[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