[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 68451-68452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-33005]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[ER-FRL-5497-8]
Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of
EPA Comments
Availability of EPA comments prepared November 23, 1998 through
November 27, 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) 564-7153. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft
environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April
10, 1998 (62 FR 17856).
Draft EISs
ERP No. D-COE-G39031-AR Rating EC2, Grand Prairie Area
Demonstration Project, Implementation, Water Conservation, Groundwater
Management and Irrigation Water Supply, Prairie, Arkansas, Monroe and
Lonoke Counties, AR.
Summary: EPA expressed environmental concerns regarding water
quality, wetlands, environmental justice, land use, noise, visual and
asethetic impact, and historic preservation.
ERP No. D-COE-K39052-CA Rating LO, Hamilton Wetland Restoration
Project, Tidal Salt Marsh Habitat, Alameda County, CA.
Summary: EPA expressed a lack of objections with the DEIS and the
proposed wetland restoration project.
ERP No. D-IBR-K39048-CA Rating EC2, Truckee River Operating
Agreement (TROA, Modify Operation and Selected Non-Federal Reservoirs,
Implementation, Truckee River Basin, EL Dorado, Nevada, Placer and
Sierra Counties, CA and Douglas, Lyon, Storey and Washoe Counties, NV.
Summary: EPA expressed environmnetal concern that the proposed
agreement does not significantly improve Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT)
habitat and recommended that the negotiating parties take this
opportunity to better improve LCT habitat. EPA also requested
additional information in the
[[Page 68452]]
EIS regarding water quality, water quantity and conservation,
biological resources, groundwater effects, air quality, and population
growth.
ERP No. D-IBR-K39050-CA Rating LO, Programmatic--CALFED Bay-Delta
Program, Long-Term Comprehensive Plan to Restore Ecosystem Health and
Improve Water Management, Implementation, San Francisco Bay--
Sacramento/San Joaquin River Bay-Delta, CA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. DS-AFS-K65273-AZ Rating LO, Grand Canyon/Tusayan Growth
Area Improvements, Updated Information on three New Alternatives,
General Management Plan (GMP), Special-Use-Permit, Land Exchange
Options, Approval and Licenses Issuance, Coconino County, AZ.
Summary: EPA expressed lack of objections and that the final EIS
examine a mix of water supply sources which would limit reliance and
dependence on any one water source and minimize adverse effects to the
scarce and susceptible water supply sources.
Final EISs
ERP No. F-COE-K36108-CA, Santa Rosa Subregional Long-Term
Wastewater Project, Implementation, Reclaimed Water Disposal from the
Laguna Wastewater Treatment Plant, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits,
Sonoma County, CA.
Summary: EPA recommended support for the Santa Rosa City Council's
preferred alternative, Modified Geyers Recharge, because it
concentrates on maximizing reuse of reclaimed water while minimizing
adverse effects on wetlands, sensitive habitats, water quality,
drinking water wells, air quality, and existing resource such as
aggregate material. EPA reiterated concerns with the West County
Reclamation, South County Reclamation, and Discharge alternatives due
to potential adverse impacts to surface and groundwater quality and
potential conversion of sensitive wetland habitats. EPA urged continued
aggressive efforts toward maximum reduction of effluent volume and
maximum reuse of treated water.
ERP No. F-COE-K36116-CA, San Pedro Creek Section 205 Flood Control
Project, Construction, Flood Protection, COE Section 10 and 404 Permits
and Permits Approval, San Mateo County, CA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-COE-K36123-CA, South Sacramento County Streams
Investigation, Proposed to Increase Flood Protection, Non-Federal
Sponsor, Sacramento Waste Water Treatment Plant and along portions of
Morrison, Elder, Unionhouse and Florin Creeks, Sacramento County, CA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-COE-K36124-CA, Yuba River Basin Investigation Study,
Flood Protection, Also Portions of the Feather River Basin below
Oroville Dam, City of Maryville Yuba County, CA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-COE-K36125-CA, Hansen Dam Water Conservation and Supply
Study, Flood Protection, Implementation, Los Angeles County, CA.
Summary: Review of the final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F-IBR-K34010-AZ, Tucson Aqueduct System Reliability
Investigation (TASRI), Central Arizona Project, Surface Storage
Reservoir Construction, COE Section 404 Permit, Gila River, City of
Tucson, Pima County, AZ.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
ERP No. F1-COE-K35012-CA, Sacramento River Bank Protection Project,
Implementation of Streambank Protection for the Lower American River
between RM-0 and 13.7, Updated Information, City of Sacramento,
Sacramento County, CA.
Summary: Review of the Final EIS was not deemed necessary. No
formal comment letter was sent to the preparing agency.
Dated: December 8, 1998.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 98-33005 Filed 12-10-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
