[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