Tidal Restoration of the Cullinan Ranch Unit of San Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge, 51245-51247 [E7-17587]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 172 / Thursday, September 6, 2007 / Notices
enhancement of survival permit (permit)
for the Utah prairie dog within the
species’ range in Utah under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (Act). This permit application
includes a safe harbor agreement (SHA)
between the applicant and us, with the
ability for the applicant to issue
certificates of inclusion to private
landowners. We request information,
views, and opinions from the public via
this notice. Further, we are soliciting
information regarding the adequacy of
the SHA as measured against our Safe
Harbor Policy and the regulations that
implement it.
DATES: We must receive any written
comments on the permit application
and SHA on or before October 9, 2007.
ADDRESSES:
• Mail: Utah Field Office, 2369 West
Orton Circle, West Valley City, Utah
84119.
• Internet: https://mountainprairie.fws.gov/species/mammals/
utprairiedog/.
• E-mail:
utahprairiedogSHA@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Larry Crist, Utah Field Supervisor (see
telephone (801) 975–3330.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Utah
prairie dog is the westernmost member
of the genus Cynomys. The species’
range, which is limited to the
southwestern quarter of Utah, is the
most restricted of all prairie dog species
in the United States. Distribution of the
Utah prairie dog has been greatly
reduced due to disease (plague),
poisoning, drought, and human-related
habitat alteration. Protection of this
species and enhancement of its habitat
on private land will benefit recovery
efforts.
The primary objective of this SHA is
to promote conservation of a threatened
species through voluntary conservation,
enhancement, and management of the
species on private land throughout the
range of the species. Through this SHA,
the applicant receives the ability to
oversee a safe harbor program working
under a permit. We will authorize the
applicant to enroll willing individual
landowners (cooperators) into the
program, which will require that each
cooperator enter a cooperative
agreement with the Panoramaland
Resource Conservation and
Development Council, with associated
management activities, in exchange for
a certificate of inclusion under the
permit. This certificate will provide
relief from any additional section 9
liabilities under the Act beyond those
which exist at the time the cooperative
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
ADDRESSES),
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Sep 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
agreement is signed (‘‘regulatory
baseline’’).
All cooperative agreements shall
include the following: (1) Use of
pesticides within 100 feet (31 meters) of
an active Utah prairie dog colony must
be limited to only those approved for
this purpose by the Service; (2) All
applied practices (see below) must be
planned and applied in a manner that
will not adversely affect other wildlife,
including threatened or endangered
species; (3) Monitoring of habitat
restoration activities (see below) must
occur to assess the general condition of
the habitat, use of the habitat by the
Utah prairie dog, progress of ongoing
management activities, and satisfaction
of the cooperator with the project.
In addition to the above management
activities, at least two of the following
activities must be included in all
cooperative agreements: (1) Brush
management to restore plant community
balance, increase visual surveillance,
and increase forage quantity and
quality; (2) Prescribed grazing to
increase visual surveillance, increase
forage quantity and quality and
deferment to create vegetative varies to
limit expansion to undesirable
locations; (3) Seeding to restore
degraded rangelands or pasturelands
and bare ground and increase forage
quantity and quality; (4) Prescribed
burning to increase forage quantity and
quality; or (5) Noxious weed control to
facilitate restoration of rangelands or
pasturelands, increase visual
surveillance, and increase forage
quantity and quality. The habitat
improvements will be maintained
throughout the term of the cooperative
agreement. The cooperator will receive
a certificate of inclusion that authorizes
implementation of the conservation
actions and other provisions of the
cooperative agreement and authorizes
incidental take and limited control of
the covered species above the
cooperator’s baseline responsibilities, as
defined in the cooperative agreement.
The SHA and permit would become
effective upon signature of the SHA, and
issuance of the permit and would
remain in effect for 50 years.
We have evaluated the impacts of this
action under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and
determined that it warrants categorical
exclusion as described in 516 DM 8.5,
and/or 516 DM 2, Appendix 1. This
notice is provided pursuant to NEPA,
section 10 of the Act, and our Safe
Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717, June 17,
1999). We will evaluate whether the
issuance of the permit complies with
section 7 of the Act by conducting an
intra-Service section 7 consultation. We
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51245
will use the result of the biological
opinion, in combination with our
finding that will take into consideration
any public comments, in the final
analysis to determine whether or not to
issue the requested permit, pursuant to
the regulations that guide permit
issuance.
Public Review of Documents
Persons wishing to review the SHA
and the application may obtain a copy
by writing our Utah Field Office (see
ADDRESSES) or by visiting during normal
business hours. The SHA also will be
posted on the Internet at https://
mountain-prairie.fws.gov/species/
mammals/utprairiedog/.
