Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement, Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project, El Dorado County, California, 77016-77018 [2015-31230]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
77016
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Notices
RESPONDENTS’ ESTIMATED ANNUAL BURDEN HOURS—Continued
30 CFR part 1210
Reporting and recordkeeping requirement
Hour burden
Average
number of
annual
responses
(lines of data)
Annual burden
hours
10,499,998
337,933
(b) Period for keeping records. Lessees, operators, revenue
payors, or other persons required to keep records under this
section shall maintain and preserve them for 6 years from
the day on which the relevant transaction recorded occurred
unless the Secretary notifies the record holder of an audit or
investigation involving the records and that they must be
maintained for a longer period * * *.
[In accordance with 30 U.S.C. 1724(f), Federal oil and gas
records must be maintained for 7 years from the date the obligation became due.].
Total for Royalty
and Production
Reporting.
......................................................................................................
................................
* Note: ONRR considers each line of data as one response/report.
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Estimated Annual Reporting and
Recordkeeping ‘‘Non-hour’’ Cost
Burden:
We have identified non-hour costs for
this collection of information for the
implementation of system changes and
new setups in the accounting system.
Based on information provided by
participants, we estimate that the
average total non-hour cost for each
participant is approximately $7,200.
Since there are an estimated 3,870
respondents, the total estimated nonhour costs are $27,864,000 ($7,200 ×
3,870 = $27,864,000). This equates to an
annual non-hour cost of $9,288,000 for
this ICR renewal. It is important to note
that these are one-time costs due to the
regulation changes implemented in May
of 2015 and are not expected to
continue past this ICR renewal period.
III. Request for Comments
Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA
requires each agency to ‘‘* * * publish
a 60-day notice in the Federal Register
* * * and otherwise consult with
members of the public and affected
agencies concerning each proposed
collection of information * * *.’’
Agencies must specifically solicit
comments to: (a) Evaluate whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for the agency to perform its
duties, including whether the
information is useful; (b) evaluate the
accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the
burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) enhance the quality,
usefulness, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (d)
minimize the burden on the
respondents, including the use of
automated collection techniques or
other forms of information technology.
To comply with the public
consultation process, we published a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:51 Dec 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
notice in the Federal Register on May
15, 2015 (80 FR 28003), announcing that
we would submit this ICR to OMB for
approval. The notice provided the
required 60-day comment period. We
received no comments in response to
the notice.
If you wish to comment in response
to this notice, you may send your
comments to the offices listed under the
ADDRESSES section of this notice. The
OMB has up to 60 days to approve or
disapprove the information collection
but may respond after 30 days.
Therefore, to ensure maximum
consideration, OMB should receive
public comments by January 11, 2016.
Public Disclosure Statement: The PRA
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) provides that an
agency may not conduct or sponsor—
and a person is not required to respond
to—a collection of information unless it
displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Public Comment Policy: ONRR will
post all comments, including names and
addresses of respondents at https://
www.regulations.gov. Before including
Personally Identifiable Information (PII),
such as your address, phone number,
email address, or other personal
information in your comment(s), you
should be aware that your entire
comment (including PII) may be made
available to the public at any time.
While you may ask us in your comment
to withhold PII from public view, we
cannot guarantee that we will be able to
do so.
Dated: November 24, 2015.
Gregory J. Gould,
Director, Office of Natural Resources
Revenue.
[FR Doc. 2015–31289 Filed 12–10–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4335–30–P
PO 00000
Frm 00091
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR02015200, XXXR0680R1,
RR.17520306.0000006]
Notice of Availability of the Final
Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Statement,
Upper Truckee River and Marsh
Restoration Project, El Dorado County,
California
Bureau of Reclamation,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
The Bureau of Reclamation,
the California Tahoe Conservancy
(Conservancy), and the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency have prepared the
final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/
EIS/EIS) for the Upper Truckee River
and Marsh Restoration Project (Project).
