DOCSLIB.ORG

Notice of Preparation ‐ 2008 Butte County RTP

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Notice of Preparation ‐ 2008 Butte County RTP May 29, 2008 Notice of Preparation ‐ 2008 Butte County RTP Prepared for: Butte County Association of Governments 2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 100 Chico, Ca 95928 (530)879‐2468 Prepared by: Pacific Land Advisors 3587 Falkirk Way El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 (916) 580‐9818 NOTICE OF PREPARATION FOR THE 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP MAY 29, 2008 Prepared for: Butte County Association of Governments 2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 100 Chico, Ca 95928 (530)879‐2468 Prepared by: Pacific Land Advisors 3587 Falkirk Way El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 (916) 580‐9818 NOTICE OF PREPARATION – 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP MAY 29, 2008 NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: State Clearinghouse FROM: Jon Clark, Executive Director State Responsible Agencies Butte County Association of Governments State Trustee Agencies 2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 100 Other Public Agencies Chico, Ca 95928 Interested Organizations (530)879‐2468 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation –2008 Butte County Regional Transportation Plan Program‐level Draft Environmental Impact Report, EIR CONSULTANT Steve McMurtry Pacific Land Advisors 3587 Falkirk Way El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 Phone: (916) 580‐9818 An Initial Study has been prepared for the project and is attached to this Notice of Preparation (NOP). The Initial Study lists those issues that will require detailed analysis and technical studies that will need to be evaluated and/or prepared as part of the EIR. The EIR will consider all potential environmental effects of the proposed project to determine the level of significance of the environmental effect, and will analyze these potential effects to the detail necessary to make a determination on the level of significance. Those environmental issues that have been determined to be less than significant will have a discussion that is limited to a brief explanation of why those effects are not considered potentially significant. In addition, the EIR may also consider those environmental issues which are raised by responsible agencies, trustee agencies, and members of the public or related agencies during the NOP process. We need to know the views of your agency or organization as to the scope and content of the environmental information germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities or of interest to your organization in connection with the proposed project. Specifically, we are requesting the following: 1. If you are a public agency, state if your agency will be a responsible or trustee agency for the project and list the permits or approvals from your agency that will be required for the project and its future actions; 2. Identify significant environmental effects and mitigation measures that you believe need to be explored in the EIR with supporting discussion of why you believe these effects may be significant; NOP ‐ PAGE 1 INITIAL STUDY FOR THE 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP MAY 29, 2008 Prepared for: Butte County Association of Governments 2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 100 Chico, Ca 95928 (530)879‐2468 Prepared by: Pacific Land Advisors 3587 Falkirk Way El Dorado Hills, Ca 95762 (916) 580‐9818 INITIAL STUDY ‐‐ 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP MAY 29, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST ........................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Location and Setting .................................................................................................................................. 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................................... 7 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: .................................................................................................. 9 Determination: ............................................................................................................................................................. 9 Environmental Checklist ............................................................................................................................................ 12 I. AESTHETICS ....................................................................................................................................................... 12 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 13 III. AIR QUALITY ................................................................................................................................................... 14 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................... 16 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................... 18 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS ................................................................................................................................... 19 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ........................................................................................ 24 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ................................................................................................. 29 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING ....................................................................................................................... 35 X. MINERAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................................................. 36 XI. NOISE .................................................................................................................................................................. 