Public Comments
Send any written data or comments
concerning the SHA or application to
the Utah Field Office (see ADDRESSES).
Comments must be submitted in writing
to be adequately considered in the
Service’s decisionmaking process.
Please reference permit number TE–
155376 in your comments, or in the
request for the documents discussed
herein.
Public Availability of Comments
Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other
personal identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment—including your
personal identifying information—may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Authority: The authority for this action is
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
Dated: August 8, 2007.
James J. Slack,
Deputy Regional Director, Denver, Colorado.
[FR Doc. E7–17590 Filed 9–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Tidal Restoration of the Cullinan
Ranch Unit of San Pablo Bay National
Wildlife Refuge
AGENCY:
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
Notice of intent to prepare an
environmental impact statement;
request for public comment.
ACTION:
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
51246
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 172 / Thursday, September 6, 2007 / Notices
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), are preparing
an environmental impact statement
(EIS) for the tidal restoration of the
Cullinan Ranch Unit of the San Pablo
Bay National Wildlife Refuge, located in
Solano County, California. This notice
advises the public that we intend to
gather information necessary to prepare
an EIS pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). We
encourage the public and other agencies
to participate in the planning process by
sending written comments on
management actions we should
consider.
DATES: To ensure that we have adequate
time to evaluate and incorporate
suggestions and other input into the
planning process, we must receive your
comments on or before October 22,
2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments or
requests to be added to the mailing list
to: Christy Smith, Refuge Manager, San
Pablo Bay National Wildlife Refuge,
7715 Lakeville Highway, Petaluma, CA
94954. Alternatively, fax written
comments to (707) 769–8106, or send
comments by e-mail to
christy_smith@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christy Smith, Refuge Manager, (707)
769–4200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Cullinan Ranch restoration
project would restore approximately
1,500 acres (ac) of diked baylands back
to historic tidal conditions by
reintroducing tidal flow into the project
area. Cullinan Ranch is located in an
area of the Napa River Delta that was
historically defined by a network of
meandering sloughs and extensive
estuarine tidal marshes. Reintroduction
of tidal flow will restore vital salt marsh
habitat for endangered species,
including the salt marsh harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys raviventris) and the
California clapper rail (Rallus
longirostris obsoletus), as well as
provide foraging and roosting habitat for
fish, migratory waterfowl, and
waterbirds.
In keeping with one of the purposes
of the Refuge—‘‘to conserve fish,
wildlife, or plants which are listed as
endangered species or threatened
species’’—the Cullinan Ranch
restoration project would restore
historic salt marsh habitat for the benefit
of threatened and endangered species,
as well as many other estuarinedependent species.
We published a notice of intent to
prepare an environmental assessment
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Sep 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
(EA) and hold a public meeting on July
15, 2002 (67 FR 46538). We held public
meetings on August 7, 2002, and March
9, 2007. All meetings were announced
in local newspapers. Four members of
the public attended the first meeting
and provided comments. One person
attended the second meeting and
provided no comments. All of the
comments we received on the EA will
go forward into the EIS planning
process. During the EA planning
process, we determined that possible
impacts to traffic flows on Highway 37
required that we complete an
environmental impact statement. In
addition, since some of the project
would take place on State lands
belonging to California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), an
environmental impact report (EIR)
under the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) will be prepared.
California Department of Fish and Game
is the lead State agency for this project
under the CEQA.
Thus far, the Service and CDFG have
identified and analyzed a total of eight
alternatives based on a set of criteria
including the following factors: effects
to adjacent habitats, effects to the
existing levees, effects on the hydrology
of the existing slough channels and
adjacent water bodies, costs of
implementing restoration activities and
long-term maintenance, and effects of
project construction on existing uses on
and adjacent to the Cullinan Ranch Site.
Five of these alternatives were removed
from further consideration because they
did not meet the cost and engineering
feasibility criteria as set forth by the
lead agencies. Many of the alternatives
considered were formulated with
optional implementation features in
order to minimize effects on adjacent
habitats (such as the fringe marshes
along Dutchman Slough and Pritchett
Marsh), such as staging the Proposed
Action and/or limiting the amount of
tidal exchange. These features were
analyzed but removed from further
consideration because hydrologic
modeling revealed that they would not
significantly reduce adverse effects to
adjacent habitats.