The purpose of the Project is to restore
natural geomorphic processes and
improve ecological functions and values
in this lowest reach of the Upper
Truckee River and the surrounding
marsh and help reduce the river’s
discharge of nutrients and sediment that
diminish Lake Tahoe’s clarity.
DATES: Reclamation will not make a
decision on the proposed action until at
least 30 days after the release of the final
EIR/EIS/EIS. After the 30-day waiting
period, Reclamation will complete a
Record of Decision (ROD). The ROD will
state the action that will be
implemented and will discuss all factors
leading to the decision.
ADDRESSES: Send written
correspondence or requests for the
document to Scott Carroll,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Notices
Environmental Planner, State of
California, California Tahoe
Conservancy, 1061 Third Street, South
Lake Tahoe, CA 96150; by fax to (530)
542–5567; or by email to scott.carroll@
tahoe.ca.gov.
The final EIR/EIS/EIS is accessible at
the following Web sites:
• https://tahoe.ca.gov/upper-truckeemarsh-69.aspx.
• https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/
nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=2937.
To request a compact disc of the final
EIR/EIS/EIS, please contact Mr. Carroll
as indicated above, or call (530) 543–
6062. See the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section for locations where
paper copies of the final EIR/EIS/EIS are
available for public review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Scott Carroll, California Tahoe
Conservancy, at scott.carroll@
tahoe.ca.gov, or (530) 543–6062; or
Shannon Friedman, Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency, at sfriedman@
trpa.org., or (775) 589–5205; and
Rosemary Stefani, Bureau of
Reclamation, at (916) 978–5045, or
rstefani@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
approximately 592-acre project area is
along the most downstream reaches of
the Upper Truckee River and Trout
Creek, including their mouths at Lake
Tahoe in the City of South Lake Tahoe,
within El Dorado County, California. It
includes 1.8–miles of the Upper
Truckee River as well as the marsh and
meadows surrounding the lowest
reaches of Trout Creek. The majority of
the project area is owned by the
Conservancy though the Project does
include small areas owned by other
public agencies and private landowners.
Four action alternatives (Alternatives
1–4), and the No-Project/No-Action
Alternative (Alternative 5), were
analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS/EIS. None
of the alternatives evaluated in the draft
EIR/EIS/EIS were designated as
preferred. Rather, guiding principles
were developed requiring that each
alternative be designed as a ‘‘fullspectrum’’ alternative that addressed, to
varying degrees, all project objectives
and design directives; be modular in
nature, such that recreation access and
infrastructure components could be
interchangeable with habitat restoration
and protection measures proposed; and
embody a diverse range of feasible and
implementable concepts, consistent
with constraints identified and mapped
early in the planning process. After
input from responsible and interested
agencies, and public comments
provided on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS, and
through additional outreach efforts, the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Dec 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
lead agencies used a qualitative system
to weigh the pros and cons of the
alternatives to develop the Preferred
Alternative described following the
action alternatives below.
Alternative 1 would involve
restoration of the Upper Truckee River
by increasing channel length and
decreasing channel capacity. Alternative
1 includes maximum recreation access
and infrastructure on the perimeter of
the marsh, including a bridge and board
walk. Alternative 2 would involve river
restoration by directly raising the
streambed elevation, increasing the
channel length, and decreasing channel
capacity. A key element of this
alternative’s restoration component
would be the excavation of a new river
channel that has less capacity than the
existing channel. Alternative 2 includes
a minimum recreation access and
infrastructure design approach, focusing
primarily on habitat protection features.
Alternative 3 would promote the
development, through natural processes,
of a new main channel and/or
distributary channels in the central
portion of the project area. A ‘‘pilot’’
channel would be constructed from the
existing river channel to historical
channels in the center of the project
area, but no construction would occur
in the central or northern portions of the
project area. Rather, natural processes
would be allowed to dictate the flow
path(s), bed and bank elevations, and
capacities of the channel(s) through the
central and northern portions of the
project area. Alternative 3 would
include a moderate level of recreation
access and infrastructure, including
more signage, more trail development,
and viewpoints than proposed under
Alternative 2 but less than Alternative 1.
