[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 53 (Friday, March 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13575-13576]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6804]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[ER-FRL-6240-9]


Environmental Impact Statements and Regulations; Availability of 
EPA Comments

    Availability of EPA comments prepared February 22, 1999 Through 
February 26, 1999 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) 564-7167. An explanation of the ratings assigned to draft 
environmental impact statements (EISs) was published in FR dated April 
10, 1998 (63 FR 17856).

Draft EISs

    ERP No. D-COE-E34030-FL, Rating EC2, Programmatic EIS--Central and 
Southern Florida Multi-Purpose Project, Comprehensive Review Study, 
Everglades National Park, Orlando to Florida Bay, FL.
    SUMMARY: EPA supports the restoration concept and encourages their 
proper implementation. EPA believes that improving water quantity 
delivery alone will not restore the Everglades and the South Florida 
ecosystem; instead, both water quantity and water quality components 
are needed to provide the clean water volumes

[[Page 13576]]

required for true natural system restoration. EPA encouraged the COE to 
include additional water quality features in the pending FPEIS and 
future optimization of water quality features. EPA expressed concerns 
regarding project uncertainties associated with the proposed aquifer 
recovery system funding and modeling.
    ERP No. D-COE-K39055-AZ, Rating LO, Alamo Lake Reoperation and 
Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study, Implementation, Reoperation of 
Alma Dam on the Bill Williams River, La Paz and Mohave Counties, AZ.
    SUMMARY: EPA had no objections to the project which would result in 
increased seasonal flows from Alamo Lake that should have positive 
effects on riparian habitat downstream.
    ERP No. D-IBR-K39054-CA Rating EC2, Groundwater Replenishment 
System, Implementation to Repurifying Water from Orange County Water 
District (OCWD) Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD), Funding and 
COE Section 404 Permit, Orange County, CA.
    SUMMARY: EPA supported the project which focuses on wastewater 
reuse and recycling, and supported the project benefit of postponing 
the need for an additional ocean outfall discharge pipe. EPA urged the 
project sponsors to continue to aggressively pursue other demand 
management measures. EPA expressed concerns and requested additional 
information regarding: (1) potential adverse effects on flood 
protection, (2) operation and effectiveness of the saltwater intrusion 
barrier, and (3) implementation and effectiveness monitoring.

Final EISs

    ERP No. F-COE-C39010-NJ, Lower Cape May Meadows--Cape May Point 
Feasibility Study, Ecosystem Restoration, New Jersey Shore Protection 
Study, Cape May County, NJ.
    SUMMARY: EPA expressed environmental concerns that implementation 
of multiple projects of the type (and other projects effecting the same 
resources) could result in adverse cumulative impacts. EPA suggested 
that a comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis be prepared for all of 
these projects prior to construction.
    ERP No. F-COE-F35042-IN, Indiana Harbor and Canal Dredging and 
Confined Disposal Facility, Construction and Operation, Comprehensive 
Management Plan, East Chicago, Lake County, ID.
    SUMMARY: The Final EIS has adequately resolved EPA's previous 
concerns. Therefore, EPA has no objections to the implementation of the 
proposed project.
    ERP No. F-TVA-E39037-00, Shoreline Management Initiative: An 
Assessment of Residential Shoreline Development Impacts in the 
Tennessee Valley, Mainstream Tennessee River and Tributary Reservoirs 
in AL, KY, NC, TN, GA, MS and VA.
    SUMMARY: EPA continues to have some environmental concerns due to 
the inherent nature of shoreline development relative to erosion, water 
quality, habitat loss, and induced (secondary) impacts associated with 
development.
    ERP No. FS-COE-C32030-00, Arthur Kill Channel--Howland Hook Marine 
Terminal, Deepening and Realignment, Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) 
Port of New York and New Jersey, NY and NJ.
    SUMMARY: EPA does not anticipate that the proposed project would 
result in significant adverse environmental impacts and does not object 
to its implementation.

    Dated: March 16, 1999.
William D. Dickerson,
Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.
[FR Doc. 99-6804 Filed 3-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U