Notice of Availability of the Record of Decisions (ROD) for Williamson River Delta Restoration Project, 5642-5644 [E6-1458]
Download as PDF
5642
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
Report, (6) Chairman’s Perspective, (7)
General Discussion, (8) County Update,
(9) Next Agenda, (10) Lassen Approved
Projects Report.
DATES: The meeting will be held on
February 9, 2006 from 9 a.m. and end
at approximately 12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Lincoln Street School, Conference
Room A, 1135 Lincoln Street, Red Bluff,
CA. Individuals wishing to speak or
propose agenda items must send their
names and proposals to Jim Giachino,
DFO, 825 N. Humboldt Ave., Willows,
CA 95988.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bobbin Gaddini, Committee
Coordinator, USDA, Mendocino
National Forest, Grindstone Ranger
District, P.O. Box 164, Elk Creek, CA
95939. (530) 968–5329; E-mail
ggaddini@fs.fed.us.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
meeting is open to the public.
Committee discussion is limited to
Forest Service staff and Committee
members. However, persons who wish
to bring matters to the attention of the
Committee may file written statements
with the Committee staff before or after
the meeting. Public input sessions will
be provided and individuals who made
written requests by February 6, 2006
will have the opportunity to address the
committee at those sessions.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Janet Flanagan,
Acting Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 06–958 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
Notice of Resource Advisory
Committee Meeting
North Central Idaho Resource
Advisory Committee, Kamiah, ID,
USDA, Forest Service.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the authorities in
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92–463) and under the Secure
Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106–
393) the Nez Perce and Clearwater
National Forests’ North Central Idaho
Resource Advisory Committee will meet
Friday, February 24th, 2006, in
Lewiston, Idaho for a business meeting.
The meeting is open to the public.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
business meeting on February 24th,
2006, will be held at the Idaho State
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Fish and Game Office, 3316 16th Street,
Lewiston, Idaho, beginning at 10 a.m.
(PST). Agenda topics will include
discussion of potential projects. A
public forum will begin at 2:30 p.m.
(PST).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ihor
Mereszczak, Staff Officer and
Designated Federal Officer, at (208)
935–2513.
South 6th St., Suite C, Klamath Falls,
Oregon 97601; 541–883–6924 ext. 115;
541–882–9044 (FAX).
DATES: Implementation of the project
will begin no earlier than 30 days after
the date of publication.
Dated: January 25, 2006.
Ihor Mereszczak,
Acting Forest Supervisor.
[FR Doc. 06–976 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
Record of Decision
BILLING CODE 3410–11–M
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Notice of Availability of the Record of
Decisions (ROD) for Williamson River
Delta Restoration Project
Natural Resources
Conservation Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the
Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Williamson River Delta Restoration
Project.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This notice presents the
Record of Decision (ROD) regarding the
Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) implementation of the
Williamson River Delta Restoration
Project to allow NRCS to restore habitat
diversity for endangered Lost River and
shortnose suckers. NRCS prepared a
Final Environmental Impact Statement
(FEIS) for the Williamson River Delta
Restoration Project and published it on
the Oregon NRCS Web site. A Notice of
Availability (NOA) of the FEIS was
published in the Federal Register on
July 1, 2005 and all agencies and
individuals who expressed interest in
the project. Printed and CD–ROM
versions of the FEIS were made
available and delivered to all those who
requested. This Decision Notice
summarizes the environmental, social
and economic impacts of the
Williamson River Delta Restoration
Project alternatives identified in the
FEIS that were considered in making
this decision, and explains why NRCS
selected the Preferred Alternative. The
Williamson River Delta Restoration
Project FEIS and this ROD may be
access via the Internet on the Oregon
NRCS Web site at: https://
www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/features/
klamath.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kevin Conroy, Basin Team Leader, 2316
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Danny Burgett,
Acting State Conservationist, Portland,
Oregon.