Alternative 4 would restore the river
channel and its connection to the
floodplain by lowering bank heights by
excavating an inset floodplain along
much of the river channel, and by
localized cut and fill to create meanders
in the existing straightened reach.
Alternative 4 would include a similar
level of recreation infrastructure as
Alternative 3. Alternative 5 would not
provide any actions to restore the river
channel and its connection to the
floodplain or recreation features beyond
maintaining existing infrastructure in
the project area. This alternative would
allow, but not facilitate the long-term,
passive recovery of the river system via
natural processes. This alternative
represents a projection of reasonably
foreseeable future conditions that could
occur if no project actions were
implemented.
The Preferred Alternative includes the
most beneficial and cost-effective
PO 00000
Frm 00092
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
77017
elements of the five alternatives
evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS/EIS. This
alternative is also the most feasible, the
most highly responsive to public
comments, and the most resilient to the
potential impacts of climate change. It
includes the following components:
• Alternative 3 restoration elements
which involve construction of a small
pilot channel that would reconnect the
Upper Truckee River to the middle of
the marsh to attain ecosystem and water
quality improvements. This concept
proposes the most geomorphically
appropriate channel configuration
allowing the pilot channel to
strategically connect the current river
alignment to historic channels and
lagoons. The river would form its own
pattern and spread over the expanse of
the marsh, resulting in substantial
benefits to habitats, wildlife, and water
quality. The abandoned sections of
existing river channel would be largely
filled to create restored meadow and
expanded wetlands.
• Alternative 5 for recreation
elements on the east side of the Upper
Truckee Marsh that would maintain the
current dispersed recreation experience.
No new recreation infrastructure would
be installed and public access would be
afforded through the current informal
user-created trail system. The
Conservancy would continue to manage
and reduce the impacts of recreational
use and new trails while providing onsite signage.
• Alternative 3 recreation elements
for the west side of the Upper Truckee
Marsh would upgrade the recreation
infrastructure through construction of
ADA-accessible trails to Lake Tahoe and
formalized viewpoints that provide
interpretive and site-information
signage. The developed recreation
experience would be maintained
consistent with natural resource values.
• Previously proposed only under
Alternatives 1 and 2, the Preferred
Alternative would also include the
restoration of sand ridges (‘‘dunes’’) at
Cove East Beach that were graded and
leveled as part of the Tahoe Keys
development and the removal of fill at
the east end of Barton Beach to create
a restored lagoon.
The detailed description of the
Preferred Alternative, the selection
process, and a summary of Alternatives
1 through 5 are presented in Chapter 2
of the final EIR/EIS/EIS.
A Notice of Availability of the draft
EIR/EIS/EIS was published in the
Federal Register on February 26, 2013
(78 FR 13082). The comment period on
the draft EIR/EIS/EIS ended on April 29,
2013. The final EIR/EIS/EIS contains
responses to all comments received and
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
77018
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 238 / Friday, December 11, 2015 / Notices
reflects comments and any additional
information received during the review
period.
Copies of the final EIR/EIS/EIS are
available for public review at the
following locations:
• State of California, California Tahoe
Conservancy, 1061 Third Street, South
Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
• Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
front desk, 128 Market Street, Stateline,
NV 89449.
• Mid-Pacific Regional Library,
Bureau of Reclamation, 2800 Cottage
Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Public Disclosure
Before including your 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 may
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: November 20, 2015.
Jason R. Phillips,
Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2015–31230 Filed 12–10–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332–90–P–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation
and Enforcement
[S1D1S SS08011000 SX064A000
167S180110; S2D2S SS08011000
SX064A000 16XS501520]
North Cumberland Wildlife
Management Area, Tennessee Lands
Unsuitable for Mining Draft Petition
Evaluation Document and
Environmental Impact Statement OSM–
EIS–37
Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of availability.
