[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 48 (Friday, March 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13019-13024]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-5844]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


Job Corps: Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the 
New Job Corps Center Located on Schoolland Woods Road (the Former Ladd 
Center) in Exeter, RI

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Final Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the New Job 
Corps Center to be located on Schoolland Woods Road (the former Ladd 
Center) in Exeter, Rhode Island.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR Part 1500-08) implementing procedural provisions of the 
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Department of Labor, 
Employment and Training Administration, Office of Job Corps gives final 
notice of the proposed construction of a new Job Corps Center on 
Schoolland Woods Road (the former Ladd Center), Exeter, Rhode Island, 
and that this construction will not have a significant adverse impact 
on the environment. In accordance with 29 CFR 11.11(d) and 40 CFR 
1501.4(e)(2), a preliminary FONSI for the new Exeter Job Corps Center 
was published in the October 14, 1999 Federal Register (64 FR 55754-
55755). Copies of the environmental assessment (EA) were made available 
to all interested parties, and two organizations submitted comments on 
the EA and FONSI. ETA has reviewed all comments submitted, and has 
issued an addendum to the EA correcting factual errors identified 
during the public review and comment period. ETA has determined that 
the issues and concerns raised during the public comment period do not 
affect the conclusions of the EA or the finding of no significant 
impact. This notice serves as the Final Finding of No Significant 
Impact for construction of the new Exeter Job Corps Center to be 
located on Schoolland Woods Road (the former Ladd Center) in Exeter, 
Rhode Island.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 10, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Copies of the EA, the addendum to the 
EA, or comments submitted by interested parties can be obtained by 
contacting Michael O'Malley, Employment and Training Administration, 
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW, Room N-4659, 
Washington, DC, 20210, (202) 219-5468 ext 115 (this is not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    On October 14, 1999, the ETA published an environmental assessment 
(EA) and a preliminary finding of no significant impact (FONSI) for 
construction of a new Job Corps Center on approximately 19.65 acres 
located on Schoolland Woods Road in Exeter, Rhode Island. The proposed 
project parcel is located within the former Ladd Center, an 
approximately 270 acre facility which served as an institution for the 
care and rehabilitation of the developmentally disabled. The project 
includes renovation of two existing buildings and construction of three 
new buildings on the proposed property parcel, which will be leased by 
the Department of Labor from the State of Rhode Island for a term of 50 
years. The Exeter Job Corps Center will provide training and support 
for 200 resident students. The EA prepared by the ETA concluded that 
the construction of a new Job Corps Center at the proposed property 
parcel would have no significant negative impacts on the natural, 
cultural, or social environment in the surrounding community. Due to 
the adaptability of the existing structures on the site, the lack of 
alternative construction sites, and the absence of any identified 
adverse environmental impacts from locating a Job Corps Center at the 
subject property, the ``Continue Construction as Proposed'' alternative 
was selected, and a finding of no significant impact was made. Although 
the Department of Labor's NEPA compliance procedures do not require a 
public comment period for an environmental assessment that results in a 
finding of no significant impact, the ETA voluntarily published the 
FONSI for the Exeter Job Corps Center as a preliminary finding, and 
provided a 30-day public comment period.

Discussion of Public Comments and Interagency Review

    The ETA received written comments from three public agencies: (1) 
the Town Council for the Town of Exeter, Rhode Island; (2) the Planning 
Board for the Town of Exeter, Rhode Island; and (3) the United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Rhode Island Program. All 
three agencies disagreed with the ETA's finding of no significant 
impact, and offered comments on the EA.

