Remanded Biological Opinions on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project: Notice of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of Scoping Meetings, 18858-18860 [2012-7488]
Download as PDF
18858
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices
associated impacts of each. Alternative
3 (Preferred Alternative) would
implement the GCP as proposed.
Authority: The environmental review
of this project is being conducted in
accordance with the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et
seq.) and its implementing regulations
(40 CFR parts 1500 through 1508), and
with other appropriate Federal laws and
regulations, policies, and procedures of
the Service for compliance with those
regulations.
Planned agenda items include
opening remarks from the District
Manager, access issues, illegal trash
dumps, and the Social-Economic
Strategic Plan.
A half-hour public comment period
during which the public may address
the Council will begin at 2:30 p.m. on
April 11, 2012. All RAC meetings are
open to the public.
Depending on the number of
individuals wishing to comment and
time available, the time for individual
oral comments may be limited.
Dated: February 17, 2012.
Mark J. Musaus,
Acting Regional Director.
Bill Childress,
District Manager, Las Cruces.
[FR Doc. 2012–7370 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–VC–P
[FR Doc. 2012–7408 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–55–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Bureau of Land Management
[LLNML00000 L12200000.DF0000]
Notice of Public Meeting, Las Cruces
District Resource Advisory Council
Meeting, New Mexico
Bureau of Land Management,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of public meeting.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Federal Land Policy and Management
Act and the Federal Advisory
Committee Act of 1972, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), Las Cruces
District Resource Advisory Council
(RAC), will meet as indicated below.
DATES: The meeting date is April 11
2012, at the BLM Las Cruces District
Office, 1800 Marquess Street, Las
Cruces, NM 88005, from 10 a.m.–4 p.m.
The public may send written comments
to the RAC at the above address.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rena Gutierrez, BLM Las Cruces
District, 1800 Marquess Street, Las
Cruces, NM 88005, 575–525–4338.
Persons who use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) may call the
Federal Information Relay Service
(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8229 to contact the
above individual during normal
business hours. The FIRS is available 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a
message or question with the above
individual. You will receive a reply
during normal business hours.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 10member RAC advises the Secretary of
the Interior, through the BLM, on a
variety of planning and management
issues associated with public land
management in New Mexico.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
Remanded Biological Opinions on the
Coordinated Long-Term Operation of
the Central Valley Project and State
Water Project: Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement and Notice of Scoping
Meetings
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent and scoping
meetings.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Reclamation
intends to prepare an environmental
impact statement for modifications to
the continued long-term operation of the
Central Valley Project, in a coordinated
manner with the State Water Project,
that are likely to avoid jeopardy and
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat. We are
seeking suggestions and information on
the alternatives and topics to be
addressed and any other important
issues related to the proposed action.
DATES: Submit written comments on the
scope of the environmental impact
statement by May 29, 2012.
Four public scoping meetings will be
held to solicit public input on
alternatives, concerns, and issues to be
addressed in the environmental impact
statement:
1. Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 6 p.m.
to 8 p.m., Madera, CA.
2. Thursday, April 26, 2012, 6 p.m. to
8 p.m., Diamond Bar, CA.
3. Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 2 p.m. to
4 p.m., Sacramento, CA.
4. Thursday, May 3, 2012, 6 p.m. to
8 p.m., Marysville, CA.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to
˜
Janice Pinero, Endangered Species
Compliance Act Specialist, Bureau of
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, 801 I
Street Suite 140, Sacramento, CA
95814–2536; fax to (916) 414–2439; or
email at jpinero@usbr.gov.
The scoping meetings will be held at
the following locations:
1. Madera—Madera County Mail
Library, Blanche Galloway Room, 121
N. G Street, Madera, CA 93637.
2. Diamond Bar—South Coast Air
Quality Management District, Room
CC6, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar,
CA 91765.