AGENCY:
The Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement (OSMRE)
announces that the draft Petition
Evaluation Document and
Environmental Impact Statement (PED/
EIS) for the North Cumberland Wildlife
Management Area Petition to Find
Certain Lands Unsuitable for Surface
Coal Mining Operations is available for
public review and comment.
DATES: Electronic or written comments:
OSMRE will accept electronic or written
comments within 45 days of the
jstallworth on DSK7TPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:55 Dec 10, 2015
Jkt 238001
publication of this Notice in the Federal
Register.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be
submitted using any of the following
methods:
Electronic Comments: https://
www.osmre.gov/programs/rcm/
TNLUM.shtm. Please follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Mail/Hand-Delivery/Courier: Earl D.
Bandy Jr., Director—Knoxville Field
Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, John J.
Duncan Federal Building, 710 Locust
Street, 2nd Floor Knoxville, Tennessee
37902.
You may review the draft PED/EIS
online at https://www.osmre.gov/
programs/rcm/TNLUM.shtm. You also
may review these documents in person
at the location listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Earl
D. Bandy Jr., Director—Knoxville Field
Office, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, John J.
Duncan Federal Building, 710 Locust
Street, 2nd Floor, Knoxville, Tennessee
37902. Telephone: 865–545–4103.
Email: TNLUM@OSMRE.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On September 30, 2010, pursuant to
section 522 of the Surface Mining
Control and Reclamation Act (SMCRA),
30 U.S.C. 1272(c), the State of
Tennessee filed a petition with OSMRE
to designate certain lands in the state as
unsuitable for surface coal mining
operations. These lands include the area
within 600 feet of all ridge lines (a 1,200
foot corridor) lying within the North
Cumberland Wildlife Management Area
(NCWMA)—made up of the Royal Blue
Wildlife Management Area, the
Sundquist Wildlife Management Area,
and the New River Wildlife
Management Area (also known as the
Brimstone Tract Conservation
Easement)—and the Emory River Tracts
Conservation Easement (ERTCE). The
area under consideration for designation
encompasses in total approximately
67,326 acres along 505 miles of
ridgelines. In accordance with its
responsibility to administer the federal
coal program in Tennessee, OSMRE
must process and make decisions on all
petitions submitted to designate areas in
the state as unsuitable for surface coal
mining operations.
The petition includes two primary
allegations with numerous allegations of
fact and supporting statements. In
primary allegation 1, the petitioner
contends that the petition area should
be designated unsuitable for surface coal
mining operations because surface coal
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
mining in the area would be
incompatible with existing state or local
land use plans or programs. SMCRA
522(a)(3)(A), 30 U.S.C. 1272(a)(3)(A). In
primary allegation 2, the petitioner
contends that the OSMRE should
designate the petition area as unsuitable
for surface coal mining operations
because such operations would affect
fragile or historic lands, resulting in
significant damage to important historic,
cultural, scientific, and aesthetic values
and natural systems. SMCRA
522(a)(3)(B), 30 U.S.C. 1272(a)(3)(B).
The Director, OSMRE, is required to
make a decision on the petition. The
draft EIS currently considers in detail
the following alternatives for action by
the Secretary:
—Alternative 1—do not designate any of
the petition area as unsuitable for
surface coal mining operations (noaction). There would be no change in
types of permits applications accepted
for evaluation.
—Alternative 2—designate the entire
petition area (67,326 acres) as
unsuitable for all surface coal mining
operations (State’s proposed action).
No types of surface mining permits
applications would be accepted for
this area.
—Alternative 3—designate the state
petition area (67,326 acres) while
allowing remining and road access
(agency’s preferred alternative). The
only acceptable types of permits
would be permits for remining.
—Alternative 4—grant an expanded
corridor designation of
independently-identified ridgelines
within the petition area (76,133 acres)
while allowing remining and road
access. The only acceptable types of
permits would be permits for
remining.
—Alternative 5—designate lands based
on the presence of certain sensitive
resources (12,331 acres). No types of
surface mining permits would be
accepted for this area.