I. The Decision
Preferred Alternative—As a Means of
Accomplishing the Williamson River
Delta Restoration Project
The Williamson River Delta
Restoration Project (Project) will restore
habitat considered essential for the
recovery of two federally endangered
fish species—the Lost River and
shortnose suckers (suckers)—native to
Upper Klamath Lake and the
Williamson River. The Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
completed a detailed analysis of the
Project alternatives. This included a
thorough evaluation of the resource
areas affected by the Project and a
comprehensive review of public
comments submitted based on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Preferred Alternative was selected
as the most effective means to meet the
purpose and need of the Project, which
in summary is to restore and maintain
the diversity of habitats that are
essential to the endangered Lost River
and shortnose suckers while, at the
same time, minimizing disturbance and
adverse impacts to natural and cultural
resources. The need for the proposed
action is to increase habitat for suckers.
Suckers historically used the wetland
habitats on the delta but these areas
were eliminated when levees were
constructed around the delta and the
wetlands converted to agricultural uses.
The preferred alternative included
mitigation and monitoring and
enforcement actions as part of the
decision.
Mitigation: Adverse impacts
associated with the Preferred
Alternative will be minimized to the
extent practical, and techniques to
mitigate these impacts will be
implemented as described herein and in
the Final Environmental Impact
Statement (FEIS) (USDA 2005).
Erosion control best management
practices (BMPs) will be utilized to
minimize adverse impacts to water
quality potentially occurring as a result
of construction activities. BMPs may
include seasoning exposed areas
(allowing vegetation to establish),
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
turbidity barriers, and transplanting
native vegetation onto fresh slopes.
Construction will take place during the
low water season (for both the lake and
river) where necessary, so that
earthwork will occur in the dry to the
greatest extent practicable. Timing of inwater work will be coordinated with the
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW). Internal levee breaches in
higher elevation areas may take place
during any time of year and will be
completed prior to external breaches,
and do not experience flooding.
All equipment will use standard
noise-control devices in compliance
with pertinent noise standards.
Standard dust abatement techniques
will minimize air borne dust, and
construction areas will be well-marked
for safety.
To resolve (avoid, mitigate, or
minimize) impacts to cultural resources,
the NRCS has involved TNC in
consulting with the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) and the
Klamath Tribes according to the
National Historic Preservation Act. The
NRCS and TNC will continue to consult
with SHPO and the Tribes through the
implementation of the Restoration
Project. Areas with known cultural
resource sites will be avoided, and
cultural resource monitors will be
present with each piece of moving
equipment operating in culturally
sensitive areas during construction.
Revegetation and other erosion control
efforts will also help stabilize cultural
resource sites.
Construction areas will be wellmarked for safety and to minimize
adverse impacts with navigation and
recreational uses. Coordination with
these user groups will occur to
minimize potential conflicts.
The NRCS received a Biological
Opinion (BO) and Incidental Take
Statement (ITS) from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) under the
Endangered Species Act and will
continue to consult with the USFWS in
any situation with a potential to affect
threatened or endangered species or
critical habitat. Under the terms of the
BO, NRCS will: (1) Minimize the take of
suckers as a result of Project
implementation by appropriately
monitoring conditions resulting from
the proposed action and using adaptive
management where practicable to
minimize take and (2) Minimize take of
listed species by developing and
implementing a pesticide application
plan (USFWS 2005). Any in-water work
activities will be coordinated with the
Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
Permits were obtained from the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
(Permit # 200200432) and the Oregon
Department of State Lands (DSL)
(Permit # 35020–GA) for work to be
conducted in jurisdictional wetlands
and other waters of the state and U.S.
(Corps permit for Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act and DSL permit for
Oregon state removal/fill law). Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Section 401 Water Quality
Certification was granted through
issuance of the Corps permit. The
Project will be conducted in compliance
with the provisions set forth in the
above permits, certification, and ITS.
Monitoring efforts will occur as part
of the proposed action. These efforts are
a function of TNC’s ongoing land
management at the Williamson River
Delta. This monitoring will occur in
addition to monitoring needs resulting
from regulatory compliance
requirements (i.e., USFWS, Corps, DSL,
and DEQ). Monitoring will be
conducted during construction as well
as post-construction. A brief description
of each of these efforts is provided
below, including any regulatory nexus.
Construction Monitoring
Construction monitoring is intended
to monitor the effects of the
construction activities on the
surrounding environment. Elements to
be monitored include cultural resources
and water quality. As agreed upon
through consultation with SHPO, during
restoration, cultural resource monitors
would be on site with each piece of
earth moving equipment associated with
ground disturbance to help ensure that
identified areas are not disturbed and, if
artifacts are discovered, the appropriate
actions will be taken.