39 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING .................................................................................................................. 41 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ....................................................................................................................................... 42 XIV. RECREATION ................................................................................................................................................ 46 XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC ................................................................................................................. 48 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS .................................................................................................... 49 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE .................................................................................. 52 TOC – PAGE 1 May 29, 2008 INITIAL STUDY ‐‐ 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP This page left intentionally blank. TOC ‐ PAGE 2 INITIAL STUDY ‐‐ 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP MAY 29, 2008 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST PROJECT TITLE 2008 Butte County Regional Transportation Plan LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS Butte County Association of Governments 2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 100 Chico, Ca 95928 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER Jon Clark, Executive Director Chris Devine, Planning Manager Butte County Association of Governments (530)879‐2468 PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS Butte County Association of Governments 2580 Sierra Sunrise Terrace, Suite 100 Chico, Ca 95928 PROJECT LOCATION AND SETTING Butte County is located in north central California at the northern end of the Sacramento Valley, approximately 150 miles northeast of San Francisco and 70 miles north of Sacramento. State Route 70 and 99 are the principal transportation corridors, extending in a north‐south direction through the County. State Routes 32 and 162 provide sub‐regional connections to areas to the west of the County and to Interstate 5. Figure 1 depicts the regional location of Butte County. Butte County covers approximately 1,670 square miles equaling 1,068,000 acres. Approximately 45 percent of the county is valley floor, 25 percent is foothills, and 30 percent is the mountainous region. The County has three primary watersheds, the Feather River, Butte Creek and Chico Creek watersheds, which can be delineated into additional sub‐watersheds. A portion of the County's western border is formed by the Sacramento River. Figure 2 provides the regional vicinity. Butte County has rich fertile valley soil providing for a strong agricultural economy. The valley also remains a vital wintering ground for an estimated 60 percent of the waterfowl that migrate through the Pacific Flyway. Ducks, geese, swans and many other migratory birds migrate to or through the region from November through March. The foothill and mountainous regions have varying topographic features. From rolling hills, volcanic peaks and mesas, the County’s topography arguably provides some of the most dramatic and unaltered landscapes in California. Much of the foothill and mountainous region is controlled by the federal government, through two agencies. PAGE 1 May 29, 2008 INITIAL STUDY ‐‐ 2008 BUTTE COUNTY RTP The USDA Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management are major landowners in Butte County, controlling approximately 12 percent of the land. The Forest Service has land holdings in Plumas National Forest totaling 81,972 acres and in Lassen National Forest totaling 49,240 acres. The Bureau of Land Management has land holdings scattered throughout the foothills totaling 18,960 acres. There are five incorporated cities within the county: Chico, Oroville, Gridley, Biggs, and the Town of Paradise. Additionally, there are several
Load more

Recommended publications
  • TYPICAL VALLEY INDIAN HOMES Vol. 2 No. 11 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA
    Vol. 2 No. 11 YUBA CITY, CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 17 1961 TYPICAL VALLEY INDIAN HOMES SUTTER COUNTY HISTORICAL SOCIETY FALL MEETING OCTOBER 17, 1961 TUESDAY EVENING — 8 P.M. PLACE: Board of Supervisors Chambers County Office Building, 2nd Street PRESIDENT: Mrs. Florence Arritt PROGRAM CHAIRMAN: Randolph Schnabel PROGRAM SPEAKER: Waddell F. Smith President, National Pony Express Centennial Association TOPIC: The History of the Pony Express and Its Centennial BOARD OF DIRECTORS MINUTES October 5, 1961 The Board of Directors of Sutter County Historical Society met in regular session October 5, 1961 at 7:30 P.M. in the office of the County Superintendent. The meeting was called to order by Vice President, Mrs. Ida Littlejohn in the absence of the president, Mrs. Florence Arritt. Mrs. Arritt is on her vacation traveling in the southwest and visiting many spots of historic interest such as Tombstone, Arizona. The minutes of the July Board meeting and regular meeting were read and approved. The treasurer reported cash in the bank $737.33. Film Fund $447.00 and general fund $290.33. Mr. Ramey reported a membership of 111. Fifteen new members were secured at the county fair booth. The following bills were approved for payment: Valley Print Shop — Membership Cards, Stationery $41.70. County of Sutter — Bulletin pictures $6.20. Earl Ramey — Postage $3.50. Program Chairman, Randolph Schnabel reported the program had already been arranged for the annual dinner meeting in January. Mrs. Gibson presented an invitation to the Sutter County Historical Society to en- tertain the Symposium of Historical Societies of Northern California and Southern Oregon in the fall of 1962.
