[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 104 (Friday, May 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29344-29345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-14187]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
