![[logo] US EPA](http://www.epa.gov/epafiles/images/logo_epaseal.gif){kind=logo}
Revised Purpose for Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program
Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
[Federal Register: June 17, 2003 (Volume 68, Number 116)]
[Notices]
[Page 35910-35912]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr17jn03-80]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
Bureau of Reclamation
Revised Purpose for Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service and Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Supplemental notice of intent to prepare a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact
Report (SEIS/SDEIR).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Bureau of
Reclamation (Reclamation), along with the Hoopa Valley Tribe and
Trinity County, California, are preparing a Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement/Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIS/SDEIR)
for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery Restoration Program (Program).
The purpose of the Program has been revised to be consistent with
recent court findings on the Program.
DATES: Two scoping meetings will be held to solicit public input on
alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the SEIS/SDEIR.
The meeting dates are:
? Tuesday, July 8, 2003, 3:30 p.m. to 6:30 p.m., Redding,
California.
? Thursday, July 10, 2003, 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., Hoopa,
California.
ADDRESSES: Scoping meetings will be held at:
? Redding at the Holiday Inn, 1900 Hilltop Drive, Redding, CA
96002.
? Hoopa at Neighborhood Facilities Recreation Center, Highway
96, Hoopa, CA.
Written comments on the scope of the SEIS/SDEIR should be sent by
July 18, 2003 to Mr. Russell Smith, Bureau of Reclamation, Shasta Dam
Office, 16349 Shasta Dam Boulevard, Shasta Lake, CA 96019; telephone:
530-275-1554; fax 530-275-2441. Comments received after this date will
be considered but may not be included in the resulting SEIS/SDEIR
scoping report. Comments received in response to the March 25, 2002
Notice of Intent will remain under consideration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Russell Smith at the above address
or by telephone at 530-275-1554.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Previously, a Notice of Intent (NOI) was
published in the Federal Register (67 FR 13647, Mar. 25, 2002) for
preparing the SEIS/SEIR with a stated purpose of analyzing the effects
of two biological opinions associated with the Program issued on
October 12, 2000, one by the FWS and the other by the National Marine
Fisheries Service of the Department of Commerce (NMFS), on Central
Valley Project (CVP) operations and the effects of the Program on
energy generation within the context of the state of deregulation and
supply uncertainty for electricity within California. This NOI replaces
the previous NOI and presents a purpose consistent with recent court
findings on the Program.
A final environmental impact statement/environmental impact report
(EIS/EIR) on the Program was issued in November 2000, and a Record of
Decision (ROD) was executed on December 19, 2000. Central Valley water
and power interests filed suit seeking to enjoin implementation of the
ROD. On March 22, 2001, the court issued a Memorandum Decision and
Order enjoining the Federal defendants from implementing certain flow
related aspects of the ROD. Westlands Water District v. United States
Department of the Interior, CIV-F-00-7124-OWW/DLB. In its Memorandum
Decision and Order, the court found that the effects of reasonable and
prudent measures in the
[[Page 35911]]
two biological opinions as well as the effects on power in light of the
California energy crisis were not adequately analyzed in the EIS/EIR.
The lead agencies published a NOI on March 25, 2002, announcing plans
to produce the SEIS/SEIR and soliciting public input and comment on the
process. A scoping meeting was held in Redding, California on May 9,
2002. On December 10, 2002, the court released a Memorandum Decision
and Order regarding Cross-motions for Summary Judgment. That memorandum
provided detailed direction regarding the preparation of the SEIS/SEIR
that was not available for the previous scoping effort, including
direction on the purpose statement for the SEIS/SEIR, alternatives to
be considered in the SEIS/SEIR, and a timeline for completion of the
SEIS/SEIR, although an appeal is pending. The Federal agencies have
decided that the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) will be furthered by preparing to address these issues in the
SEIS/SEIR and are soliciting public input and comment on this process.
The primary objective of the Program is to meet Federal trust
responsibilities for tribal fishery resources and restore the fisheries
in the Trinity River basin to the level that existed prior to the
construction of the Trinity River Division (TRD) of the CVP. These
actions are authorized by the Act of August 12, 1955, 69 Stat. 719; the
Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act, Pub. L. 98-541
(1984), as amended, and the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
Pub. L. 102-575, Title XXXIV (1992) (CVPIA). The FWS and Reclamation
are the Federal co-leads for purposes of complying with NEPA, along
with the Hoopa Valley Tribe which is also acting in a co-lead capacity.