Comments From the Town of Exeter Town Council

    The Town of Exeter Town Council provided twelve specific comments 
and/or questions regarding the EA prepared by the DOL. The first 
comment was that the format of the EA appeared to be based on the ASTM 
standard for Phase I environmental site assessments (ESA), and the Town 
Council questioned whether the EA was prepared primarily to relieve the 
ETA of CERCLA liability and to provide a boilerplate for a finding of 
no significant

[[Page 13020]]

impact (Section 1.1--Purpose and Scope and Section 4.1--Facility 
Characteristics). The EA was prepared by a contractor to the ETA under 
a specific scope of work that included both (1) an ASTM phase I 
environmental site assessment to identify potential CERCLA liabilities 
associated with the proposed project parcel; and (2) an evaluation of 
potential environmental impacts associated with the project, in 
accordance with the NEPA implementation regulations promulgated by the 
DOL. Combining these two environmentally related tasks in a single 
scope of work complies with the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA 
regulations on paperwork reduction (40 CFR 1500.4). The EA was designed 
to provide a format for publication of a FONSI if no significant impact 
was identified, or for development of an environmental impact statement 
(EIS) if a potentially significant impact was identified. The DOL 
believes that the scope of work and format for this EA satisfy the 
intent and specific requirements of the NEPA.
    The second comment expressed concern that the Rhode Island 
Department of Mental Health, Retardation, and Hospitals (DMHRH) had not 
been consulted regarding the past uses of the property (Section 1.2--
Sources of Information and Section 4.3.5.5--Standard Historical 
Sources). During preparation of the EA, several interviews were 
conducted with representatives of the Rhode Island Economic Development 
Corporation (EDC) who had personal knowledge of the site and of the 
past uses of the property, and written records concerning the past uses 
of the property were also reviewed. Based on the available information, 
there are no indications that additional information from the DMHRH 
would have any affect on the determination of either the potential 
CERCLA liability of the property or the potential environmental impacts 
from the proposed Job Corps Center. The finding of no significant 
impact is therefore reasonable, and the EA has not been edited in 
response to this comment.
    The third comment from the Town Council suggested that, because the 
specific vocational curriculum at the proposed Job Corps Center has not 
yet been finalized, environmental concerns from Job Corps training 
operations (Section 3.1--Proposed Job Corps Center) cannot be 
thoroughly evaluated at this time. Although the specific vocational 
curriculum has not yet been finalized, the proposed vocations include 
carpentry and masonry. Both of these trades are included in vocational 
programs at Job Corps centers throughout the nation, and neither of 
these trades is associated with significant air, water, noise, 
hazardous waste, or solid waste pollution at any of the centers in 
which they are taught. The finding of no significant impact is 
therefore reasonable, and the EA has not been edited in response to 
this comment.
    The fourth comment pointed out that the proposed student population 
listed in the EA (Section 3.2--Facility Characteristics) was 200 
residential students and 100 non-resident students, whereas the final 
project proposal was for 200 residential students only. The removal of 
non-resident students from the proposed Job Corps Center has no effect 
on the finding of no significant impact, however, except possibly to 
reduce even further the anticipated impacts on vehicular traffic, 
noise, and non-source air pollution. Although this error has no bearing 
on the finding of no significant impact, the proposed student 
population was corrected in an addendum to the EA published on January 
