[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 241 (Friday, December 16, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-30881]
[[Page Unknown]]
[Federal Register: December 16, 1994]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
Environmental Impact Study: San Mateo County, California
agency: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
action: Notice of Intent.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
summary: The FHWA is issuing this notice to advise the public that a
supplement to a final environmental impact statement will be prepared
for a proposed highway project in San Mateo County, California.
for further information contact: John R. Schultz, Chief, District
Operations A, Federal Highway Administration, 980 Ninth Street, Suite
400, Sacramento, California, 95814-2724; telephone: (916) 498-5041.
supplementary information: The FHWA, in cooperation with the California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans), will prepare a supplenent to
the final environmental impact statement (EIS) on a proposal to improve
State Route (SR) 1 in San Mateo County, California. The original final
EIS for the improvements (FHWA-CA-EIS-83-14-F) was approved on April
16, 1986. The project study limits of alternatives considered in the
final EIS extended from Half Moon Bay Airport, between Moss Beach and
El Granada, on the south to Linda Mar Boulevard in Pacifica on the
north, a distance of approximately 11.3 km (7 milies).
The preferred alternative, identified in the final EIS and selected
in the Record of Decision signed on May 30, 1986, is known as the
Martini Creek alignment alternative. From the southern end, this
alternative begins north of the southern project study limit on SR 1,
0.2 km (0.1 mile) north of Montara near the Chart House Restaurant.
From there it swings inland, crosses Martini Creek, curves seaward
(west) and then northeasterly, proceeds over the San Pedro Mountain
saddle and down into the City of Pacifica where it rejoins SR 1 at
Linda Mar Boulevard. The proposed project is a two-lane, controlled
access facilitly; however, since the entire project on both sides of
the summit exceeds six percent, the project design includes an uphill
slow vehicle lane in each direction. The proposed project is
approximately 7.2 km (4.5 miles) in length.
Litigation regarding the project was commenced in U.S. District
Court in the Northern District of California in June 1986 (Sierra Club,
et al. v. United States Department of Transportation, et al., Civ. No.
86-3384 DLJ). The project has been enjoined since September 1986, prior
to the commencement of any construction. The primary issues in the
litigation were 1) whether the proposed project complied with Section
4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act, and 2) whether the final
EIS was adequate under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
The District Court has now fully resolved the Section 4(f) and NEPA
issues. The proposed project has been determined not to violate Section
4(f), and the final EIS has been found to comply with NEPA in all
respects except one--it was found inadequate in its discussion and
analysis of noise impacts. Therefore, the District Court remanded the
matter to the FHWA. The District Court's specific findings regarding
the deficiencies of the final EIS and the need to prepare a
supplemental EIS on noise impact are set forth in the Court's Orders of
April 3, 1989, and April 2, 1990. The Orders require a reanalysis of
the anticipated impacts from future project-generated noise, as well as
more accurate and informative measurements of ambient noise levels. The
sole purpose of this supplemental EIS is to comply with the Orders and
subsequent Judgment of the District Court. The supplement will be
limited to addressing the deficiencies in the final EIS determined in
the litigation, and, therefore, will only address noise issues. In
addition to this supplemental EIS on noise, a reevaluation of the FEIS
is being undertaken. The reevaluation is necessary since, due to the
on-going litigation, major steps to advance the project have not
occurred within three years of the last major FHWA approval. 23 C.F.R.
Sec. 771.129(b). Therefore, a reevaluation of the FEIS will be
undertaken to determine whether or not new information or circumstances
relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed project
or its impacts would result in significant environmental impacts not
evaluated in the final EIS. 23 C.F.R. Sec. 771.130(a)(2). In such an
event, an additional supplemental EIS on those impacts will be required
and will be processed pursuant to applicable laws and regulations.
Letters describing this proposed action and soliciting comments
will be sent to appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and to
private organizations and individuals that have previously expressed,
or are known to have, an interest in this proposal. In addition, a
public hearing will be held on the draft supplemental EIS. Public
notice will be given of the time and place of the hearing. The draft
supplemental EIS will be available for public and agency review and
comment prior to the public hearing. A formal scoping meeting is not
necessary since this supplemental document is only meant to comply with
the Orders of the District Court to address the issue of noise impacts.
Comments or questions concerning this proposed action and the
supplemental EIS should be directed to the FHWA at the address provided
above.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental
consultation on Federal programs and activities apply to this
program.)
Issued on December 6, 1994.
John R. Schultz,
Chief, District Operations A, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. 94-30881 Filed 12-15-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M