Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project, 72987-72988 [2015-29719]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
• Bureau of Reclamation

[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 225 (Monday, November 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 72987-72988]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29719]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Reclamation

[RR02800000, 15XR0680A1, RX.1786894.60000000]


Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley 
Project and State Water Project

AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation has made available the Final 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on the impacts of implementing the 
2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion and the 2009 
National Marine Fisheries Service Biological Opinion, including the 
Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives, for the Coordinated Long-Term 
Operation of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project. The 
preferred alternative identified in the Final EIS will be to continue 
the operation of the Central Valley Project in coordination with the 
State Water Project, and implement the 2008 U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service and 2009 National Marine Fisheries Service biological opinions 
and reasonable and prudent alternatives stated in the No Action 
Alternative. The Final EIS is in response to the November 16, 2009 and 
March 5, 2010 rulings by the United States District Court for the 
Eastern District of California that the Bureau of Reclamation failed to 
conduct a National Environmental Policy Act review prior to accepting 
and implementing the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives from the 2008 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and 2009 National Marine Fisheries 
Service Biological Opinions.

DATES: The Bureau of Reclamation will not make a decision on the 
proposed action until at least 30 days after release of the Final EIS. 
After the 30-day waiting period, the Bureau of Reclamation will 
complete a Record of Decision (ROD) that will state the action that 
will be implemented and discuss all factors leading to the decision.

ADDRESSES: To request a compact disc of the Final EIS, please contact 
Mr. Ben Nelson, Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, 801 I Street, 
Suite 140, Sacramento, CA 95814-2536; telephone at (916) 414-2424; or 
via email at bcnelson@usbr.gov. The Final EIS may be viewed at the 
Bureau of Reclamation's Web site at https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=21883, or at the following locations:
    1. Bureau of Reclamation, Bay-Delta Office, 800 I Street, Suite 
140, Sacramento, CA 95814.
    2. Bureau of Reclamation, Regional Library, 2800 Cottage Way, 
Sacramento, CA 95825.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Ben Nelson, Bureau of Reclamation, 
via email at bcnelson@usbr.gov, or at (916) 414-2424.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Central Valley Project (CVP) is the 
largest Federal Reclamation project. The Bureau of Reclamation operates 
the CVP in coordination with the State Water Project (SWP), under the 
Coordinated Operation Agreement between the Federal Government and the 
State of California (authorized by Pub. L. 99-546). In August 2008, the 
Bureau of Reclamation submitted a biological assessment on the 
Coordinated Long-Term Operation of the Central Valley Project and State 
Water Project (LTO) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and 
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) for

[[Page 72988]]