14, 2000.
    The fifth comment stated that the review of the United States 
Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute topographic map (Section 4.3.5.4) 
conducted as part of the Phase I ESA was inadequate, and suggested that 
further evaluation of the Queen's River aquifer should have been 
included in this section. This section of the ESA was intended only to 
provide an evaluation of recognized environmental conditions and 
potential liabilities that could be identified through an evaluation of 
the USGS 7.5 minute topographic map, and was not intended to include an 
in-depth discussion of existing groundwater conditions. The EA report 
has not been edited in response to this comment.
    The sixth and seventh comments correctly pointed out that the Town 
of Exeter is incorrectly identified as the ``City of Exeter'in several 
sections of the EA, and that the EA (Section 5.2.1--Land Use) 
incorrectly identifies a downtown area of Exeter. Although they have no 
bearing on the finding of no significant impact, both of these errors 
have been corrected in an addendum to the EA published on January 14, 
2000.
    The eighth comment from the Town Council referenced the EA's 
description of adjoining property land use (Section 5.2.1). The town 
council stated that, due to the presence of wetlands, farmland, and 
undeveloped property parcels surrounding the former Ladd Center, 
impacts to groundwater from the project may have ``unforeseeable and 
irreparable consequences, and * * * justifies the need for further 
assessment.'' The DOL recognizes the concern for protection of 
groundwater in this area, and all buildings, surface improvements, 
sewage disposal systems, and storm water control systems will be 
constructed in accordance with Rhode Island Department of Environmental 
Management (RIDEM) guidelines and regulations to minimize impacts to 
groundwater. The nature of surrounding land use will not effect the 
DOL's ability to protect groundwater resources, and therefore does not 
affect the finding of no significant impact. The EA correctly describes 
adjoining property use, and has not been edited in response to this 
comment.
    The ninth comment from the Town Council identified an incorrect 
spelling of a Town Council representative (Section 5.2.2--Demographics 
and Socio-Economic). Although the error has no bearing on the finding 
of no significant impact, the spelling was corrected in an addendum to 
the EA published on January 14, 2000.
    The tenth comment referenced the EA's description of historical 
land use (Section 5.2.3), which stated that an archaeological 
assessment of the Ladd Center property was warranted ``due to the 
parcel's favorable environmental characteristics such as well-drained 
soils * * *, level topography and abundance of nearby freshwater 
wetlands.'' The town council stated that these conditions created the 
potential for ``unforeseeable and irreparable consequences, and * * * 
justifies the need for further assessment.'' As indicated above, the 
DOL recognizes the concern for protection of groundwater in this area. 
This section of the EA, however, is intended only to focus on the 
potential for historic and/or archaeological resources on the proposed 
project parcel. Since the EA (and a subsequent archaeological 
assessment of the entire Ladd Center by the Rhode Island Economic 
Development Corporation) did not identify any historically significant 
or archaeologically sensitive areas on or immediately adjacent to the 
proposed Job Corps parcel, the finding of no significant impact is 
reasonable. The EA has not been edited in response to this comment.
    The eleventh comment from the Town Council stated that the EA's 
description of the Exeter Fire Department (Section 5.2.7.3--Fire/
Rescue/Emergency) as a full time department providing 24 hour service 
was incorrect; the Exeter Fire and Rescue Departments are part-time 
volunteer agencies. This error was corrected in an addendum to the EA 
published on January 14, 2000, but the

