[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 110 (Friday, June 7, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 39382-39383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-14365]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-6630-1]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared 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 12, 2002 (67
FR 17992).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-COE-E30042-FL Rating LO, Broward County Shore Protection
Project, Fill Placement in Segment II (Hillsboro Inlet to Port
Everglades) and Segment III (Port Everglades to the south County Line),
Broward County, FL.
Summary: EPA has no objections to the dredging proposal.
ERP No. D-COE-E35021-FL Rating EC2, Miami River Dredged Material
Management Plan, River Sediments Dredging and Disposal Maintenance
Dredging, Biscayne Bay, City of Miami, Miami-Dade County, FL.
Summary: EPA supported the environmental restoration of the Miami
River system, but raised some concerns about the potential impacts of
the restoration proposal. EPA also noted that a preliminary appraisal
of this action would only be possible after assessing how the chosen
contractor elects to carry out the constituent elements of the final
Request for Proposals. EPA also recommended that a monitoring plan be
developed and made part of any final project.
ERP No. D-COE-J36052-ND Rating EU3, Devils Lake Basin North Dakota
Study, The Reduction of Flood Damages Related to the Rising Lake Levels
and the Flood-Prone Areas Around Devils Lake and to Reduce the
Potential for Natural Overflow Event, Sheyenne River and Red River of
the North, ND.
[[Page 39383]]
Summary: EPA found the preliminary selected outlet alternative to
be environmentally unsatisfactory based on adverse impacts to wetlands
and riparian habitats, water quality in the Sheyenne and Red Rivers,
introduction of invasive species and concerns about meeting the
objectives of the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 with Canada. The DEIS
also lacked information on water quality impacts and appropriate
mitigation.
ERP No. D-COE-K39073-CA Rating EC2, Middle Creek Flood Damage
Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Project, Implementation, Located
between Highway 20 and Middle Creek immediately northwest of Clear
Lake, Lake County, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns and requested
additional information on impacts to water quality from methyl mercury
contamination, cultural resources in the study area and tribal trust
resources.
ERP No. D-FHW-K40250-NV Rating EC2, Boulder City/US 93 Corridor
Transportation Improvements, Study Limits are between a western
boundary on US 95 in the City of Henderson and an eastern boundary on
US 93 west of downtown Boulder City, NPDES and US Army COE Section 404
Permits Issuance and Right-of Way Grant, Clark County, NV.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding impacts to
Waters of the U.S. and the potential for indirect impacts associated
with Alternative D. EPA believes that Alternative D is not the
environmentally preferred alternative. EPA recommended that
coordination occur before the Final EIS regarding permit and mitigation
requirements for discharge of fill into Waters of the U.S.
ERP No. D-FRC-B03010-00 Rating EC2, Islander East Pipeline Project,
Interstate Natural Gas Pipeline Facilities Construction and Operation
to provide 285,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of Natural Gas to Energy
Markets in Connecticut, Long Island and New York City, New Haven, CT
and Suffolk County, NY.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about the project
purpose and need, analysis of alternatives, wetland and marine impacts
associated with the pipeline, and asked for more information concerning
water supply and spill control issues.
ERP No. D-IBR-K31003-CA Rating EO2, Imperial Irrigation District
Water Conservation and Transfer Project and Draft Habitat Conservation
Plan (HCP), To Implement a Grant and Section 10 Permit to Authorize the
Incidental Take, Colorado River, Imperial County, CA.
Summary: EPA endorsed the effort to reduce Southern California's
use of Colorado River water to California's legal apportionment of 4.4
maf/yr while minimizing the adverse effects on urban and industrial
water use. EPA expressed objections over potential impacts to water and
air quality, biological resources, Indian tribes, and potential
cumulative impacts on water quality and the increased probability of
more frequent and higher magnitude water shortages for other users of
Lower Colorado River water. EPA requested that EPA comments on other
related water management actions (e.g., the Colorado River
Quantification Settlement Agreement (QSA) and the Department of
Interior's Implementation Agreement (IA) be considered together with
this EIS.
ERP No. D-MMS-G02011-00 Rating LO, Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental
Shelf Oil and Gas Lease Sales: 2003-2007, Starting in 2002 the Proposed
Central Planning Area Sales 185, 190, 194, 198, and 201 and Western
Planning Area Sales 187, 192, 196, and 200, Offshore Marine
Environment, Coastal Counties and Parishes of TX, LA, AL and MS.
Summary: EPA has no objections but request clarification in the
Final EIS.
ERP No. D1-FAA-D51026-00 Rating EC2, Potomac Consolidated Terminal
(PCT) Radar Approach Control Facility (TRACON) Airspace Redesign in the
Baltimore-Washington Metropolitan Area, Newly Consolidated TRACON,
Aircraft Performance Improvements and Emerging PCT Technologies, PA MD,
DE, VA, WV and DC.
Summary: EPA has environmental concerns regarding noise impacts and
believe that additional clarification/information and identification of
possible mitigation measures is needed in the Final EIS.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-FTA-K51041-CA BART-Oakland International Airport
Connector, Extending south from the Existing Coliseum BART Station,
about 3.2 miles, to the Airport Terminal Area, Alameda County, CA.
Summary: EPA has no objection to the proposed action since EPA's
previous concerns were adequately addressed in the final EIS.
ERP No. F-MMS-A02242-00 Outer Continental Shelf Oil and Gas Leasing
Program: From Mid-2002 Through Mid-2007, 5-Year Schedule Leasing
Program for 20 Sales in 8 of the Outer Continental Shelf Planning
Areas, AL, AK, CA, FL, LA, MS, OR, TX and WA.
Summary: EPA has no objection to the action as proposed. ERP No. F-
SFW-L91014-WA Icicle Creek Restoration Creek Project, To Protect and
Aid in the Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Fish, Leavenworth
National Fish Hatchery (LNFH), COE Section 404 and NPDES Permits,
Leavenworth, WA.
Summary: EPA appreciates changes made to the document in response
to comments on the Draft EIS. In future activities, EPA suggests that
Tribal consultation and coordination be an active element in any
finalized plans and management direction for the project area.
ERP No. FS-GSA-K80037-CA San Diego-United States Courthouse Annex
Street Project, Site Selection and Construction, New Information
concerning Addition of the Union Street with Hotel San Diego Facade and
Lobby Alternative, Central Business District (CBD), City of San Diego,
San Diego County, CA.
Summary: No formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. FS-MMS-L67008-ID Smoky Canyon Mine Panels B and C, Proposal
to Mine Phosphate Ore Reserves in the Final Two Mine Panels, National
Forest Systems Lands and Federal Mineral Leases, Caribou National
Forest, Permits Issuance, Caribou County, ID.
Summary: EPA generally supports the agency preferred alternative
with the additional restriction of placing the seleniferous overburden
solely in the pit backfill. EPA recommends including the following
information in the ROD to address our remaining concerns: actual cost
reclamation bonding, a commitment to update the reclamation bond if
needed, an allocation of the reclamation bond equal to 30% of
reclamation estimates, and mining approval contingent on the
development and approval of a complete monitoring strategy (with
quality assurance and annual report distribution protocols).
Dated: June 4, 2002.
Ken Mittelholtz,
Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 02-14365 Filed 6-6-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P