    [Show full text]
  • Table of Contents Executive Summary
    MARCH 2012 SACRAMENTO VALLEY WATER QUALITY COALITION Monitoring and Reporting Program Plan Annual Monitoring Report 2011 Prepared by: LARRY WALKER ASSOCIATES Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... v Summary of Monitoring Program ............................................................................................... v Management Practices and Actions Taken ................................................................................ vi Conclusions and Recommendations ......................................................................................... vii Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 Description of the Watershed ...................................................................................................... 3 Monitoring Objectives .................................................................................................................. 4 Sampling Site Descriptions .......................................................................................................... 6 Sampling Site Locations and Land Uses .................................................................................... 7 Site Descriptions ......................................................................................................................... 9 Butte/Yuba/Sutter Subwatershed ...........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Emigration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) in the Feather
    State of California The Resources Agency Department of Water Resources Division of Environmental Services Emigration of Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Feather River, 2002-2004. May 2005 Table of Contents Table of Contents.............................................................................................................ii List of Tables...................................................................................................................iii List of Figures..................................................................................................................iv Summary......................................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 2 Methods .......................................................................................................................... 3 Study Area ................................................................................................................... 3 Field Collection Methods .............................................................................................. 3 Trap Efficiency and Emigration Estimate...................................................................... 5 Results ............................................................................................................................ 9 RST Catch and Species Composition .........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Existing Program Summary Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead
    EXISTING PROGRAM SUMMARY CENTRAL VALLEY SALMON AND STEELHEAD MONITORING PROGRAMS Photos: Tim Heyne, Doug Killam, Doug Demko, Colleen Harvey Arrison Contributors: Interagency Ecological Program Salmonid Escapement Project Work Team Interagency Ecological Program Juvenile Monitoring Project Work Team Edited by: Alice Low Department of Fish and Game May 2007 Contents I - Central Valley Adult Salmonid Escapement Monitoring Programs Central Valley-wide Chinook salmon and steelhead angler survey………………………………………. I-2 Upper Sacramento River Basin Mainstem Sacramento River All Chinook runs – aerial redd survey.………………………………………… I-5 Fall, winter, spring-run Chinook – ladder counts at RBDD…………………… I-11 Fall, late fall-run Chinook carcass survey…………………………....……….. I-14 Winter-run Chinook carcass survey……..………………………..…………… I-17 Upper Sacramento River Basin Tributaries Antelope Creek – Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey………………………..I-21 Beegum Creek – Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey………………………... I-24 Mill Creek – Spring-run Chinook redd survey………...………………..……. I-27 Spring-run Chinook hydroacoustic study………………………..I-30 Fall-run Chinook carcass survey……………..………………….I-33 Deer Creek – Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey……………..…..…………. I-36 Fall-run Chinook carcass survey……..………………………….I-39 Clear Creek –Fall-run Chinook carcass survey………………………………...I-42 Fall-run Chinook redd mapping…………….…………………...I-45 Spring-run Chinook snorkel survey………………………...…...I-47 Late-fall Chinook and steelhead redd survey………………..…. I-50 Cow Creek – Fall-run Chinook video monitoring…………………………….
    [Show full text]
  • Sites Reservoir Project Public Draft EIR/EIS
    12. Aquatic Biological Resources 12.1 Introduction This chapter describes the aquatic habitat and fish resources found within the Extended, Secondary, and Primary study areas. Descriptions and maps of these three study areas are provided in Chapter 1 Introduction. Fish species of management concern include special-status species and species that have substantial tribal, commercial or recreation value. The biology and life history of these species are described in Appendix 12A Aquatic Species Life Histories. Permits and authorizations for aquatic biological resources are presented in Chapter 4 Environmental Compliance and Permit Summary. The regulatory setting for aquatic biological resources is presented in Appendix 4A Environmental Compliance. The descriptions and evaluation of potential impacts in this chapter are presented using a broad, generalized approach for the Secondary and Extended study areas, whereas the Primary Study Area is presented in greater detail. Potential local and regional impacts from constructing, operating, and maintaining the alternatives are described and compared to applicable significance thresholds. Mitigation measures are provided for identified significant or potentially significant impacts, where appropriate. The descriptions of species and biological and hydrodynamic processes in this chapter frequently use the terms “Delta” and “San Francisco Estuary.” The Delta refers to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, as legally defined in the Delta Protection Act. The San Francisco Estuary refers to the portion of the Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers watershed downstream of Chipps Island that is influenced by tidal action, and where fresh water and salt water mix. The estuary includes Suisun, San Pablo, and San Francisco bays. 12.2 Environmental Setting/Affected Environment This section, which is organized by study area, describes fish and aquatic resources that would be affected by the implementation of the alternatives considered in this EIR/EIS.