consultation. Continued operation of the CVP and the SWP is needed to 
provide river regulation; improvement of navigation; flood control; 
water supply for irrigation and domestic uses; fish and wildlife 
mitigation, protection, restoration, and enhancement; and power 
generation. The CVP and SWP facilities are also operated to provide 
recreation benefits and in accordance with the water rights and water 
quality requirements adopted by the State Water Resources Control 
Board.
    In December 2008, the USFWS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) 
analyzing the effects of the coordinated long-term operation of the CVP 
and SWP on Delta Smelt and its designated critical habitat. In June 
2009, NMFS issued a BO analyzing the effects of the coordinated long-
term operation of the CVP and SWP on listed salmonids, green sturgeon 
and southern resident killer whale and their designated critical 
habitats. The 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS BOs concluded that ``. . . 
operation of the CVP and SWP, as proposed, was likely to jeopardize. . 
.'' multiple listed species. Both the USFWS and NMFS Reasonable and 
Prudent Alternatives (RPA) for CVP and SWP operations were designed to 
allow the projects to continue operating without causing jeopardy or 
adverse modification.
    Several lawsuits were filed in the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of California (District Court) challenging various 
aspects of the USFWS and NMFS BOs and the Bureau of Reclamation's 
provisional acceptance and implementation of the associated RPAs. The 
cases were consolidated into two primary cases, one addressing the 2008 
FWS BO and one addressing the 2009 NMFS BO. In both cases, 
Reclamation's action of accepting and implementing the BOs and RPAs was 
found to be a violation of NEPA. The Ninth Circuit affirmed this 
finding on appeal of the litigation challenging the 2008 FWS BO. The 
District Court required the Bureau of Reclamation to evaluate the 2008 
and 2009 BOs under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The 
Final EIS assesses the environmental effects of five alternatives being 
considered as compared to the No Action Alternative. The No Action 
Alternative proposes management of the CVP and SWP with implementation 
of the 2008 and 2009 BO RPAs. All alternatives consider modifications 
to operational components from the 2008 USFWS and the 2009 NMFS BO 
RPAs. All alternatives addressed continued operation of the CVP, in 
coordination with the SWP.
    The No Action Alternative assumes continuation of existing policy 
and management direction through Year 2030, including implementation of 
the RPAs included in the 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS BOs. Many of the RPAs 
were implemented prior to 2009 under other programs, such as the 
Central Valley Project Improvement Act, or are currently being 
implemented in accordance with the 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS BOs. The 
Bureau of Reclamation has identified the No Action Alternative as the 
Preferred Alternative in the Final EIS.
    In response to scoping comments, the Final EIS also includes a 
Second Basis of Comparison that assumes coordinated operation of the 
CVP and SWP as if the 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS BOs had not been 
implemented. Each action alternative is evaluated against both the No 
Action Alternative and the Second Basis of Comparison. The Second Basis 
of Comparison includes several actions that were included in the RPAs 
of the 2008 USFWS and 2009 NMFS BOs and that would have occurred 
without the BOs, including projects that were being initiated prior to 
2009 (e.g., Red Bluff Pumping Plant, Battle Creek Restoration and 
Suisun Marsh Habitat Management, Preservation, and Restoration Plan), 
legislatively mandated projects (e.g., San Joaquin River Restoration 
Program), and projects with substantial progress that would have 
occurred without implementation of the BOs.
    Alternative 1 was informed by scoping comments from CVP and SWP 
water users. Alternative 1 is identical to the Second Basis of 
Comparison and provides an opportunity to select an alternative with 
the same assumptions as the Second Basis of Comparison as the Preferred 
Alternative.
    Alternative 2 is similar to the No Action Alternative because it 
includes the RPA actions, except for actions that consist of projects 
to be evaluated for future implementation. For example, Alternative 2 
does not include fish passage programs to move fish from the Sacramento 
River downstream of Keswick Dam to the Sacramento River upstream of 
Shasta Dam.
    Alternative 3 was informed by scoping comments from CVP and SWP 
water users. Alternative 3 is similar to the Second Basis of Comparison 
and Alternative 1 because it generally does not include the RPA 
actions, but it includes additional restrictions on CVP and SWP Delta 
exports to reduce negative flows in the south Delta during critical 
periods for aquatic resources. Alternative 3 also includes provisions 
to reduce losses to fish that use the Delta due to predation, 
commercial and sport fishing ocean harvest, and fish passage through 
the Delta.
    Alternative 4 was informed by scoping comments from CVP and SWP 
water users. Alternative 4 is similar to the Second Basis of Comparison 
and Alternative 1 because it generally does not include the RPA 
actions, but it includes provisions to reduce losses to fish that use 
the Delta due to predation, commercial and sport fishing ocean harvest, 
and fish passage through the Delta.
    Alternative 5 was informed by scoping comments from environmental 
interest groups. Alternative 5 includes assumptions similar to the No 
Action Alternative regarding the incorporation of RPA actions, with 
additional provisions to provide for positive Old and Middle River 
(OMR) flows and increased Delta outflow from reduced exports in April 
and May; and modified operations for New Melones Reservoir.
    A Notice of Availability of the Draft EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on July 31, 2015 (80 FR 45681). The comment period on 
the Draft EIS ended on September 29, 2015. The Final EIS contains 
responses to all comments received and reflects comments and any 
additional information received during the review period.

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.

Public Disclosure

    Before including your name, address, phone number, email address or 
other personal identifying information in any correspondence, you 
should be aware that your entire correspondence--including your 
personal identifying information--may be made publicly available at any 
time. While you can ask us in your correspondence to withhold your 
personal identifying information from public review, we cannot 
guarantee that we will be able to do so.

    Dated: October 8, 2015.
Pablo R. Arroyave,
Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-29719 Filed 11-20-15; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4332-90-P