Turbidity monitoring will be required
upon initiation of construction as a
condition of the Corps 404 permit, the
DEQ Section 401 Water Quality
Certification and the DSL permit. This
monitoring likely will consist of taking
water quality samples and conducting
Secchi disk turbidity monitoring within
the project vicinity several times a day
during the construction period. These
results will be provided to the Corps
and DEQ for their review. Should
turbidity levels exceed the agreed-upon
standards, TNC will consult with DEQ
and the Corps to determine appropriate
actions to be taken to reduce
construction impacts.
Post-Construction Monitoring
The purpose of the post-restoration
monitoring plan will be to assess
whether the restoration activities meet
the purpose and need of the project.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
5643
This will include documenting specific
changes in wetland flora and fauna and
water quality that are direct outcomes of
Project activities. The monitoring plan
will be implemented in certain areas of
the Project every year, to reflect the
scheduling of restoration activities. The
plan will remain in place for 2 to 5 years
post-restoration, depending on the
results. However, monitoring is not
static and is intended to be adaptive.
Thus, results from early phases of the
restoration will inform subsequent
phases. Likewise, after all planned
restoration activities are complete,
monitoring results will direct further
follow-up actions. Monitoring efforts
will encompass at a minimum: Fish use/
habitat changes, plant community
changes, and water quality dynamics.
For more specifics on the monitoring
plan for these components, please refer
to the FEIS (USDA 2005).
Post-restoration sucker sampling and
monitoring will focus on documenting
larval and juvenile sucker use and
success in restored areas of the Delta.
Water chemistry (including but not
limited to temperature, dissolved
oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and
nutrient concentrations) and general
habitat features (water depth and
vegetation profile) will be assessed at
larval and juvenile collection sites
simultaneous to fish sampling. The
monitoring plan will be developed with
input and assistance of the Project
Technical Committee, which includes
representatives from the NRCS, Klamath
Tribes, USFWS, TNC, and Reclamation.
II. Rationale for Decision
Three restoration (action) alternatives
and a No Action Alternative were
evaluated. The No Action Alternative
was not the chosen alternative because
if left alone, habitat for the endangered
suckers would continue to degrade,
which would not move towards
recovery of these two species. Under the
No Action Alternative the delta would
remain in a degraded condition, historic
hydrologic functions would not be
restored, and the associated benefits to
sucker habitat would not occur.
The three restoration alternatives
were as follows:
Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 2: Restoration of Channel
Form Alternative.
Alternative 3: Basic Reconnection
Alternative.
Implementation of each restoration
alternative would restore, to varying
degrees, historic delta hydrologic
functions and the associated benefits to
sucker habitat.
• The Basic Reconnection Alternative
includes the minimum level of habitat
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
hsrobinson on PROD1PC71 with NOTICES
5644
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2006 / Notices
improvements required to meet the
Project purpose and need.
• The Preferred Alternative provides
significantly greater habitat
improvement. It incorporates all of the
design elements of the Basic
Reconnection Alternative plus dredging
an historic oxbow, creating an alternate
channel at the river mouth, and
restoring a riparian fringe adjacent to
the river channel. This alternative also
includes other sucker habitat
improvement elements not associated
with the Basic Reconnection
Alternative.
• The Restoration of Channel Form
Alternative includes the greatest amount
of sucker habitat improvement of the
three restoration alternatives because it
incorporates all elements associated
with the Preferred Alternative as well as
restoring additional habitat along the
Williamson River channel. However,
these increased benefits do not
overcome the adverse impacts to
cultural resources, water quality and
local navigation when compared to the
Preferred Alternative. This alternative
also was significantly more expensive
than the other two alternatives without
providing significantly more sucker
habitat and diversity.
The relevant factors and rationale to
make this decision were as follows. It
was determined that the Restoration of
Channel Form Alternative presented
permanent adverse impacts to
navigation (i.e., limitations to vessel size
relative to current conditions) (FEIS
page 175; USDA 2005), and excessive
risk associated with construction related
water quality impacts due to greater
earthwork and fill volumes placed into
the active river channel (i.e. elevated
turbidity) (FEIS page 173; USDA 2005).