    [Show full text]
  • 4. Climate and Hydrology Many Aspects of the Physical Setting of Butte County Play a Role in the Hydrologic Cycle Within the County
    Butte County 4. Climate and Water Inventory and Analysis Hydrology 4. Climate and Hydrology Many aspects of the physical setting of Butte County play a role in the hydrologic cycle within the County. Topography within the County significantly impacts precipitation patterns. Temperature variations influence whether precipitation falls as rain or snow, which in turn impacts the timing of surface water runoff. Temperature and other factors also influence the evaporative demand of the atmosphere and corresponding irrigation requirements for crops. Both surface water and extracted groundwater are used to meet the water demands. System components impacting water resources in the County described in this section include climate, surface water hydrology, and groundwater hydrology. 4.1 Climate Butte County has a Mediterranean climate with cool, wet winters and hot, dry summers. Unlike many locations in California, rainfall and winter snowpack in the Sierra Nevada provide significant surface water flows and groundwater recharge as water drains through the County. Climate variation within the County occurs primarily due to changes in elevation. Precipitation is least on the valley floor and greatest in the Foothill Inventory Unit (IU) and Mountain IU areas as elevation increases. Conversely, temperatures are warmest on the valley floor and coolest in the mountains. Similarly, reference evapotranspiration (ETo), a measure of evaporative demand, is greatest on the valley floor and least in the mountains. This variability in climate is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. 4.1.1 Precipitation Average annual precipitation generally increases from west to east across Butte County, associated with increasing elevation. Moisture-laden weather patterns from the Pacific Ocean travel west to east across California and Butte County during the winter months.
    [Show full text]
  • SACMMENTO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA If ., - *J by ,3 00 Cff" 9 KIRK BRYAN S
    Please do not destroy or throw away this publication. If you have no further use for it, write to the Geological Survey at Washington and ask for a frank to return it. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 495 GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OP SACMMENTO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA if ., - *j BY ,3 00 cff" 9 KIRK BRYAN S ,«f Prepared In cooperation with the Department of Engineering W of the State of California O WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR HUBERT WORK, Secretary UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY GEORGE OTIS SMITH, Director Water-Supply Paper 495 GEOLOGY AND GROUND-WATER RESOURCES OF SACRAMENTO VALLEY, CALIFORNIA KIRK BRTAN Prepared in cooperation with the Department of Engineering of the State of California WASHINGTON GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1923 ADDITIONAL COPIES OF THIS PUBLICATION MAT BE PROCURED FROM THE SUPERINTENDENT OF DOCUMENTS GOVERNMENT FEINTING OFFICE WASHINGTON, D. C. AT 60 CENTS A COPY PURCHASER AGREES NOT TO RESELL OB DISTRIBUTE THIS COPT FOB PBOFIT. PUB. BBS. 57, APPBOVED MAT 11, 1922 CONTENTS. Page Introduction.............................................................. 1 Agricultural and industrial development of the Great Valley of California. 1 Irrigation and agriculture in Sacramento Valley.......................... 2 Purpose and methods of ground-water survey............................ 6 Acknowledgments...................................................... 7 Physiography-.............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Late Cenozoic Stratigraphy of the Feather and Yuba Rivers Area, California, with a Section on Soil Development in Mixed Alluvium at Honcut Creek
    / ( r- / Late CenozoiC Stratigraphy of the Feather and Yuba Rivers Area, California, with a Section on Soil Development in Mixed Alluvium at Honcut Creek U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY BULLETIN 1590-G AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS AND MAPS OF THE U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Instructions on ordering publications of the U.S. Geological Survey, along with prices of the last offerings, are given in the cur­ rent-year issues of the monthly catalog "New Publications of the U.S. Geological Survey." Prices of available U.S. Geological Sur­ vey publications released prior to the current year are listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List." Publications that are listed in various U.S. Geological Survey catalogs (see back inside cover) but not listed in the most recent annual "Price and Availability List" are no longer available. Prices of reports released to the open files are given in the listing "U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Reports," updated month­ ly, which is for sale in microfiche from the U.S. Geological Survey, Books and Open-File Reports Section, Federal Center, Box 25425, Denver, CO 80225. Reports released through the NTIS may be obtained by writing to the National Technical Information Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, Springfield, VA 22161; please include NTIS report number with inquiry. Order U.S. Geological Survey publications by mail or over the counter from the offices given below. BY MAIL Books OVER THE COUNTER Books . Professional Papers, Bulletins, Water-Supply Papers, Techniques of Water-Resources Investigations, Circulars, publications of general in­ Books of the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Chapter
