Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of EPA Comments

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