3. Sacramento—Federal Building, 650
Capitol Mall, Stanford Room,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
4. Yuba County Government Center,
Board of Supervisors Chambers, 915
Eighth St., Marysville, CA 95901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
˜
Janice Pinero at (916) 414–2428; or
email at jpinero@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Agencies Involved
II. Why We Are Taking This Action
III. Results of Litigation
IV. Purpose and Need for Action
V. Project Area
VI. Alternatives To Be Considered
VII. Statutory Authority
VIII. Request for Comments
IX. Public Disclosure
X. How To Request Reasonable
Accommodation
I. Agencies Involved
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, are
the lead Federal agency. We will invite
the following agencies to participate as
cooperating agencies for preparation of
the environmental impact statement
(EIS) in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as
amended:
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS),
• National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS),
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
• U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
We have also identified other Federal,
State, and local agencies (e.g., California
Department of Water Resources,
California Department of Fish and
Game, State and Federal Contractors
Water Agency, etc.) as potential
cooperating agencies, and we will invite
them to participate as such in the near
future.
II. Why We Are Taking This Action
The Central Valley Project (CVP) is
the largest Federal Reclamation project.
We operate the CVP in coordination
with the State Water Project (SWP),
under the Coordinated Operation
Agreement between the Federal
government and the State of California
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices
(authorized by Pub. L. 99–546).
Reclamation’s 2008 Biological
Assessment, as modified by general
changes due to the passage of time and
those items that have been litigated or
legislated since the completion of the
BA, describes operation of the projects.
In December 2008, USFWS issued a
Biological Opinion analyzing the effects
of the coordinated long-term operation
of the CVP and SWP in California. The
USFWS Biological Opinion:
• Concluded that ‘‘the coordinated
operation of the CVP and SWP, as
proposed, [was] likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of the delta smelt’’
and ‘‘adversely modify delta smelt
critical habitat.’’
• Included a Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative for CVP and SWP operations
designed to allow the projects to
continue operating without causing
jeopardy or adverse modification.
On December 15, 2008, we
provisionally accepted and then
implemented the USFWS Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative.
In June 2009, NMFS issued a
Biological Opinion analyzing the effects
of the coordinated long-term operation
of the CVP and SWP on listed
salmonids, green sturgeon and southern
resident killer whale. This Biological
Opinion concluded that the long-term
operation of the CVP and SWP, as
proposed, was likely to:
• Jeopardize the continued existence
of Sacramento River winter-run Chinook
salmon, Central Valley spring-run
Chinook salmon, Central Valley
steelhead, southern distinct population
segment (DPS) of North American green
sturgeon, and southern resident killer
whales.
• Destroy or adversely modify critical
habitat for Sacramento River winter-run
Chinook salmon, Central Valley springrun Chinook salmon, Central Valley
steelhead and the Southern DPS of
North American green sturgeon.
The NMFS Biological Opinion
included a Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative designed to allow the
projects to continue operating without
causing jeopardy or adverse
modification. On June 4, 2009, we
provisionally accepted and then
implemented the NMFS Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative.
Several lawsuits were filed in the
United States District Court for the
Eastern District of California (the Court)
challenging various aspects of the
USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions
and our acceptance and implementation
of the associated Reasonable and
Prudent Alternatives.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
III. Results of Litigation
The results of the above lawsuits were
as follows.
• On November 16, 2009, the Court
ruled that we violated NEPA by failing
to conduct a NEPA review of the
potential impacts to the human
environment before provisionally
accepting and implementing the 2008
USFWS Biological Opinion and
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative.
• On March 5, 2010, the Court held
that we violated NEPA by failing to
undertake a NEPA analysis of potential
impacts to the human environment
before accepting and implementing the
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative in
the 2009 NMFS Biological Opinion.
• On December 14, 2010, the Court
found certain portions of the USFWS
Biological Opinion to be arbitrary and
capricious, and remanded those
portions of the Biological Opinion to
USFWS. The Court ordered us to review
the Biological Opinion and Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative in accordance
with NEPA.
• On September 20, 2011, in the
Consolidated Salmonid Cases, the Court
remanded the NMFS Biological Opinion
to NMFS.
We now have an opportunity to
initiate a combined NEPA process
addressing both the USFWS and NMFS
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives.