The lead agencies will carry forward
three possible restoration alternatives to
environmental analysis: the No-Action
Alternative, the Preferred Restoration
Alternative, and the Partial Restoration
Alternative. The lead agencies will
consider public input from the scoping
period to determine whether any
modification should be made to the
alternatives or whether any additional
issues should be addressed in the EIS.
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Summary of Alternatives
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the
lead agencies would take no action to
restore tidal influence to the Site;
however, the lead agency would be
required to maintain the northern levee
along Dutchman and South Sloughs in
perpetuity. Maintenance activities
would likely be increased as the levees
age and erosive action increases in
response to activities undertaken by the
Napa Sonoma Restoration Project, a
tidal restoration project conducted by
the State of California adjacent to
Cullinan Ranch.
Preferred Restoration Alternative
The Preferred Restoration Alternative
would restore the entire 1,525-ac
Cullinan Ranch Site, with
implementation of the following project
components:
Component 1: Construct boardwalk to
provide access to existing electrical
towers.
Component 2: Block drainage ditches
to promote redevelopment of natural
sloughs.
Component 3: Improve the CDFG
Pond 1 levee and install water control
structures.
Component 4: Protect Highway 37
from project induced flooding and
erosion.
Component 5: Construct public access
areas.
Component 6: Breach the levees along
Dutchman and South Sloughs and
Guadalcanal Village.
Component 7: Implement long-term
monitoring.
Partial Restoration Alternative
The Partial Restoration Alternative
would restore 300 ac of the Cullinan
Ranch Site. The Service developed the
Partial Restoration Alternative in order
to limit potential impacts to the
hydrology of Dutchman Slough. While it
would meet the purpose and need of the
project, a smaller overall area within
Cullinan Ranch would be restored, and
connectivity with other adjacent
restoration projects would be limited.
The Partial Restoration Alternative
would include implementation of the
following project components:
Component 1: Block drainage ditches
to promote redevelopment of the natural
sloughs.
Component 2: Construct internal
levee.
Component 3: Protect Highway 37
from project-induced flooding and
erosion.
Component 4: Breach the levee along
Dutchman Slough.
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 172 / Thursday, September 6, 2007 / Notices
Component 5: Long-term monitoring.
Public Comment
Comments we receive will help us
identify key concerns and issues to be
evaluated in the EIS. Opportunities for
public participation will occur
throughout the process. Before
including your address, phone number,
e-mail address, or other personal
identifying information in your
comment, you should be aware that
your entire comment, including your
personal identifying information, may
be made publicly available at any time.
While you can ask us in your comment
to withhold your personal identifying
information from public review, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: August 30, 2007.
Kenneth McDermond,
Acting Manager, California/Nevada
Operations, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. E7–17587 Filed 9–5–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Habitat Conservation Plan for the
Santa Clara Valley, Santa Clara
County, CA
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR)
and notice of public meeting.
mstockstill on PROD1PC66 with NOTICES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), we,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service),
advise the public that we intend to
gather information necessary to prepare,
in coordination with Santa Clara
County, a joint Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Report
(EIS/EIR) on the Habitat Conservation
Plan for the Santa Clara Valley (Plan).
The Plan is being prepared under
Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, (Act). Santa Clara County
(County) is facilitating preparation of
the Plan with local partners and is the
lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The
County in accordance with CEQA is
publishing a similar notice. The County
and their local partners intend to apply
for a 50-year incidental take permit from
the Service and from the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These
permits are needed to authorize the
incidental take of threatened and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
18:25 Sep 05, 2007
Jkt 211001
endangered species that could result
from activities covered under the Plan.
We provide this notice to (1) describe
the proposed action and possible
alternatives; (2) advise other Federal
and State agencies, affected Tribes, and
the public of our intent to prepare an
EIS/EIR; (3) announce the initiation of a
public scoping period; and (4) obtain
suggestions and information on the
scope of issues and alternatives to be
included in the EIS/EIR.
DATES: Submit written comments on or
before October 22, 2007. One public
scoping meeting will be held on
Wednesday, September 26, 2007, from 7
p.m. to 9 p.m. The public scoping
meeting will be combined with a prescheduled community meeting for the
Plan.
ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be
held at the Morgan Hill Community and
Cultural Center, 17000 Monterey Road,
Morgan Hill, CA 95037. Submit written
comments to Lori Rinek, Chief,
Conservation Planning and Recovery
Division, Fish and Wildlife Service,
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office,
2800 Cottage Way, Room W–2605,
Sacramento, CA 95825. Comments may
also be sent by facsimile to (916) 414–
6713.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cori
Mustin, Senior Fish and Wildlife
Biologist, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife
Office at (916) 414–6600.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Reasonable Accommodation
Persons needing reasonable
accommodations in order to attend and
participate in the public meeting should
contact Cori Mustin at (916) 414–6600
as soon as possible. In order to allow
sufficient time to process requests,
please call no later than one week before
the public meeting. Information
regarding this proposed action is
available in alternative formats upon
request.