—Alternative 6—designate a reduced
corridor of 600 feet (39,106 acres). No
types of surface mining permits
applications would be accepted for
this area.
In accordance with the applicable
regulations under 30 CFR parts 762 and
764 and the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), as amended, OSMRE
evaluated the merits of the unsuitability
petition and analyzed the impacts of
these alternatives. This analysis is
reflected in the draft PED/EIS.
OSMRE has identified Alternative 3
as its preferred alternative.
E:\FR\FM\11DEN1.SGM
11DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 238 (Friday, December 11, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 77016-77018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31230]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
[RR02015200, XXXR0680R1, RR.17520306.0000006]
Notice of Availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report/
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Statement, Upper
Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project, El Dorado County,
California
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation, the California Tahoe Conservancy
(Conservancy), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency have prepared the
final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS/EIS) for the Upper Truckee
River and Marsh Restoration Project (Project). The purpose of the
Project is to restore natural geomorphic processes and improve
ecological functions and values in this lowest reach of the Upper
Truckee River and the surrounding marsh and help reduce the river's
discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoe's clarity.
DATES: Reclamation will not make a decision on the proposed action
until at least 30 days after the release of the final EIR/EIS/EIS.
After the 30-day waiting period, Reclamation will complete a Record of
Decision (ROD). The ROD will state the action that will be implemented
and will discuss all factors leading to the decision.
ADDRESSES: Send written correspondence or requests for the document to
Scott Carroll,
[[Page 77017]]
Environmental Planner, State of California, California Tahoe
Conservancy, 1061 Third Street, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150; by fax to
(530) 542-5567; or by email to scott.carroll@tahoe.ca.gov.
The final EIR/EIS/EIS is accessible at the following Web sites:
https://tahoe.ca.gov/upper-truckee-marsh-69.aspx.
https://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=2937.
To request a compact disc of the final EIR/EIS/EIS, please contact
Mr. Carroll as indicated above, or call (530) 543-6062. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for locations where paper copies of
the final EIR/EIS/EIS are available for public review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Carroll, California Tahoe
Conservancy, at scott.carroll@tahoe.ca.gov, or (530) 543-6062; or
Shannon Friedman, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, at
sfriedman@trpa.org., or (775) 589-5205; and Rosemary Stefani, Bureau of
Reclamation, at (916) 978-5045, or rstefani@usbr.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The approximately 592-acre project area is
along the most downstream reaches of the Upper Truckee River and Trout
Creek, including their mouths at Lake Tahoe in the City of South Lake
Tahoe, within El Dorado County, California. It includes 1.8-miles of
the Upper Truckee River as well as the marsh and meadows surrounding
the lowest reaches of Trout Creek. The majority of the project area is
owned by the Conservancy though the Project does include small areas
owned by other public agencies and private landowners.
Four action alternatives (Alternatives 1-4), and the No-Project/No-
Action Alternative (Alternative 5), were analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS/
EIS. None of the alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS/EIS were
designated as preferred. Rather, guiding principles were developed
requiring that each alternative be designed as a ``full-spectrum''
alternative that addressed, to varying degrees, all project objectives
and design directives; be modular in nature, such that recreation
access and infrastructure components could be interchangeable with
habitat restoration and protection measures proposed; and embody a
diverse range of feasible and implementable concepts, consistent with
constraints identified and mapped early in the planning process. After
input from responsible and interested agencies, and public comments
provided on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS, and through additional outreach
efforts, the lead agencies used a qualitative system to weigh the pros
and cons of the alternatives to develop the Preferred Alternative
described following the action alternatives below.
Alternative 1 would involve restoration of the Upper Truckee River
by increasing channel length and decreasing channel capacity.
Alternative 1 includes maximum recreation access and infrastructure on
the perimeter of the marsh, including a bridge and board walk.
