[Federal Register: April 23, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 79)]
[Notices]
[Page 22091-22093]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr23ap04-107]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Fish and Wildlife Service
Trinity River Fishery Restoration Program, Weaverville, CA
AGENCIES: Bureau of Reclamation and Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the Draft Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Draft SEIS/EIR) and
notice of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation, Fish and Wildlife Service, Hoopa
Valley Tribe (Tribe) and Trinity County (County) have made available
for public review and comment the Draft SEIS/EIR for the Trinity River
Fishery Restoration Program (Program).
A final environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Program was
issued in November 2000, and a Record of Decision (ROD) executed on
December 19, 2000. Central Valley water and power interests filed suit
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
seeking to enjoin implementation of the ROD. On March 22, 2001, the
district court issued a Memorandum Decision and Order preliminarily
enjoining the Federal defendants from implementing certain flow related
aspects of the ROD. In its Memorandum Decision and Order the court
found that the effects of reasonable and prudent measures in the two
biological opinions, as well as the effects on power in light of the
California energy crisis were not adequately analyzed in the EIS. This
Draft SEIS/EIR addresses the court's concerns and updates alternatives.
The purpose for the project alternatives outlined in the October
2000 EIS/EIR was as follows: to restore and maintain the natural
production of anadromous fish on the Trinity River mainstem downstream
of Lewiston Dam. The purpose of the Draft SEIS/EIR has been amended,
consistent with court orders on the Program. The revised purpose for
the alternatives discussed in the Draft SEIS/EIR is as follows: to
restore and maintain the natural production of anadromous fish in the
Trinity River basin downstream of Lewiston Dam and to meet the U.S.
Government's tribal trust obligations. Secondary consideration is given
to: (a) Meeting the Trinity Basin fishery and wildlife restoration
goals of the Act of October 24, 1984, Public Law 98-541, and (b)
achieving a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of
[[Page 22092]]
Central Valley Project (CVP) water, including the requirements of fish
and wildlife, agricultural, municipal and industrial, and power
contractors.
DATES: Submit written comments on the Draft SEIS/EIR on or before June
22, 2004, at the address provided below. Two public hearings have been
scheduled to receive oral or written comments regarding the project's
environmental effects:
Thursday, June 1, 2004, 4:30-7:30 p.m., Redding,
CA
Tuesday, June 3, 2004, 4:30-7:30: p.m., Hoopa,
CA
ADDRESSES: The public hearings will be held at the following locations:
Redding, CA--Holiday Inn, 1900 Hilltop Drive
Hoopa, CA--Hoopa Fire Department, Highway 96
Written comments on the Draft SEIS/EIR should be sent to Mr.
Russell Smith, Bureau of Reclamation, P.O. Box 723, Shasta, CA 96087;
telephone: 530-275-1554; fax 530-275-2441.
Copies of the Draft SEIS/EIR (but not the previous EIS/EIR) may be
requested from Mr. Smith at the above address or by calling 530-275-
1554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Russell Smith, Bureau of
Reclamation, P.O. Box 723, Shasta, CA 96087; telephone: 530-275-1554;
fax 530-275-2441.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The primary objective of the Program is to
meet Federal trust responsibilities for tribal fishery resources and
restore the fisheries in the Trinity River basin to the level that
existed prior to the construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD)
of the CVP. These actions are authorized by the Act of August 12, 1955,
69 Stat. 719; the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act,
Public Law 98-541 (1984), as amended, and the Central Valley Project
Improvement Act, Public Law 102-575, Title XXXIV (1992) (CVPIA). The
Service and Reclamation are the Federal co-leads for purposes of
complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); along with
Hoopa Valley Tribe, which is also acting in a co-lead capacity. Trinity
County functions as the state lead agency for purposes of complying
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
In 1983, an EIS on the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Management Program was prepared by the Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1983). The environmental document analyzed habitat restoration
actions, watershed rehabilitation, and improvements to the Trinity
River Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (TRSSH). The 1983 EIS clarified
that the hatchery's purpose was to mitigate for the loss of the 109
miles of habitat upstream of Lewiston Dam, whereas, the restoration and
rehabilitation projects were explicitly designed to increase natural
fish production below the dam.
In 1984, Congress enacted the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Management Act (Pub. L. 98-541). It formalized the existence of the
Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force (Task Force) and
directed the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to implement
measures to restore fish and wildlife habitat in the Trinity River
Basin. The Task Force was directed at implementation of a fish and
wildlife management program to ``restore natural fish and wildlife
populations to levels approximating those which existed immediately
prior to the construction of the Trinity Division.'' In 1996, Congress
reauthorized and amended the original Trinity River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Management Act (Pub. L. 104-143). The 1996 amendments
clarified that ``restoration is to be measured not only by returning
adult anadromous fish spawners, but by the ability of dependent tribal,
commercial, and sport fisheries to participate fully, through enhanced
in-river and ocean harvest opportunities, in the benefits of
restoration * * *.''