This alternative also presented the
greatest potential risk and adverse
impacts to cultural resources (i.e.
increased earthwork poses greater
potential for exposing artifacts) (FEIS
page 175; USDA 2005). The above
differences in impacts are directly
related to the in-channel fills associated
with narrowing and blocking the river
channel under the Restoration of
Channel Form Alternative. Adverse
impacts associated with the Basic
Reconnection Alternative were
determined to be only slightly less than
the Preferred Alternative (FEIS; pages
173–175; USDA 2005); however,
improvements to sucker habitat would
be significantly less (FEIS page 173;
USDA 2005). Therefore, the Preferred
Alternative was identified as the
environmentally preferred alternative as
it best balances the purpose and need of
maximizing improvements to sucker
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:26 Feb 01, 2006
Jkt 208001
habitat and minimizing adverse impacts
(FEIS pages 173–175; USDA 2005).
III. Mitigation
As described within the FEIS, all
practicable means to avoid or minimize
environmental harm have been adopted
as part of the action. There are
irreversible and unavoidable adverse
impacts associated with all of the
Alternatives that are identified and
discussed in the FEIS (FEIS page 170;
USDA 2005). Most of these are due to
construction related activities. However,
most importantly, long-term project
benefits will far outweigh the negative
short-term effects of construction.
IV. Monitoring and Enforcement
There are no monitoring and
enforcement actions that were not
included in the preferred alternative
and thus became part of the decision.
Decision Statement
In accordance with the Council of
Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, I have considered all
alternatives in this analysis and public
input to this project and have identified
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) as
the alternative to be implemented
because it provides the most habitat
diversity for endangered suckers while
balancing the adverse affects to the
natural resources of the area.
Notice of availability of
proposed changes in the NRCS National
Handbook of Conservation Practices for
public review and comment.
ACTION:
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the
intention of NRCS to issue a series of
new or revised conservation practice
standards in its National Handbook of
Conservation Practices. These standards
include: ‘‘Cover Crop (Code 340)’’,
‘‘Nutrient Management (Code 590)’’,
‘‘Prescribed Forestry (Code 409)’’,
‘‘Silvopasture Establishment (Code
381)’’, and ‘‘Spring Development (Code
574)’’. NRCS State Conservationists who
choose to adopt these practices for use
within their states will incorporate them
into Section IV of their respective
electronic Field Office Technical Guides
(eFOTG). These practices may be used
in conservation systems that treat highly
erodible land or on land determined to
be wetland.
Effective Dates: Comments will
be received for a 30-day period
commencing with this date of
publication. This series of new or
revised conservation practice standards
will be adopted after the close of the 30day period.
DATES:
Signed by Bob Graham (Responsible
Federal Official) in Portland, Oregon on
January 23, 2006.
Bob Graham,
Oregon State Conservationist, USDA—
Natural Resources Conservation Service.
References
USDA Natural Resources Conservation
Service. 2005. Final Environmental
Impact Statement, Williamson River
Delta Restoration Project. Portland,
Oregon. Pp. 187.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005.
Biological Opinion for the Williamson
River Delta Restoration Project, Klamath
County. Klamath Falls, Oregon. Pp. 51.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Copies of these standards can be
downloaded or printed from the
following Web site: ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NHQ/practicestandards/federal-register/. Single
copies of these standards are also
available from NRCS in Washington,
DC. Submit individual inquiries in
writing to Daniel Meyer, National
Agricultural Engineer, Natural
Resources Conservation Service, P.O.
Box 2890, Room 6139–S, Washington,
DC 20013–2890.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
[FR Doc. E6–1458 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–16–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Notice of Proposed Changes to the
Natural Resources Conservation
Service’s National Handbook of
Conservation Practices
Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS),
Department of Agriculture.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Section
343 of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
requires the NRCS to make available for
public review and comment proposed
revisions to conservation practice
standards used to carry out the highly
erodible land and wetland provisions of
the law. For the next 30 days, the NRCS
will receive comments relative to the
proposed changes. Following that
period, a determination will be made by
the NRCS regarding disposition of those
comments and a final determination of
changes will be made.