To that end, we are beginning this
combined NEPA process to analyze the
effects of modifications to the
coordinated long-term operation of the
CVP and SWP that are likely to avoid
jeopardy to listed species and
destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
IV. Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the action is to
continue the operations of the CVP, in
coordination with the SWP, as
described in the 2008 Biological
Assessment (as modified) to meet its
authorized purposes, in a manner that:
• Is consistent with Federal
Reclamation law, applicable statutes,
previous agreements and permits, and
contractual obligations;
• Avoids jeopardizing the continued
existence of federally listed species; and
• Does not result in destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat.
Continued operation of the CVP is
needed to provide flood control, water
supply, fish and wildlife restoration and
enhancement, and power generation. It
also provides navigation, recreation, and
water quality benefits. However,
coordinated operation of the CVP, as
described in the 2008 Biological
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
18859
Assessment was found to likely
jeopardize the continued existence of
listed species and adversely modify
critical habitat. The ESA requires
Federal agencies to insure that their
actions are not likely to jeopardize listed
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
Modifications to the coordinated
operation of the CVP and SWP to be
evaluated should be consistent with the
intended purpose of the action, within
the scope of our legal authority and
jurisdiction, economically and
technologically feasible, and avoid the
likelihood of jeopardizing listed species
or resulting in the destruction or
adverse modification of critical habitat.
V. Project Area
The project area includes the CVP and
SWP Service Areas and facilities, as
described in this section.
A. CVP Facilities
The CVP facilities include reservoirs
on the Trinity, Sacramento, American,
Stanislaus, and San Joaquin rivers.
• A portion of the water from Trinity
River is stored and re-regulated in Clair
Engle Lake, Lewiston Lake, and
Whiskeytown Reservoir, and diverted
through a system of tunnels and
powerplants into the Sacramento River.
Water is also stored and re-regulated in
Shasta and Folsom reservoirs. Water
from these reservoirs and other
reservoirs owned and/or operated by the
SWP flows into the Sacramento River.
• The Sacramento River carries water
to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
(Delta). The Jones Pumping Plant at the
southern end of the Delta lifts the water
into the Delta Mendota Canal (DMC).
This canal delivers water to CVP
contractors, who divert water directly
from the DMC, and exchange
contractors on the San Joaquin River,
who divert directly from the San
Joaquin River and the Mendota Pool.
CVP water is also conveyed to the San
Luis Reservoir for deliveries to CVP
contractors through the San Luis Canal.
Water from the San Luis Reservoir is
also conveyed through the Pacheco
Tunnel to CVP contractors in Santa
Clara and San Benito counties.
• The CVP provides water from
Millerton Reservoir on the San Joaquin
River to CVP contractors located near
the Madera and Friant-Kern canals.
Water is stored in the New Melones
Reservoir for water rights holders in the
Stanislaus River watershed and CVP
contractors in the northern San Joaquin
Valley.
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
18860
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 60 / Wednesday, March 28, 2012 / Notices
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
B. State Water Project Facilities
The Department of Water Resources
operates and maintains the SWP, which
delivers water to agricultural and
municipal and industrial (M&I)
contractors in northern California, the
San Joaquin Valley, the Bay Area, the
Central Coast, and southern California.
• SWP water is stored and reregulated in Lake Oroville and released
into the Feather River, which flows into
the Sacramento River.
• SWP water flows in the Sacramento
River to the Delta and is exported from
the Delta at the Banks Pumping Plant.
The Banks Pumping Plant lifts the water
into the California Aqueduct, which
delivers water to the SWP contractors
and conveys water to the San Luis
Reservoir.
• The SWP also delivers water to the
Cross-Valley Canal, when the systems
have capacity, for CVP water service
contractors.
VI. Alternatives To Be Considered
The proposed action for the purposes
of NEPA will consider operational
components of the 2008 USFWS and the
2009 NMFS Reasonable and Prudent
Alternatives. These components address
continued operation of the CVP, in
coordination with the SWP, in a manner
intended to avoid jeopardizing
continued existence of federally listed
species or result in the destruction or
adverse modification of designated
critical habitat.
• We expect to analyze flow
management actions resulting from the
2008 USFWS Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative that affect:
(1) Protection of adult, juvenile, and
larval delta smelt; and
(2) Habitat improvements for delta
smelt growth and rearing.