[[Page 13021]]

error has no bearing on the finding of no significant impact.
    The final comment stated that insufficient information was 
researched in order to support the EA's statement that ``wastewater 
flows and resultant demand on the regional infrastructure will not 
increase significantly'' (Section 6.1.1--Hydrogeology). The term 
``regional infrastructure'', as applied to wastewater disposal, 
generally refers to municipal sewer lines, wastewater pumping stations, 
and publicly owned treatment facilities. Wastewater disposal for the 
proposed project will be managed through an individual sewage disposal 
system (ISDS) in accordance with RIDEM guidelines and regulations, and 
therefore will have no impact either on groundwater on the regional 
wastewater infrastructure. The DOL believes that the finding of no 
significant impact is justified, and the EA has not been edited in 
response to this comment.

Comments From the Town of Exeter Planning Board

    The Exeter Planning Board submitted a letter objecting to the 
finding of no significant impact, stating that they felt an EIS was 
required. The Planning Board included twenty-one specific comments on 
the EA.
    Their first comment criticized the database information used by the 
DOL in preparation of the ESA portion of the report (Section 4.3--
Environmental Records Review), suggesting that the site specific 
information contained in the database should have been verified. The 
use of environmental databases to identify known environmental concerns 
is standard practice in the preparation of an ESA. Field verification 
of the database information is not required or recommended in the ASTM 
Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The DOL believes 
that the information used in preparing the ESA was reliable, and this 
comment has no bearing on the finding of no significant impact.
    The second comment requested that the impacts of leaking 
underground storage tanks (UST) at the Exeter Mall site should be 
included in the ESA portion of the report (Section 4.3.2.2--Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Sites). This section of the EA report was 
generated from a RIDEM database of leaking UST sites, which reported no 
leaking UST sites within a 0.5 mile radius of the proposed Job Corps 
property parcel. A database search of 0.5 mile radius is specified in 
the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments. The 
proposed project will not have any impact on the site referenced by the 
Planning Board, and this comment has no bearing on the finding of no 
significant impact.
    The third comment from the planning board suggested that 
insufficient information was obtained through consultation with 
interested parties (Section 4.4.2--Interviews with Knowledgeable 
Parties) for assessment of known environmental conditions. The Board 
suggested that additional assessment of the 6 USTs on the Ladd Center 
property should be conducted, and they suggested that the DOL should 
have consulted with the RIDEM, former property managers, town 
officials, the Nature Conservatory, and the Audubon Society. The DOL 
believes that additional assessment of the 6 USTs identified on the 
Ladd Center is not necessary for satisfactory completion of the EA, 
since these tanks are not located on or immediately adjacent to the 
proposed Job Corps property parcel, and the proposed project will not 
have any impact on surface or subsurface soils in the vicinity of the 
USTs. With respect to the adequacy of the interviews conducted, the DOL 
believes that sufficient interviews were conducted to satisfy the 
informational requirements of both the phase I ESA and the requirements 
for an EA under the DOL NEPA implementation regulations.
    The fourth comment suggested possible environmental impacts due to 
the presence of mercury in fluorescent light bulbs throughout the 
buildings to be renovated under this project. The fluorescent light 
bulbs were identified as a recognized environmental condition in the 
ESA section of the EA (Section 4.5--Findings and Conclusions). As 
discussed in Section 6.3.5 of the EA, any fluorescent light fixtures 
removed during renovation activities will be disposed of in accordance 
with applicable State and Federal regulations. Although the fluorescent 
light bulbs represent a potential environmental liability associated 
with the property, there are no significant impacts associated with the 
proper removal, handling, and disposal of these fixtures for the 
proposed Job Corps renovations.
    The fifth comment from the Planning Board suggested that a 
description and diagram of the existing groundwater reservoir and well 
fields should be included in the EA, and suggested that the USGS report 
on the Queens River Aquifer should have been reviewed in evaluating the 
impact of the project (Section 5.1.5--Natural Environment and 
Resources). The DOL did not include a detailed description of the 
groundwater aquifer in the EA report, since the EA is intended to be 
only a brief evaluation and discussion of potential environmental 
impacts. As indicated previously, the RIDEM has informed the DOL that 
an individual sewage disposal system (ISDS) for the proposed Job Corps 
project, with appropriate pretreatment, will meet RIDEM regulations for 
the protection of ground and surface waters. The estimated groundwater 
withdrawal for the proposed Job Corps project is also well below the 
current yield for existing groundwater wells, and will not add 
significantly to the overall withdrawal from the Queens River Aquifer. 
The DOL believes that the discussion of natural environment and 
resources presented in the EA is sufficient, and supports the finding 
of no significant impact.
    The sixth comment from the Planning Board suggested that the EA did 
not sufficiently address potential impacts to rare species living at 
the Queens River, and suggested that the DOL should more clearly 
delineate the wetlands surrounding the Ladd Center (Section 5.1.5--
Natural Environment and Resources). Both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and the RIDEM Natural Heritage Program were consulted during 
preparation of the EA, and no known endangered or threatened plant or 
animal species were identified on the proposed Job Corps property 
parcel. The EA indicates that no jurisdictional wetlands are located on 
or immediately adjacent to the proposed property parcel, although there 
are protected wetlands to the Southeast, Northwest, and West of the 
proposed property parcel. As indicated in the EA, all storm water will 
be managed on-site so as to minimize run-off to wetlands areas and 
other surface water receptors, in accordance with RIDEM storm water 
guidelines and regulations.
    The Planning Board disagreed with the DOL's conclusion that noise 
from the proposed Job Corps center will not create a significant impact 
(Section 5.1.8--Noise), suggesting that construction and operation of 
the Job Corps center will negatively impact residential communities in 
the vicinity of the project. As indicated in the EA, construction and 
operation of the Job Corps center will comply with all applicable noise 
standards. Due to the remoteness of the center location and its 
confinement within the boundaries of the 300 acre Ladd Center property, 
noise impacts from the proposed Job Corps center are anticipated to be 
minimal. The DOL believes that the discussion of noise levels presented 
in the EA is reasonable, and supports the finding of no significant 
impact.

