[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 74 (Friday, April 17, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19252-19254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10240]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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