• We expect to analyze flow
management actions resulting from the
2009 NMFS Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative that affect:
(1) Attraction and channel
maintenance flows;
(2) Reduction of thermal stress;
(3) Passage of fish at Red Bluff
Diversion Dam;
(4) Reduction of redd dewatering,
entrainment, and straying; and
(5) Reduction of negative hatchery
influences on natural populations.
The proposed action will not
consider:
• Structural changes prescribed in the
NMFS 2009 Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative that would require future
evaluations, environmental
documentation, and permitting; and
• Reasonable and Prudent Alternative
actions that would require future
studies.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:29 Mar 27, 2012
Jkt 226001
As required by NEPA, we will
develop and consider a proposed action
and a reasonable range of alternatives,
including a No Action Alternative.
Reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action may include physical changes or
changes in operations of CVP facilities.
Alternatives could affect all or various
components of the CVP, and may also
include actions that affect SWP
operations. We will engage with the
Department of Water Resources in
developing the proposed action and
alternatives. We will also consider
including in the alternative analysis
reasonable alternatives to the proposed
action identified through the scoping
process.
VII. Statutory Authority
NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] requires
that Federal agencies conduct an
environmental analysis of their
proposed actions to determine if the
actions may significantly affect the
human environment. In addition, as
required by NEPA, Reclamation will
analyze in the EIS the potential direct,
indirect, and cumulative environmental
effects that may result from the
implementation of the proposed action
and alternatives, which may include,
but are not limited to, the following
areas of potential impact:
a. Water resources, including
groundwater;
b. Land use, including agriculture;
c. Socioeconomics;
d. Environmental justice;
e. Biological resources, including fish,
wildlife, and plant species;
f. Cultural resources;
g. Water quality;
h. Air quality;
i. Soils, geology, and mineral
resources;
j. Visual, scenic, or aesthetic
resources;
k. Global climate change;
l. Indian trust assets
m. Transportation; and
n. Recreation.
VII. Request for Comments
The purposes of this notice are:
• To advise other agencies, CVP and
SWP water and power contractors,
affected tribes, and the public of our
intention to gather information to
support the preparation of an EIS;
• To obtain suggestions and
information from other agencies,
interested parties, and the public on the
scope of alternatives and issues to be
addressed in the EIS; and
• To identify important issues raised
by the public related to the development
and implementation of the proposed
action.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
We invite written comments from
interested parties to ensure that the full
range of alternatives and issues related
to the development of the proposed
action are identified. Comments during
this stage of the scoping process will
only be accepted in written form.
Written comments may be submitted by
mail, electronic mail, facsimile
transmission or in person (see
ADDRESSES). Comments and
participation in the scoping process are
encouraged.
IX. Public Disclosure
Before including your name, address,
phone number, email 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.
X. How To Request Reasonable
Accommodation
If special assistance is required at one
of the scoping meetings, please contact
˜
Janice Pinero at the information
provided above mailto: or TDD 916–
978–5608, at least five working days
before the meetings. Information
regarding this proposed action is
available in alternative formats upon
request.
Dated: March 14, 2012.
Anastasia T. Leigh,
Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific
Region.
[FR Doc. 2012–7488 Filed 3–27–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P
INTERNATIONAL TRADE
COMMISSION
[DN 2885]
Certain Consumer Electronics,
Including Mobile Phones and Tablets;
Notice of Receipt of Complaint;
Solicitation of Comments Relating to
the Public Interest
U.S. International Trade
Commission.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
Notice is hereby given that
the U.S. International Trade
Commission has received a complaint
entitled Certain Consumer Electronics,
Including Mobile Phones and Tablets,
DN 2885; the Commission is soliciting
comments on any public interest issues
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28MRN1.SGM
28MRN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 28, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18858-18860]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7488]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Remanded Biological Opinions on the Coordinated Long-Term
Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project: Notice
of Intent To Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Notice of
Scoping Meetings
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent and scoping meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation intends to prepare an environmental
impact statement for modifications to the continued long-term operation
of the Central Valley Project, in a coordinated manner with the State
Water Project, that are likely to avoid jeopardy and destruction or
adverse modification of designated critical habitat. We are seeking
suggestions and information on the alternatives and topics to be
addressed and any other important issues related to the proposed
action.
