Środowisko i energia · 09/09/1994

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

EPA had environmental concerns based on the information provided, the potential natural resource impacts appear to be minor. EPA was concerned about the potential significant impacts from residential displacements. In regard to the quality of the documentation, the technical credibility of the draft EIS is undermined by the number of discrepancies and lack of supporting data. ERP No. D-FHW-E40750-AL Rating EC2, Tuscaloosa East Bypass Corridor, Construction, I-59/I-20 east of Tuscaloosa to US 82 west of Northport, Funding, NPDES Permit, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits, Tuscaloosa County, AL. Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns about impacts to natural resources which included the loss of wetlands and upland forests. Information was lacking on wetlands mitigation and on impacts to hardwood forest habitat. ERP No. D-FHW-E40751-NC Rating EC2, US 70 Goldsboro Bypass Construction, US 70 in the vicinity of NC-1237 to US 70 in the vicinity of NC-1731, Funding and COE Permits, Wayne County, NC. Summary: EPA believes additional information was needed on potential mitigation of unavoidable impacts. If a northern corridor is selected, EPA would have greater concerns. ERP No. D-NOA-K90