    Evolution of River Flows in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys Historical Level of Development Study Technical Memorandum, Final March 2016 Prepared by MWH for the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California …… Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................... 1 Study Approach ......................................................................................................................................... 1 Modeling Tools ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Model Validation ....................................................................................................................................... 3 Model Results ............................................................................................................................................ 3 Climate Change ......................................................................................................................................... 9 Conclusions ............................................................................................................................................... 9 Chapter 1 Purpose and Scope of Work .......................................................................................... 1-1 Study Approach .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Section 3 Existing Environment
    Yuba County Water Agency Narrows Hydroelectric Project FERC Project No. 1403 SECTION 3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT In addition to this introductory information, this section is divided into two subsections. Section 3.1 provides a general description of the river basin in which the Project occurs. Section 3.2 provides existing, relevant and reasonably available information regarding the resources. 3.1 General Description of the River Basin 3.1.1 Existing Water Projects in the Yuba River Basin Sixteen existing water projects occur in the Yuba River Basin. Eight of the water projects are licensed or exempt from licensing by FERC. Together, these eight projects have a combined FERC-authorized capacity of 782.1 MW, of which the Narrows Hydroelectric Project has approximately 1.5 percent of the total capacity. The remaining eight non-FERC-licensed projects do not contain generating facilities. Each of these water projects is described briefly below. 3.1.1.1 Narrows Hydroelectric Project The existing Narrows Hydroelectric Project is described in detail in Section 2 of this PAD. 3.1.1.2 Upstream of the Narrows Hydroelectric Project 3.1.1.2.1 South Feather Power Project The 117.5-MW South Feather Power Project, FERC Project No. 2088, is a water supply/power project constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s and is owned and operated by the South Feather Water and Power Agency (SFWPA). None of the project facilities or features is located in the Yuba River watershed except for the Slate Creek Diversion Dam, which is located on a tributary to the North Yuba River.
    [Show full text]
  • Foothill Yellow-Legged Frog Comments
    The Center for Biological Diversity submits the following information for the status review of the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii) (Docket #FWS-R8-ES-2015-0050), including substantial new information regarding the species' biology, population structure (including potential Distinct Population Segments of the species), historical and recent distribution and status, population trends, documented range contraction, habitat requirements, threats to the species and its habitat, disease, and the potential effects of climate change on the species and its habitat. The foothill yellow-legged frog has experienced extensive population declines throughout its range and a significant range contraction. Multiple threats continue unabated throughout much of the species’ remaining range, including impacts from dams, water development, water diversions, timber harvest, mining, marijuana cultivation, livestock grazing, roads and urbanization, recreation, climate change and UV-radiation, pollution, invasive species and disease. The species warrants listing as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Contact: Jeff Miller, [email protected] Contents: NATURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY AND STATUS . .. 2 Biology. .2 Habitat . .. .4 Range and Documented Range Contraction . 4 Taxonomy . 9 Population Structure . 9 Historical and Recent Distribution and Status . 15 Central Oregon . .15 Southern Oregon . 18 Coastal Oregon . .20 Northern Coastal California . 25 Upper Sacramento River . 40 Marin/Sonoma . 45 Northern/Central Sierra Nevada . .47 Southern Sierra Nevada . .67 Central Coast/Bay Area . 77 South Coast. 91 Southern California . .. 94 Baja California, Mexico . .98 Unknown Population Affiliation. .99 Population Trends . .. .103 THREATS. .108 Habitat Alteration and Destruction . .. 108 Dams, Water Development and Diversions . .. .109 Logging . .. .111 Marijuana Cultivation . .. .112 Livestock Grazing . .. .112 Mining . .. .. .113 Roads and Urbanization .
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]