DATES: Submit written comments on the scope of the environmental impact
statement by May 29, 2012.
Four public scoping meetings will be held to solicit public input
on alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the
environmental impact statement:
1. Wednesday, April 25, 2012, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Madera, CA.
2. Thursday, April 26, 2012, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Diamond Bar, CA.
3. Wednesday, May 2, 2012, 2 p.m. to 4 p.m., Sacramento, CA.
4. Thursday, May 3, 2012, 6 p.m. to 8 p.m., Marysville, CA.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments to Janice Pi[ntilde]ero, Endangered
Species Compliance Act Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta
Office, 801 I Street Suite 140, Sacramento, CA 95814-2536; fax to (916)
414-2439; or email at jpinero@usbr.gov.
The scoping meetings will be held at the following locations:
1. Madera--Madera County Mail Library, Blanche Galloway Room, 121
N. G Street, Madera, CA 93637.
2. Diamond Bar--South Coast Air Quality Management District, Room
CC6, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
3. Sacramento--Federal Building, 650 Capitol Mall, Stanford Room,
Sacramento, CA 95814.
4. Yuba County Government Center, Board of Supervisors Chambers,
915 Eighth St., Marysville, CA 95901.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Janice Pi[ntilde]ero at (916) 414-
2428; or email at jpinero@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Agencies Involved
II. Why We Are Taking This Action
III. Results of Litigation
IV. Purpose and Need for Action
V. Project Area
VI. Alternatives To Be Considered
VII. Statutory Authority
VIII. Request for Comments
IX. Public Disclosure
X. How To Request Reasonable Accommodation
I. Agencies Involved
We, the Bureau of Reclamation, are the lead Federal agency. We will
invite the following agencies to participate as cooperating agencies
for preparation of the environmental impact statement (EIS) in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as
amended:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS),
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
We have also identified other Federal, State, and local agencies
(e.g., California Department of Water Resources, California Department
of Fish and Game, State and Federal Contractors Water Agency, etc.) as
potential cooperating agencies, and we will invite them to participate
as such in the near future.
II. Why We Are Taking This Action
The Central Valley Project (CVP) is the largest Federal Reclamation
project. We operate the CVP in coordination with the State Water
Project (SWP), under the Coordinated Operation Agreement between the
Federal government and the State of California
[[Page 18859]]
(authorized by Pub. L. 99-546). Reclamation's 2008 Biological
Assessment, as modified by general changes due to the passage of time
and those items that have been litigated or legislated since the
completion of the BA, describes operation of the projects.
In December 2008, USFWS issued a Biological Opinion analyzing the
effects of the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP in
California. The USFWS Biological Opinion:
Concluded that ``the coordinated operation of the CVP and
SWP, as proposed, [was] likely to jeopardize the continued existence of
the delta smelt'' and ``adversely modify delta smelt critical
habitat.''
Included a Reasonable and Prudent Alternative for CVP and
SWP operations designed to allow the projects to continue operating
without causing jeopardy or adverse modification.
On December 15, 2008, we provisionally accepted and then
implemented the USFWS Reasonable and Prudent Alternative.
In June 2009, NMFS issued a Biological Opinion analyzing the
effects of the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP and SWP on
listed salmonids, green sturgeon and southern resident killer whale.
This Biological Opinion concluded that the long-term operation of the
CVP and SWP, as proposed, was likely to:
Jeopardize the continued existence of Sacramento River
winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon,
Central Valley steelhead, southern distinct population segment (DPS) of
North American green sturgeon, and southern resident killer whales.
Destroy or adversely modify critical habitat for
Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley spring-run
Chinook salmon, Central Valley steelhead and the Southern DPS of North
American green sturgeon.
The NMFS Biological Opinion included a Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative designed to allow the projects to continue operating
without causing jeopardy or adverse modification. On June 4, 2009, we
provisionally accepted and then implemented the NMFS Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative.