[[Page 13022]]

    The Planning Board also raised concern over the proposed center's 
compliance with the Town of Exeter lighting regulations (Section 
5.1.9--Lighting). As indicated in the EA, the Job Corps center will 
comply with all applicable lighting regulations, including those of the 
Town of Exeter. Due to the remoteness of the center location and its 
confinement within the Ladd Center boundaries, no significant impacts 
from the center's lighting system are anticipated.
    The ninth comment from the Planning Board supported the conduct of 
an archaeological assessment for the former Ladd Center, as recommended 
by the State of Rhode Island Historical Preservation & Heritage 
Commission and reported in the EA (Section 5.2.3--History and 
Archaeology). This recommendation was made in reference to the Ladd 
Center as a whole, and not in reference to the Job Corps property 
parcel. As reported in the EA, no known or suspected archaeological 
sites have been identified on the proposed Job Corps property parcel. 
The findings presented in the EA have been confirmed by an 
archaeological assessment recently performed by the Rhode Island EDC, 
which concluded that there is little potential for culturally 
significant findings on the proposed Job Corps center property parcel. 
The DOL believes that the discussion of historical and archaeological 
impacts presented in the EA is reasonable, and supports the finding of 
no significant impact.
    The tenth comment from the Planning Board stated that the EA's 
statements relating to the impacts of the proposed project on water and 
sewer resources are inadequate (Section 5.2.6.2--Water and Section 
5.2.6.3--Sewer). As discussed in the EA and reiterated above, the 
estimated water withdrawal for the proposed Job Corps center is well 
below the current pumping rate for existing on-site wells, and will 
create a minimal impact on the overall water withdrawal from the Queens 
River Aquifer. The DOL has consulted with the RIDEM regarding the 
impacts to groundwater from sewage disposal, and RIDEM informed the DOL 
that an ISDS can be designed for the proposed project, with appropriate 
wastewater pre-treatment, to meet all RIDEM regulations and ensure 
protection of groundwater resources. The DOL believes that the 
discussions of water use and wastewater treatment presented in the EA 
are sufficient, and support the finding of no significant impact.
    Comment eleven from the Planning Board repeated the concern raised 
by the Town Council criticizing the finding that wastewater flows will 
not have significant impact on regional infrastructure (Section 6.1.1--
Hydrogeology). This comment has been addressed above, and does not 
affect the DOL's finding of no significant impact for the proposed Job 
Corps center.
    The twelfth comment stated that the Planning Board does not accept 
the DOL's statement that the project site has been selected to avoid 
negative impacts on rare, threatened, or endangered species or wetland 
habitats (Section 6.1.2--Natural Environment and Resources), and stated 
that they will independently assess the impact of the project during 
the Planning Board's site review process. The DOL is aware that many 
local jurisdictions have established procedures for site plan review, 
and the DOL will continue to work closely with the Planning Board and 
other interested parties throughout the design and construction of the 
proposed project. The Planning Board's site review is separate from the 
DOL's internal NEPA review, however, and does not impact the finding of 
no significant impact.
    Comment thirteen restated the Planning Board's objection to the 
finding of no impact from noise at the center (Section 6.1.5--Noise), 
stipulating that the Job Corps center will inevitably increase traffic 
flow over the current level, since the Ladd Center is currently vacant. 
