[Federal Register: March 20, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 54)]
[Notices]               
[Page 13665-13666]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr20mr98-105]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-5490-1]

 
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared March 02, 1998 Through March 
06, 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 ratings assigned to draft environmental 
impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 11, 1997 (62 
FR 16154).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-COE-E30039-FL Rating EC2, Sunny Isles (North Miami) 
Proposed Modification to a segment of the Dade County Beach Erosion 
Control and Hurricane Protection Project, Dade County, FL.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding unavoidable 
losses of biotic resources and how effectively they will be mitigated.
    ERP No. D-COE-K30030-CA Rating EO2, Unocal Avila Beach Cleanup 
Project, Petroleum Hydrocarbon Contamination, Approval and 
Implementation, US Army COE Section 10 and 404 Permits Issuance, San 
Luis Obispo County, CA.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental objections that the DEIS did 
not adequately address the environmental consequences of implementing 
the ``No-Action'' alternative in Area 7 despite data in the DEIS which 
indicates that Area 7 is extensively contaminated with hydrocarbons 
which may be adversely affecting shellfish and other aquatic species. 
EPA commented that it is unclear whether the preferred ``No-Action'' 
alternative for Area 7 is consistent with Federal and State 
environmental laws. EPA also indicated that there was insufficient 
discussion in the DEIS to determine the extent to which existing 
contamination in the intertidal zone Area 7 may be affecting the 
environment and human health and whether a ``No-Action'' decision in 
Area 7 would exacerbate those impacts.
    ERP No. D-COE-K39046-AZ Rating EC2, Rio Salado Environmental 
Restoration of two Sites along the Salt River: (1) Phoenix Reach and 
(2) Tempe Reach, Feasibility Report, in the Cities of Phoenix and 
Tempe, Maricopa County, AZ.
    Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns that the project's 
recreational and interpretive aspects received a higher value than 
potential wildlife and aquatic-related functions. EPA expressed 
concerns about the potential relationship of this project with several 
sand and gravel mining operations in the area, in particular, whether 
mitigation implemented by the sand and gravel operators may be 
adversely affected by the Salado project.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-COE-K67020-CA, Syar Mining Operation and Reclamation 
Plan, Six Sites Selected along the Russian River, Construction, Mining-
Use-Permit and COE Section 404 Permit, City of Healdsburg, Sonoma 
County, CA.
    Summary: EPA continued to have environmental objections with the 
Supplemental DEIS. EPA requested that the Record of Decision reflect 
the

[[Page 13666]]

mitigation measures contained in the FEIS.
    ERP No. F-FHW-E40747-NC, Fayetteville Outer Loop Project, US 401 to 
I-95 at the existing US 13 Interchange, Funding and USCOE Section 10 
and 404 Permit Issuance, City of Fayetteville, Cumberland County, NC.
    Summary: EPA continued to have environmental concerns about the 
project's impact despite the deletion of the segment west of US 401. 
Eighty-two acres of wetlands would be lost by the 7-mile long project. 
Alternatives to the Eastern terminus were not addressed in the 
document, as EPA requested.
    ERP No. F-FHW-E40758-NC, US-17/Wilmington Bypass 
TransportationImprovement Program, Updated Information, TIP R-2633C, 
Construction from I-40 to US 421, Funding, NPDES and US Coast Guard and 
COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, New Hanover County, NC.
    Summary: EPA continued to have environmental concerns about this 
segment of the proposed bypass, because of expected impacts to 
wetlands. EPA is pleased with the new Center Alternative, now preferred 
by NCDOT, because it minimizes several impacts. Other bypass segments, 
however, have significant issues yet to be resolved.
    ERP No. F-FHW-E40760-NC, Sunset Beach Bridge No. 198 on Secondary 
Road NC-1172 Replacement, Over the Atlantic Intracoastal Waterway, 
Funding, COE Section 10 and 404 Permit, Brunswick County, NC.
    Summary: EPA continued to have environmental preference to the mid-
level bascule bridge alternative, our comments on the DEIS have been 
responded to satisfactorily.
    ERP No. F-IBR-K39043-CA, American River Water Resources 
Investigation, Implementation, Placer, Suter, EL Dorado, Sacramento and 
San Joaquin Counties, CA.
    Summary: EPA continued to express environmental objections to the 
Auburn Dam alternative, and noted that if the Auburn Dam proposal is 
carried forward as the preferred alternative without correcting its 
unacceptable impacts, it will be considered a candidate for referral to 
CEQ. EPA also noted that Reclamation has not identified a Federal role 
at this program level or a Federal preferred alternative. EPA urged 
Reclamation and other program sponsors to reject the Auburn Dam 
alternative and pursue ``conjunctive use'' solutions to water 
management in the study area.
    EPA believed a balanced combination of demand management, water 
reclamation, transfers, and new facilities can meet area water supply 
needs while preserving water quality and flows needed instream for 
aquatic resources.

    Dated: March 17, 1998.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-7356 Filed 3-19-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P