Several lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of California (the Court) challenging various
aspects of the USFWS and NMFS Biological Opinions and our acceptance
and implementation of the associated Reasonable and Prudent
Alternatives.
III. Results of Litigation
The results of the above lawsuits were as follows.
On November 16, 2009, the Court ruled that we violated
NEPA by failing to conduct a NEPA review of the potential impacts to
the human environment before provisionally accepting and implementing
the 2008 USFWS Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative.
On March 5, 2010, the Court held that we violated NEPA by
failing to undertake a NEPA analysis of potential impacts to the human
environment before accepting and implementing the Reasonable and
Prudent Alternative in the 2009 NMFS Biological Opinion.
On December 14, 2010, the Court found certain portions of
the USFWS Biological Opinion to be arbitrary and capricious, and
remanded those portions of the Biological Opinion to USFWS. The Court
ordered us to review the Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative in accordance with NEPA.
On September 20, 2011, in the Consolidated Salmonid Cases,
the Court remanded the NMFS Biological Opinion to NMFS.
We now have an opportunity to initiate a combined NEPA process
addressing both the USFWS and NMFS Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives.
To that end, we are beginning this combined NEPA process to analyze the
effects of modifications to the coordinated long-term operation of the
CVP and SWP that are likely to avoid jeopardy to listed species and
destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat.
IV. Purpose and Need for Action
The purpose of the action is to continue the operations of the CVP,
in coordination with the SWP, as described in the 2008 Biological
Assessment (as modified) to meet its authorized purposes, in a manner
that:
Is consistent with Federal Reclamation law, applicable
statutes, previous agreements and permits, and contractual obligations;
Avoids jeopardizing the continued existence of federally
listed species; and
Does not result in destruction or adverse modification of
designated critical habitat.
Continued operation of the CVP is needed to provide flood control,
water supply, fish and wildlife restoration and enhancement, and power
generation. It also provides navigation, recreation, and water quality
benefits. However, coordinated operation of the CVP, as described in
the 2008 Biological Assessment was found to likely jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species and adversely modify critical
habitat. The ESA requires Federal agencies to insure that their actions
are not likely to jeopardize listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. Modifications
to the coordinated operation of the CVP and SWP to be evaluated should
be consistent with the intended purpose of the action, within the scope
of our legal authority and jurisdiction, economically and
technologically feasible, and avoid the likelihood of jeopardizing
listed species or resulting in the destruction or adverse modification
of critical habitat.
V. Project Area
The project area includes the CVP and SWP Service Areas and
facilities, as described in this section.
A. CVP Facilities
The CVP facilities include reservoirs on the Trinity, Sacramento,
American, Stanislaus, and San Joaquin rivers.
A portion of the water from Trinity River is stored and
re-regulated in Clair Engle Lake, Lewiston Lake, and Whiskeytown
Reservoir, and diverted through a system of tunnels and powerplants
into the Sacramento River. Water is also stored and re-regulated in
Shasta and Folsom reservoirs. Water from these reservoirs and other
reservoirs owned and/or operated by the SWP flows into the Sacramento
River.
The Sacramento River carries water to the Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta (Delta). The Jones Pumping Plant at the southern end of
the Delta lifts the water into the Delta Mendota Canal (DMC). This
canal delivers water to CVP contractors, who divert water directly from
the DMC, and exchange contractors on the San Joaquin River, who divert
directly from the San Joaquin River and the Mendota Pool. CVP water is
also conveyed to the San Luis Reservoir for deliveries to CVP
contractors through the San Luis Canal. Water from the San Luis
Reservoir is also conveyed through the Pacheco Tunnel to CVP
contractors in Santa Clara and San Benito counties.
The CVP provides water from Millerton Reservoir on the San
Joaquin River to CVP contractors located near the Madera and Friant-
Kern canals. Water is stored in the New Melones Reservoir for water
rights holders in the Stanislaus River watershed and CVP contractors in
the northern San Joaquin Valley.
[[Page 18860]]
B. State Water Project Facilities
The Department of Water Resources operates and maintains the SWP,
which delivers water to agricultural and municipal and industrial (M&I)
contractors in northern California, the San Joaquin Valley, the Bay
Area, the Central Coast, and southern California.