Although vehicular traffic will increase over current levels, the 
increase will not have any significant effects on air quality, noise 
levels, or traffic patterns in the vicinity. The traffic associated 
with construction and operation of the Job Corps center will be well 
below the traffic levels that previously occurred at the Ladd Center, 
and the existing road systems and transportation infrastructure is more 
than adequate to handle the Job Corps traffic load. The DOL believes 
that the discussion of traffic patterns and noise levels presented in 
the EA is reasonable, and supports the finding of no significant 
impact.
    The Planning Board challenged the statement in the EA identifying a 
proposal to establish an educational/residential land use 
classification for the proposed Job Corps property parcel (Section 
6.2.1--Land Use). The Planning Board correctly pointed out that the 
proposed re-zoning has been withdrawn, and the subject property 
currently retains a special zoning classification. Although the 
proposed re-zoning has been withdrawn, there are no restrictions 
associated with the current special zoning classification that would 
prevent construction of the proposed Job Corps center. The correct 
zoning status of the property was included in an addendum to the EA 
published on January 14, 2000.
    The Planning Board also questioned who would pay for fire, police, 
and rescue services (Section 6.2.2--Demographics and Socio-Economics). 
As discussed in the EA, the Job Corps center will have on-site security 
staff and limited medical services. The Job Corps center will rely on 
the Town of Exeter and the State of Rhode Island for emergency 
services, as did the Ladd Center during its operation. The demand for 
emergency services is anticipated to be minimal. A review of fire, 
police, and rescue service capabilities for the Town of Exeter and the 
State of Rhode Island indicates that the existing emergency services 
are sufficient to meet the anticipated needs of the Job Corps Center, 
and will not result in a significant increased service demand. The 
issue of compensation for services provided is not relevant to the EA, 
and has no bearing on the finding of no significant impact.
    Comment number sixteen from the Planning Board reiterated their 
concern over possible impacts from wastewater treatment at the proposed 
Job Corps center (Section 6.2.6.3--Sewer), stating that the project 
must take into account the need for nitrogen removal in accordance with 
the Town of Exeter wastewater regulations. As stated in the EA, the 
RIDEM has indicated that an ISDS is an appropriate wastewater treatment 
technology for the proposed Job Corps center. The DOL will continue to 
consult with the RIDEM, the Town of Exeter, and other interested 
parties during the design of the ISDS to ensure that the design 
conforms with all applicable wastewater treatment guidelines and 
regulations. The ISDS will be maintained and operated by appropriately 
trained and/or licensed operators, either by a center staff member or 
through an outside contractor. The DOL believes that the discussion of 
wastewater impacts in the EA is reasonable, and supports the finding of 
no significant impact.
    The Planning Board also commented that a private contractor will be 
necessary to transport solid waste from the center to the landfill 
(Section 6.2.6.4--Solid Waste). The EA indicates that solid waste 
transport will be handled either by the Town of Exeter or a private 
solid waste transporter; the proposed Job Corps center will contract 
with a private transporter to provide solid waste removal.
    Comment number eighteen from the Planning Board stated their 
disagreement with the findings of the EA with respect to storm water 
drainage patterns at the proposed Job Corps