Background
The Plan is both a habitat
conservation plan (HCP), intended to
fulfill the requirements of the
Endangered Species Act, and a natural
community conservation plan (NCCP),
to fulfill the requirements of the
California Natural Community
Conservation Planning Act (NCCP Act).
The Plan is being prepared under the
combined efforts of eight local and state
agencies: Santa Clara County, the City of
´
San Jose, the City of Morgan Hill, the
City of Gilroy, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District (SCVWD), the Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA),
the Santa Clara County Open Space
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
51247
Authority, and the California
Department of Parks and Recreation,
collectively referred to as the Local
Partners. Furthermore, efforts have
included coordination with the
California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) as a CEQA Responsible and
Trustee Agency and the National
Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, NMFS is a Cooperating
Agency under NEPA.
Species proposed for coverage in the
Plan are species that are currently listed
as federally threatened or endangered or
have the potential to become listed
during the life of this Plan and have
some likelihood to occur within the
project area. Should any of these
unlisted covered wildlife species
become listed under the Act during the
term of the permit, take authorization
for those species would become
effective upon listing. The Plan will
provide long-term conservation and
management of these species. Species
may be added or deleted during the
course of the development of the Plan
based on further analysis, new
information, agency consultation, and
public comment. The Plan addresses 30
listed and non-listed species: 15 wildlife
species and 15 plant species. Federally
listed species proposed for coverage
under the Plan include: the bay
checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas
editha bayensis), south-central
California coastal steelhead
(Oncorhynchus mykiss), central
California coastal steelhead (O. mykiss),
central valley fall-run Chinook salmon
(O. tshawytscha), California tiger
salamander (Ambystoma californiense),
California red-legged frog (Rana aurora
draytonii), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii
pusillus), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes
macrotis mutica), Tiburon Indian
paintbrush (Castilleja affinis ssp.
neglecta), coyote ceanothus (Ceanothus
ferrisae), Santa Clara Valley dudleya
(Dudleya setchellii), and Metcalf
Canyon jewelflower (Streptanthus
albidus ssp. albidus). The unlisted
species proposed for coverage under the
Plan include: Pacific lamprey (Lampetra
tridentata), foothill yellow-legged frog
(Rana boylii), western pond turtle
(Clemmys marmorata), golden eagle
(Aquila chrysaetos), western burrowing
owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea),
tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor),
Pacific Townsend’s [=western] big-eared
bat (Corynorhinus townsendii
townsendii), big scale balsamroot
(Balsamorhiza macrolepis), chaparral
harebell (Campanula exigua), Mount
Hamilton thistle (Cirsium fontinale var.
campylon), San Francisco collinsia
(Collinsia multicolor), fragrant fritillary
E:\FR\FM\06SEN1.SGM
06SEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 172 (Thursday, September 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51245-51247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-17587]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Tidal Restoration of the Cullinan Ranch Unit of San Pablo Bay
National Wildlife Refuge
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement;
request for public comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 51246]]
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are
preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the tidal
restoration of the Cullinan Ranch Unit of the San Pablo Bay National
Wildlife Refuge, located in Solano County, California. This notice
advises the public that we intend to gather information necessary to
prepare an EIS pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA). We encourage the public and other agencies to participate in
the planning process by sending written comments on management actions
we should consider.
DATES: To ensure that we have adequate time to evaluate and incorporate
suggestions and other input into the planning process, we must receive
your comments on or before October 22, 2007.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments or requests to be added to the mailing
list to: Christy Smith, Refuge Manager, San Pablo Bay National Wildlife
Refuge, 7715 Lakeville Highway, Petaluma, CA 94954. Alternatively, fax
written comments to (707) 769-8106, or send comments by e-mail to
christy_smith@fws.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christy Smith, Refuge Manager, (707)
769-4200.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Cullinan Ranch restoration project would restore approximately
1,500 acres (ac) of diked baylands back to historic tidal conditions by
reintroducing tidal flow into the project area. Cullinan Ranch is
located in an area of the Napa River Delta that was historically
defined by a network of meandering sloughs and extensive estuarine
tidal marshes. Reintroduction of tidal flow will restore vital salt
marsh habitat for endangered species, including the salt marsh harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris) and the California clapper rail
(Rallus longirostris obsoletus), as well as provide foraging and
roosting habitat for fish, migratory waterfowl, and waterbirds.