Signed in Washington, DC, on January 24,
2006.
Bruce I. Knight,
Chief.
[FR Doc. E6–1406 Filed 2–1–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–16–P
E:\FR\FM\02FEN1.SGM
02FEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5642-5644]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1458]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Natural Resources Conservation Service
Notice of Availability of the Record of Decisions (ROD) for
Williamson River Delta Restoration Project
AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service, USDA.
ACTION: Notice of availability of the Record of Decision (ROD) for the
Williamson River Delta Restoration Project.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice presents the Record of Decision (ROD) regarding
the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) implementation of the
Williamson River Delta Restoration Project to allow NRCS to restore
habitat diversity for endangered Lost River and shortnose suckers. NRCS
prepared a Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Williamson River Delta Restoration Project and published it on the
Oregon NRCS Web site. A Notice of Availability (NOA) of the FEIS was
published in the Federal Register on July 1, 2005 and all agencies and
individuals who expressed interest in the project. Printed and CD-ROM
versions of the FEIS were made available and delivered to all those who
requested. This Decision Notice summarizes the environmental, social
and economic impacts of the Williamson River Delta Restoration Project
alternatives identified in the FEIS that were considered in making this
decision, and explains why NRCS selected the Preferred Alternative. The
Williamson River Delta Restoration Project FEIS and this ROD may be
access via the Internet on the Oregon NRCS Web site at: https://
www.or.nrcs.usda.gov/features/klamath.html.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kevin Conroy, Basin Team Leader, 2316
South 6th St., Suite C, Klamath Falls, Oregon 97601; 541-883-6924 ext.
115; 541-882-9044 (FAX).
DATES: Implementation of the project will begin no earlier than 30 days
after the date of publication.
Dated: January 27, 2006.
Danny Burgett,
Acting State Conservationist, Portland, Oregon.
Record of Decision
I. The Decision
Preferred Alternative--As a Means of Accomplishing the Williamson River
Delta Restoration Project
The Williamson River Delta Restoration Project (Project) will
restore habitat considered essential for the recovery of two federally
endangered fish species--the Lost River and shortnose suckers
(suckers)--native to Upper Klamath Lake and the Williamson River. The
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) completed a detailed
analysis of the Project alternatives. This included a thorough
evaluation of the resource areas affected by the Project and a
comprehensive review of public comments submitted based on the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Preferred Alternative was
selected as the most effective means to meet the purpose and need of
the Project, which in summary is to restore and maintain the diversity
of habitats that are essential to the endangered Lost River and
shortnose suckers while, at the same time, minimizing disturbance and
adverse impacts to natural and cultural resources. The need for the
proposed action is to increase habitat for suckers. Suckers
historically used the wetland habitats on the delta but these areas
were eliminated when levees were constructed around the delta and the
wetlands converted to agricultural uses.
The preferred alternative included mitigation and monitoring and
enforcement actions as part of the decision.
Mitigation: Adverse impacts associated with the Preferred
Alternative will be minimized to the extent practical, and techniques
to mitigate these impacts will be implemented as described herein and
in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) (USDA 2005).
Erosion control best management practices (BMPs) will be utilized
to minimize adverse impacts to water quality potentially occurring as a
result of construction activities. BMPs may include seasoning exposed
areas (allowing vegetation to establish),
[[Page 5643]]
turbidity barriers, and transplanting native vegetation onto fresh
slopes. Construction will take place during the low water season (for
both the lake and river) where necessary, so that earthwork will occur
in the dry to the greatest extent practicable. Timing of in-water work
will be coordinated with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW). Internal levee breaches in higher elevation areas may take
place during any time of year and will be completed prior to external
breaches, and do not experience flooding.
All equipment will use standard noise-control devices in compliance
with pertinent noise standards. Standard dust abatement techniques will
minimize air borne dust, and construction areas will be well-marked for
safety.