[[Page 13023]]

center. (Section 6.2.6.5--Storm water Management). As stated in the EA, 
the interior renovation of existing buildings will not affect storm 
water drainage patterns on the site, and new buildings will be designed 
and constructed in accordance with applicable storm water regulations 
so as to minimize soil erosion and storm water run-off from the 
property. The DOL believes that the discussion of storm water 
management in the EA is reasonable and sufficient, and supports the 
finding of no significant impact.
    Comment number nineteen repeated the Planning Board's belief that 
traffic will be increased as a result of the proposed Job Corps center. 
As discussed above, the increase in traffic is well within the designed 
capacity of the existing road system, and will not result in any 
significant impacts to air quality, noise levels, or traffic patterns 
in the vicinity.
    The twentieth comment from the Planning Board indicated that the 
Town of Exeter will not provide government services without 
compensation (Section 6.2.7--Government Services). As stated above, the 
issue of compensation for services provided is not relevant to the EA, 
and has no bearing on the finding of no significant impact.
    The final comment from the Planning Board stated their belief that 
the information in the EA does not support a finding of no significant 
impact, and they stated that the Planning Board would require an EIS in 
accordance with the Exeter Land Development and Subdivision 
Regulations. The DOL does not believe that any of the comments 
submitted by the Town of Exeter Planning Board justify the need for an 
EIS. The DOL has committed to meet all applicable environmental 
guidelines and regulations during construction and operation, and the 
EA identifies no significant impacts which will result from the 
construction and operation of a Job Corps center at the proposed site. 
The need for an EIS is typically based on the evaluation criteria 
contained in the DOL NEPA Compliance Procedures (29 CFR part 11) and 
the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Regulations (40 CFR part 1500 
et seq.), not based upon local ordinances. Although the DOL is 
rejecting the Planning Board's request for an EIS, the DOL will 
continue to consult with the Town of Exeter, the RIDEM, and other 
interested parties throughout the design and construction of the 
proposed Job Corps center.

Comments From the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Rhode 
Island Program

    The Environmental Protection Agency, Region 1, Rhode Island Program 
challenged the FONSI based on five deficiencies or errors contained in 
the EA. The first deficiency cited by the EPA was that the EA does not 
include ``clear and accurate descriptions of natural resources down 
gradient and in proximity to'' the proposed Job Corps center. The DOL 
does not agree with the EPA's assessment. The EA identified no 
jurisdictional wetlands on or immediately adjacent to the proposed Job 
Corps property. The EA did identify protected wetlands to the 
southeast, northwest, and west of the subject property. Since the 
proposed project will not include any point source discharges to 
surface water, and buildings and other surface improvements will be 
designed to minimize storm water run-off, the DOL believes that there 
will be no significant impacts to these down-gradient resources. As 
such, a more detailed description of the down gradient wetlands is not 
necessary.
    The EPA's second comment focused on the discussion of endangered or 
threatened plant and animal species included in the EA. The EPA stated 
that the Ladd Center is ``bordered by some of the most pristine cold 
water riverine habitat in * * * Rhode Island. The Nature Conservancy 
and Audubon have acquired hundreds of acres of critical habitat 
bordering * * * the Ladd property * * *'' The EPA goes on to state that 
the EA has incorrectly reported that there are no protected species in 
these habitats, suggesting that the wetlands surrounding the Ladd 
Center support habitat for three protected species: two odonates 
(dragonfly species) and one fresh water mussel. The DOL disagrees with 
the EPA's criticism of the EA in this regard, and believes that the 
EPA's comments are misleading. The description of the wetlands 
surrounding the Ladd Center suggests that these areas are federally 
designated critical habitat areas; however, there are no critical 
habitat areas listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service within the 
State of Rhode Island. Also, contrary to the EPA's assertion, the EA 
correctly states that there are no known threatened or endangered 
species on or in close proximity to the subject property; the species 
identified by the EPA are not listed as threatened or endangered 
species by either the Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program or the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service, but are listed by the State of Rhode Island 
as ``species of concern''. This designation is defined by the Natural 
Heritage Program as ``native species not considered to be State 
Endangered or State Threatened at the present time, but are listed due 
to various factors of rarity and/or vulnerability.'' Although the 
Natural Heritage Program did not identify any known populations of 
these species surrounding the Ladd Center during preparation of the EA, 
the DOL recognizes that the surrounding wetland areas provide habitat 
that can support these and other species of concern. The DOL has 
therefore proposed construction of the Job Corps center so as to 
prevent any surface water discharges to the wetlands.
    The EPA's third comment stated that the EA should ``have a more 
factual groundwater quality discussion and surface water quality 
discussion.'' The DOL disagrees that a more detailed discussion of 
ground and surface water impacts is needed. As stated in the EA and 
above, the project will be designed to prevent surface water discharges 
and storm water run-off from the site, so no significant impacts to 
surface waters are anticipated. With respect to groundwater impacts, 
the DOL has consulted with the RIDEM regarding the selection of an ISDS 
with associated pre-treatment for the proposed Job Corps center, and 
the RIDEM does not anticipate any significant impacts on the Queen's 
River Aquifer from the proposed project. As referenced in the EA, the 
Job Corps facility will be designed, constructed, and operated in 
compliance with all applicable wastewater and storm water regulations.
    The EPA also stated that the EA should include a ``short factual 
discussion on the volume of water to be withdrawn from the aquifer * * 
*'' The EA reports that drinking water will be drawn from the existing 
well system at the Ladd Center, and that the current well yield is more 
than adequate for the proposed usage. Although the DOL does not feel 
that more detailed analysis is required for the EA, a brief review of 
the proposed center usage clearly demonstrates that the proposed Job 
Corps center will not have any significant impacts to the Queens River 
Aquifer. With an estimated center population of 245 equivalent persons 
and a consumption rate of 80 gallons per person per day, the estimated 
withdrawal rate for the Job Corps center is 19,600 gallons per day 
(gpd). The USGS estimated groundwater withdrawal rate for the Pawcatuck 
Watershed was 10.54 million gpd in 1990 (the Queens River is a sub-
watershed within the Pawcatuck