Alternative 2 would involve river restoration by directly raising the
streambed elevation, increasing the channel length, and decreasing
channel capacity. A key element of this alternative's restoration
component would be the excavation of a new river channel that has less
capacity than the existing channel. Alternative 2 includes a minimum
recreation access and infrastructure design approach, focusing
primarily on habitat protection features. Alternative 3 would promote
the development, through natural processes, of a new main channel and/
or distributary channels in the central portion of the project area. A
``pilot'' channel would be constructed from the existing river channel
to historical channels in the center of the project area, but no
construction would occur in the central or northern portions of the
project area. Rather, natural processes would be allowed to dictate the
flow path(s), bed and bank elevations, and capacities of the channel(s)
through the central and northern portions of the project area.
Alternative 3 would include a moderate level of recreation access and
infrastructure, including more signage, more trail development, and
viewpoints than proposed under Alternative 2 but less than Alternative
1. Alternative 4 would restore the river channel and its connection to
the floodplain by lowering bank heights by excavating an inset
floodplain along much of the river channel, and by localized cut and
fill to create meanders in the existing straightened reach. Alternative
4 would include a similar level of recreation infrastructure as
Alternative 3. Alternative 5 would not provide any actions to restore
the river channel and its connection to the floodplain or recreation
features beyond maintaining existing infrastructure in the project
area. This alternative would allow, but not facilitate the long-term,
passive recovery of the river system via natural processes. This
alternative represents a projection of reasonably foreseeable future
conditions that could occur if no project actions were implemented.
The Preferred Alternative includes the most beneficial and cost-
effective elements of the five alternatives evaluated in the draft EIR/
EIS/EIS. This alternative is also the most feasible, the most highly
responsive to public comments, and the most resilient to the potential
impacts of climate change. It includes the following components:
Alternative 3 restoration elements which involve
construction of a small pilot channel that would reconnect the Upper
Truckee River to the middle of the marsh to attain ecosystem and water
quality improvements. This concept proposes the most geomorphically
appropriate channel configuration allowing the pilot channel to
strategically connect the current river alignment to historic channels
and lagoons. The river would form its own pattern and spread over the
expanse of the marsh, resulting in substantial benefits to habitats,
wildlife, and water quality. The abandoned sections of existing river
channel would be largely filled to create restored meadow and expanded
wetlands.
Alternative 5 for recreation elements on the east side of
the Upper Truckee Marsh that would maintain the current dispersed
recreation experience. No new recreation infrastructure would be
installed and public access would be afforded through the current
informal user-created trail system. The Conservancy would continue to
manage and reduce the impacts of recreational use and new trails while
providing on-site signage.
Alternative 3 recreation elements for the west side of the
Upper Truckee Marsh would upgrade the recreation infrastructure through
construction of ADA-accessible trails to Lake Tahoe and formalized
viewpoints that provide interpretive and site-information signage. The
developed recreation experience would be maintained consistent with
natural resource values.
Previously proposed only under Alternatives 1 and 2, the
Preferred Alternative would also include the restoration of sand ridges
(``dunes'') at Cove East Beach that were graded and leveled as part of
the Tahoe Keys development and the removal of fill at the east end of
Barton Beach to create a restored lagoon.
The detailed description of the Preferred Alternative, the
selection process, and a summary of Alternatives 1 through 5 are
presented in Chapter 2 of the final EIR/EIS/EIS.
A Notice of Availability of the draft EIR/EIS/EIS was published in
the Federal Register on February 26, 2013 (78 FR 13082). The comment
period on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS ended on April 29, 2013. The final EIR/
EIS/EIS contains responses to all comments received and
[[Page 77018]]
reflects comments and any additional information received during the
review period.
Copies of the final EIR/EIS/EIS are available for public review at
the following locations:
State of California, California Tahoe Conservancy, 1061
Third Street, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency front desk, 128 Market
Street, Stateline, NV 89449.
Mid-Pacific Regional Library, Bureau of Reclamation, 2800
Cottage Way, Sacramento, CA 95825.
Public Disclosure
Before including your 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 may 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: November 20, 2015.
Jason R. Phillips,
Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2015-31230 Filed 12-10-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4332-90-P-P