To resolve (avoid, mitigate, or minimize) impacts to cultural
resources, the NRCS has involved TNC in consulting with the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Klamath Tribes according to
the National Historic Preservation Act. The NRCS and TNC will continue
to consult with SHPO and the Tribes through the implementation of the
Restoration Project. Areas with known cultural resource sites will be
avoided, and cultural resource monitors will be present with each piece
of moving equipment operating in culturally sensitive areas during
construction. Revegetation and other erosion control efforts will also
help stabilize cultural resource sites.
Construction areas will be well-marked for safety and to minimize
adverse impacts with navigation and recreational uses. Coordination
with these user groups will occur to minimize potential conflicts.
The NRCS received a Biological Opinion (BO) and Incidental Take
Statement (ITS) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under
the Endangered Species Act and will continue to consult with the USFWS
in any situation with a potential to affect threatened or endangered
species or critical habitat. Under the terms of the BO, NRCS will: (1)
Minimize the take of suckers as a result of Project implementation by
appropriately monitoring conditions resulting from the proposed action
and using adaptive management where practicable to minimize take and
(2) Minimize take of listed species by developing and implementing a
pesticide application plan (USFWS 2005). Any in-water work activities
will be coordinated with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Permits were obtained from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
(Permit 200200432) and the Oregon Department of State Lands
(DSL) (Permit 35020-GA) for work to be conducted in
jurisdictional wetlands and other waters of the state and U.S. (Corps
permit for Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and DSL permit for Oregon
state removal/fill law). Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
(DEQ) Section 401 Water Quality Certification was granted through
issuance of the Corps permit. The Project will be conducted in
compliance with the provisions set forth in the above permits,
certification, and ITS.
Monitoring efforts will occur as part of the proposed action. These
efforts are a function of TNC's ongoing land management at the
Williamson River Delta. This monitoring will occur in addition to
monitoring needs resulting from regulatory compliance requirements
(i.e., USFWS, Corps, DSL, and DEQ). Monitoring will be conducted during
construction as well as post-construction. A brief description of each
of these efforts is provided below, including any regulatory nexus.
Construction Monitoring
Construction monitoring is intended to monitor the effects of the
construction activities on the surrounding environment. Elements to be
monitored include cultural resources and water quality. As agreed upon
through consultation with SHPO, during restoration, cultural resource
monitors would be on site with each piece of earth moving equipment
associated with ground disturbance to help ensure that identified areas
are not disturbed and, if artifacts are discovered, the appropriate
actions will be taken.
Turbidity monitoring will be required upon initiation of
construction as a condition of the Corps 404 permit, the DEQ Section
401 Water Quality Certification and the DSL permit. This monitoring
likely will consist of taking water quality samples and conducting
Secchi disk turbidity monitoring within the project vicinity several
times a day during the construction period. These results will be
provided to the Corps and DEQ for their review. Should turbidity levels
exceed the agreed-upon standards, TNC will consult with DEQ and the
Corps to determine appropriate actions to be taken to reduce
construction impacts.
Post-Construction Monitoring
The purpose of the post-restoration monitoring plan will be to
assess whether the restoration activities meet the purpose and need of
the project. This will include documenting specific changes in wetland
flora and fauna and water quality that are direct outcomes of Project
activities. The monitoring plan will be implemented in certain areas of
the Project every year, to reflect the scheduling of restoration
activities. The plan will remain in place for 2 to 5 years post-
restoration, depending on the results. However, monitoring is not
static and is intended to be adaptive. Thus, results from early phases
of the restoration will inform subsequent phases. Likewise, after all
planned restoration activities are complete, monitoring results will
direct further follow-up actions. Monitoring efforts will encompass at
a minimum: Fish use/habitat changes, plant community changes, and water
quality dynamics. For more specifics on the monitoring plan for these
components, please refer to the FEIS (USDA 2005).
Post-restoration sucker sampling and monitoring will focus on
documenting larval and juvenile sucker use and success in restored
areas of the Delta. Water chemistry (including but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, specific conductance, and nutrient
concentrations) and general habitat features (water depth and
vegetation profile) will be assessed at larval and juvenile collection
sites simultaneous to fish sampling. The monitoring plan will be
developed with input and assistance of the Project Technical Committee,
which includes representatives from the NRCS, Klamath Tribes, USFWS,
TNC, and Reclamation.