[[Page 13024]]

watershed). The proposed Job Corps center will increase groundwater 
withdrawal rates within the Pawcatuck watershed by less than 0.2%. 
Since the use of an on-site ISDS will result in an estimated 85% water 
return rate, the net withdrawal from the aquifer will be even lower. 
The DOL believes that the information presented in the EA is accurate, 
and supports the finding of no significant impact.
    The final comment from the EPA states that the EA ``does not 
include an assessment of potential cumulative effects from the training 
center [Job Corps] and from other future development at Ladd.'' The EDC 
is currently preparing a proposal for development of a portion of the 
remaining Ladd Center property, but no specific development plans have 
been finalized. The DOL is not involved in the EDC's overall 
development plan. Although NEPA requires the DOL to consider the 
cumulative impact on the environment from the proposed federal action, 
it does not require the DOL to evaluate the impacts from other proposed 
development projects. The EA has demonstrated that the proposed Job 
Corps center will not result in a significant impact on the 
environment, regardless of the future use of the remaining property. If 
future development of the Ladd Center presents a significant impact on 
the environment, it will be due to the specific proposed usage of the 
property, not to any contributions from the proposed Job Corps center.

Conclusions

    The DOL appreciates all of the comments submitted by interested 
parties on the EA for the proposed Job Corps center in Exeter, Rhode 
Island. An addendum to the EA has been published to correct factual 
errors in the EA identified by commenting agencies, and copies of the 
addendum are available from the above address. After reviewing all 
comments submitted during the review, the DOL believes that the EA 
satisfactorily addresses the potential impacts from the proposed 
project, and that the EA supports a finding of no significant impact. 
This notice serves as the DOL's final notice of their intent to 
establish a Job Corps center at the former Ladd Center in Exeter, Rhode 
Island, and that this proposed project will have no significant impacts 
on the environment.

    Dated at Washington, DC, this 2nd day of March, 2000.
Mary Silva,
Director of Job Corps.
[FR Doc. 00-5844 Filed 3-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-P