[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 98 (Friday, May 21, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27782-27784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12959]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
