Jump to main content.

Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: December 11, 1998 (Volume 63, Number 238)]
[Notices]               
[Page 68451-68452]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr11de98-39]

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

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

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.