SWP water is stored and re-regulated in Lake Oroville and
released into the Feather River, which flows into the Sacramento River.
SWP water flows in the Sacramento River to the Delta and
is exported from the Delta at the Banks Pumping Plant. The Banks
Pumping Plant lifts the water into the California Aqueduct, which
delivers water to the SWP contractors and conveys water to the San Luis
Reservoir.
The SWP also delivers water to the Cross-Valley Canal,
when the systems have capacity, for CVP water service contractors.
VI. Alternatives To Be Considered
The proposed action for the purposes of NEPA will consider
operational components of the 2008 USFWS and the 2009 NMFS Reasonable
and Prudent Alternatives. These components address continued operation
of the CVP, in coordination with the SWP, in a manner intended to avoid
jeopardizing continued existence of federally listed species or result
in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical
habitat.
We expect to analyze flow management actions resulting
from the 2008 USFWS Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that affect:
(1) Protection of adult, juvenile, and larval delta smelt; and
(2) Habitat improvements for delta smelt growth and rearing.
We expect to analyze flow management actions resulting
from the 2009 NMFS Reasonable and Prudent Alternative that affect:
(1) Attraction and channel maintenance flows;
(2) Reduction of thermal stress;
(3) Passage of fish at Red Bluff Diversion Dam;
(4) Reduction of redd dewatering, entrainment, and straying; and
(5) Reduction of negative hatchery influences on natural
populations.
The proposed action will not consider:
Structural changes prescribed in the NMFS 2009 Reasonable
and Prudent Alternative that would require future evaluations,
environmental documentation, and permitting; and
Reasonable and Prudent Alternative actions that would
require future studies.
As required by NEPA, we will develop and consider a proposed action
and a reasonable range of alternatives, including a No Action
Alternative. Reasonable alternatives to the proposed action may include
physical changes or changes in operations of CVP facilities.
Alternatives could affect all or various components of the CVP, and
may also include actions that affect SWP operations. We will engage
with the Department of Water Resources in developing the proposed
action and alternatives. We will also consider including in the
alternative analysis reasonable alternatives to the proposed action
identified through the scoping process.
VII. Statutory Authority
NEPA [42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.] requires that Federal agencies
conduct an environmental analysis of their proposed actions to
determine if the actions may significantly affect the human
environment. In addition, as required by NEPA, Reclamation will analyze
in the EIS the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental
effects that may result from the implementation of the proposed action
and alternatives, which may include, but are not limited to, the
following areas of potential impact:
a. Water resources, including groundwater;
b. Land use, including agriculture;
c. Socioeconomics;
d. Environmental justice;
e. Biological resources, including fish, wildlife, and plant
species;
f. Cultural resources;
g. Water quality;
h. Air quality;
i. Soils, geology, and mineral resources;
j. Visual, scenic, or aesthetic resources;
k. Global climate change;
l. Indian trust assets
m. Transportation; and
n. Recreation.
VII. Request for Comments
The purposes of this notice are:
To advise other agencies, CVP and SWP water and power
contractors, affected tribes, and the public of our intention to gather
information to support the preparation of an EIS;
To obtain suggestions and information from other agencies,
interested parties, and the public on the scope of alternatives and
issues to be addressed in the EIS; and
To identify important issues raised by the public related
to the development and implementation of the proposed action.
We invite written comments from interested parties to ensure that
the full range of alternatives and issues related to the development of
the proposed action are identified. Comments during this stage of the
scoping process will only be accepted in written form. Written comments
may be submitted by mail, electronic mail, facsimile transmission or in
person (see ADDRESSES). Comments and participation in the scoping
process are encouraged.
IX. Public Disclosure
Before including your name, address, phone number, email 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.
X. How To Request Reasonable Accommodation
If special assistance is required at one of the scoping meetings,
please contact Janice Pi[ntilde]ero at the information provided above
mailto: or TDD 916-978-5608, at least five working days before the
meetings. Information regarding this proposed action is available in
alternative formats upon request.
Dated: March 14, 2012.
Anastasia T. Leigh,
Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2012-7488 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P