Withdrawal

Renewal for Fort Wainwright and Fort Greely West Training Area,

Approval of Permits and Licenses, City of Fairbanks, City of North Pole

and City of Delta Junction, North Star Borough, AK.

Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections to the proposed

project on the basis of a restricted range of alternatives and the

potential environmental impacts. EPA requested more information on

existing environmental conditions, more site-specific evaluation of

direct and cumulative impacts, and a consideration of additional

renewal periods.

Dated: May 18, 1999.

William D. Dickerson,

Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 99-12959 Filed 5-20-99; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-M