In keeping with one of the purposes of the Refuge--``to conserve
fish, wildlife, or plants which are listed as endangered species or
threatened species''--the Cullinan Ranch restoration project would
restore historic salt marsh habitat for the benefit of threatened and
endangered species, as well as many other estuarine-dependent species.
We published a notice of intent to prepare an environmental
assessment (EA) and hold a public meeting on July 15, 2002 (67 FR
46538). We held public meetings on August 7, 2002, and March 9, 2007.
All meetings were announced in local newspapers. Four members of the
public attended the first meeting and provided comments. One person
attended the second meeting and provided no comments. All of the
comments we received on the EA will go forward into the EIS planning
process. During the EA planning process, we determined that possible
impacts to traffic flows on Highway 37 required that we complete an
environmental impact statement. In addition, since some of the project
would take place on State lands belonging to California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG), an environmental impact report (EIR) under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) will be prepared.
California Department of Fish and Game is the lead State agency for
this project under the CEQA.
Thus far, the Service and CDFG have identified and analyzed a total
of eight alternatives based on a set of criteria including the
following factors: effects to adjacent habitats, effects to the
existing levees, effects on the hydrology of the existing slough
channels and adjacent water bodies, costs of implementing restoration
activities and long-term maintenance, and effects of project
construction on existing uses on and adjacent to the Cullinan Ranch
Site. Five of these alternatives were removed from further
consideration because they did not meet the cost and engineering
feasibility criteria as set forth by the lead agencies. Many of the
alternatives considered were formulated with optional implementation
features in order to minimize effects on adjacent habitats (such as the
fringe marshes along Dutchman Slough and Pritchett Marsh), such as
staging the Proposed Action and/or limiting the amount of tidal
exchange. These features were analyzed but removed from further
consideration because hydrologic modeling revealed that they would not
significantly reduce adverse effects to adjacent habitats.
The lead agencies will carry forward three possible restoration
alternatives to environmental analysis: the No-Action Alternative, the
Preferred Restoration Alternative, and the Partial Restoration
Alternative. The lead agencies will consider public input from the
scoping period to determine whether any modification should be made to
the alternatives or whether any additional issues should be addressed
in the EIS.
Summary of Alternatives
No-Action Alternative
Under the No-Action Alternative, the lead agencies would take no
action to restore tidal influence to the Site; however, the lead agency
would be required to maintain the northern levee along Dutchman and
South Sloughs in perpetuity. Maintenance activities would likely be
increased as the levees age and erosive action increases in response to
activities undertaken by the Napa Sonoma Restoration Project, a tidal
restoration project conducted by the State of California adjacent to
Cullinan Ranch.
Preferred Restoration Alternative
The Preferred Restoration Alternative would restore the entire
1,525-ac Cullinan Ranch Site, with implementation of the following
project components:
Component 1: Construct boardwalk to provide access to existing
electrical towers.
Component 2: Block drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of
natural sloughs.
Component 3: Improve the CDFG Pond 1 levee and install water
control structures.
Component 4: Protect Highway 37 from project induced flooding and
erosion.
Component 5: Construct public access areas.
Component 6: Breach the levees along Dutchman and South Sloughs and
Guadalcanal Village.
Component 7: Implement long-term monitoring.
Partial Restoration Alternative
The Partial Restoration Alternative would restore 300 ac of the
Cullinan Ranch Site. The Service developed the Partial Restoration
Alternative in order to limit potential impacts to the hydrology of
Dutchman Slough. While it would meet the purpose and need of the
project, a smaller overall area within Cullinan Ranch would be
restored, and connectivity with other adjacent restoration projects
would be limited.
The Partial Restoration Alternative would include implementation of
the following project components:
Component 1: Block drainage ditches to promote redevelopment of the
natural sloughs.
Component 2: Construct internal levee.
Component 3: Protect Highway 37 from project-induced flooding and
erosion.
Component 4: Breach the levee along Dutchman Slough.
[[Page 51247]]
Component 5: Long-term monitoring.
Public Comment
Comments we receive will help us identify key concerns and issues
to be evaluated in the EIS. Opportunities for public participation will
occur throughout the process. Before including your address, phone
number, e-mail address, or other personal identifying information in
your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment, including
your personal identifying information, may be made publicly available
at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot
guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Dated: August 30, 2007.
Kenneth McDermond,
Acting Manager, California/Nevada Operations, Sacramento, California.
[FR Doc. E7-17587 Filed 9-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