II. Rationale for Decision
Three restoration (action) alternatives and a No Action Alternative
were evaluated. The No Action Alternative was not the chosen
alternative because if left alone, habitat for the endangered suckers
would continue to degrade, which would not move towards recovery of
these two species. Under the No Action Alternative the delta would
remain in a degraded condition, historic hydrologic functions would not
be restored, and the associated benefits to sucker habitat would not
occur.
The three restoration alternatives were as follows:
Alternative 1: Preferred Alternative.
Alternative 2: Restoration of Channel Form Alternative.
Alternative 3: Basic Reconnection Alternative.
Implementation of each restoration alternative would restore, to
varying degrees, historic delta hydrologic functions and the associated
benefits to sucker habitat.
The Basic Reconnection Alternative includes the minimum
level of habitat
[[Page 5644]]
improvements required to meet the Project purpose and need.
The Preferred Alternative provides significantly greater
habitat improvement. It incorporates all of the design elements of the
Basic Reconnection Alternative plus dredging an historic oxbow,
creating an alternate channel at the river mouth, and restoring a
riparian fringe adjacent to the river channel. This alternative also
includes other sucker habitat improvement elements not associated with
the Basic Reconnection Alternative.
The Restoration of Channel Form Alternative includes the
greatest amount of sucker habitat improvement of the three restoration
alternatives because it incorporates all elements associated with the
Preferred Alternative as well as restoring additional habitat along the
Williamson River channel. However, these increased benefits do not
overcome the adverse impacts to cultural resources, water quality and
local navigation when compared to the Preferred Alternative. This
alternative also was significantly more expensive than the other two
alternatives without providing significantly more sucker habitat and
diversity.
The relevant factors and rationale to make this decision were as
follows. It was determined that the Restoration of Channel Form
Alternative presented permanent adverse impacts to navigation (i.e.,
limitations to vessel size relative to current conditions) (FEIS page
175; USDA 2005), and excessive risk associated with construction
related water quality impacts due to greater earthwork and fill volumes
placed into the active river channel (i.e. elevated turbidity) (FEIS
page 173; USDA 2005). This alternative also presented the greatest
potential risk and adverse impacts to cultural resources (i.e.
increased earthwork poses greater potential for exposing artifacts)
(FEIS page 175; USDA 2005). The above differences in impacts are
directly related to the in-channel fills associated with narrowing and
blocking the river channel under the Restoration of Channel Form
Alternative. Adverse impacts associated with the Basic Reconnection
Alternative were determined to be only slightly less than the Preferred
Alternative (FEIS; pages 173-175; USDA 2005); however, improvements to
sucker habitat would be significantly less (FEIS page 173; USDA 2005).
Therefore, the Preferred Alternative was identified as the
environmentally preferred alternative as it best balances the purpose
and need of maximizing improvements to sucker habitat and minimizing
adverse impacts (FEIS pages 173-175; USDA 2005).
III. Mitigation
As described within the FEIS, all practicable means to avoid or
minimize environmental harm have been adopted as part of the action.
There are irreversible and unavoidable adverse impacts associated with
all of the Alternatives that are identified and discussed in the FEIS
(FEIS page 170; USDA 2005). Most of these are due to construction
related activities. However, most importantly, long-term project
benefits will far outweigh the negative short-term effects of
construction.
IV. Monitoring and Enforcement
There are no monitoring and enforcement actions that were not
included in the preferred alternative and thus became part of the
decision.
Decision Statement
In accordance with the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ)
regulations, I have considered all alternatives in this analysis and
public input to this project and have identified Alternative 1
(Preferred Alternative) as the alternative to be implemented because it
provides the most habitat diversity for endangered suckers while
balancing the adverse affects to the natural resources of the area.
Signed by Bob Graham (Responsible Federal Official) in Portland,
Oregon on January 23, 2006.
Bob Graham,
Oregon State Conservationist, USDA--Natural Resources Conservation
Service.
References
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2005. Final
Environmental Impact Statement, Williamson River Delta Restoration
Project. Portland, Oregon. Pp. 187.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Biological Opinion for the
Williamson River Delta Restoration Project, Klamath County. Klamath
Falls, Oregon. Pp. 51.
[FR Doc. E6-1458 Filed 2-1-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P