In 1992, Congress passed the CVPIA (Pub. L. 102-575, Title XXXIV)
in order to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats in the Central Valley, including the Trinity River
Basin. Specifically, the CVPIA provides at section 3406(b)(23), that
``[i]n order to meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect the
fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and meet the fishery
restoration goals of Public Law 98-541,'' the Secretary is directed to
complete the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study (TRFES) and to develop
recommendations ``based on the best available scientific data,
regarding permanent instream fishery flow requirements and TRD
operating criteria and procedures for the restoration and maintenance
of the Trinity River fishery.'' The CVPIA also specifically provided
for the Secretary to consult with the Hoopa Valley Tribe on the TRFES
and, upon the Tribe's concurrence, to implement the restoration
recommendations accordingly.
A joint EIS/EIR for the Program was prepared by the Service,
Reclamation, Trinity County, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and was
completed in October 2000. A ROD selecting the alternative to be
implemented for the Program was signed by the Secretary, with the
concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, pursuant to section 3406(b)(23)
of the CVPIA, and issued in December 2000. However, the EIR was not
certified by Trinity County and it is not a finalized document under
CEQA.
Subsequent to execution of the ROD, water and power interests in
the Central Valley of California amended a previously filed lawsuit in
Federal court against the Federal agencies materially involved in
either the decision making process for the ROD or the associated
Endangered Species Act (ESA) approvals for the Program (Reclamation,
the Service, and the National Marine Fishery Service (NMFS)), in
Federal district court. Plaintiffs sought, and were granted a
preliminary injunction for implementation of certain flow-related
aspects of the ROD. The terms of the injunction limit the increase in
flows in the Trinity River which may be implemented in the ROD, but
allow the Secretary to proceed with all other activities approved by
the ROD. Westlands Water District v. United States Department of the
Interior, CIVF-00-7124-OWW/DLB (E.D. Cal., filed May 3, 2001).
The lead agencies published a Notice of Intent on March 25, 2002
(67 FR 13647) announcing plans to produce a Draft SEIS/EIR and
soliciting public input and comment on the process. A scoping meeting
was held in Redding, California on May 9, 2002.
On December 10, 2002, the court issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order re: Cross-motions for Summary Judgment to address the merits of
the litigation including the validity of the EIS and ROD. The court's
ruling on the merits found that the EIS failed to comply with Federal
environmental statutes in certain respects and enjoined, in part, the
ROD until Interior completes the Draft SEIR/EIR. The court's December
10 memorandum provided detailed direction regarding the preparation of
the Draft SEIS/EIR that was not available for the previous scoping
effort, including direction on the purpose statement for the Draft
SEIS/EIR, alternatives to be considered in the Draft SEIS/EIR, and a
timeline for completion of the Draft SEIS/EIR.
On February 20, 2003, the court entered final judgment in the case,
finding that the ROD for the Program, issued on December 19, 2000, and
the associated biological opinions issued by the Service and the NMFS,
were unlawful in part. The court found that the ROD was in violation of
NEPA in that it had an improperly framed purpose statement and the
range of alternatives was too narrow. Certain
[[Page 22093]]
reasonable and prudent measures set forth in the biological opinions
were found to exceed the agencies' authority under the ESA in that they
required major modifications to operations of the CVP. The court also
found the Government in breach of its general and specific Federal
trust obligations to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes, as set out
under CVPIA section 3406(b)(23) and related statutes. The case
currently is on appeal to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.
In response to the more detailed direction from the district
court's ruling, additional scoping meetings were held on July 8, 2003,
in Redding, California, and July 10, 2003, in Hoopa, California, to
solicit public input on alternatives, concerns, and issues to be
addressed in the Draft SEIS/EIR.
The Draft SEIS/EIR updates information on alternatives described in
the October 2000 EIS/EIR. These alternatives include: Existing
Conditions, No Action, Mechanical Restoration (revised to address the
court's concerns and using information submitted by commenters),
Percent Inflow (modified to address the court's concerns), Flow
Evaluation and Maximum Flow. An additional alternative is also
evaluated: a 70 Percent Inflow Alternative, based on comments
documented in the October 2000 EIS/EIR. Consistent with the October
2000 EIS/EIR, the Flow Evaluation Alternative remains the designated
Preferred Alternative.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public
disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There
also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's
identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Dated: March 30, 2004.
Willie R. Taylor,
Director, Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance.
[FR Doc. 04-9300 Filed 4-22-04; 8:45 am]