Trinity County functions as the state lead agency for purposes of
complying with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The purpose for the November 2000 EIS/EIR was to restore and
maintain the natural production of anadromous fish on the Trinity River
mainstem downstream of Lewiston Dam. The purpose of the SEIS/SEIR has
been amended, consistent with court orders on the Program.
The revised purpose for the SEIS/SEIR is to restore and maintain
the natural production of anadromous fish in the Trinity River basin
downstream of Lewiston Dam, including fishery restoration to pre-TRD
levels, and to meet the U.S. Government's tribal trust obligations.
Secondary consideration is given to: (a) Meeting the other restoration
goals of the Act of October 24, 1984, Pub. L. 98-541, as amended, and
(b) Achieving a reasonable balance among competing demands for use of
CVP water, including the requirements of fish and wildlife,
agricultural, municipal and industrial and power contractors.
The SEIS/SEIR will update information on alternatives described in
the October 2000 EIS/EIR. These alternatives include: Existing
Conditions, No Action, Mechanical Restoration, Percent Inflow (modified
to address the court's concerns), Flow Evaluation, and Maximum Flow. It
is anticipated that two additional alternatives will also be evaluated;
a 70 Percent Inflow Alternative and a Lower Flow Alternative that seeks
to use lesser amounts of water in conjunction with non-flow related
restoration actions.
In 1980, the FWS completed an EIS which estimated fish population
reductions of 60 to 80 percent since completion of the TRD and
estimated the loss of fishery habitats in the Trinity River to be 80 to
90 percent. The 1980 EIS concluded that insufficient streamflows
represented the most critical limiting factor for the restoration of
the fishery. Based on this EIS, the Secretary issued a decision in 1981
which increased flows on an interim basis and directed the completion
of a scientific study to assess the instream flows and other measures
needed to restore the Trinity River fishery.
In 1983, an EIS on the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife
Management Program was prepared by the FWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, 1983). The environmental document analyzed habitat restoration
actions, watershed rehabilitation, and improvements to the Trinity
River Salmon and Steelhead Hatchery (TRSSH). The EIS clarified that the
hatchery's purpose was to mitigate for the loss of the 109 miles of
habitat upstream of Lewiston Dam; whereas, the restoration and
rehabilitation projects were explicitly designed to increase natural
fish production below the dam.
In 1984, the Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Management Act
(Pub. L. 98-541) was enacted. It formalized the existence of the
Trinity River Basin Fish and Wildlife Task Force (Task Force), and
directed the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) to implement
measures to restore fish and wildlife habitat in the Trinity River
Basin. The Task Force was directed at implementation of a fish and
wildlife management program ``to restore natural fish and wildlife
populations to levels approximating those which existed immediately
prior to the construction of the Trinity Division.'' In 1996, Congress
reauthorized and amended the original Trinity River Basin Fish and
Wildlife Management Act (Pub. L. 104-143). The 1996 amendments
clarified that ``restoration is to be measured not only by returning
adult anadromous fish spawners, but by the ability of dependent tribal,
commercial, and sport fisheries to participate fully, through enhanced
in-river and ocean harvest opportunities, in the benefits of
restoration * * .''
In 1992, Congress passed the CVPIA (Pub. L. 102-575, Title XXXIV)
in order to protect, restore, and enhance fish, wildlife, and
associated habitats in the Central Valley, including the Trinity River
Basin. Specifically, the CVPIA provides at section 3406(b)(23) that
``[i]n order to meet Federal trust responsibilities to protect the
fishery resources of the Hoopa Valley Tribe and meet the fishery
restoration goals of Public Law 98-541,'' the Secretary is directed to
complete the Trinity River Flow Evaluation Study (TRFES) initiated
pursuant to the 1981 secretarial directive to develop recommendations
``based on the best available scientific data, regarding permanent
instream fishery flow requirements and TRD operating criteria and
procedures for the restoration and maintenance of the Trinity River
fishery.'' The CVPIA also specifically provided for the Secretary to
consult with the Hoopa Valley Tribe on the TRFES and, upon the Tribe's
concurrence, to implement the restoration recommendations accordingly.
The FWS and the Hoopa Valley Tribe completed the Flow Study in June
1999. The draft EIS/EIR for the Trinity River Mainstem Fishery
Restoration Program (TRMFRP) was prepared by the FWS, Reclamation,
Trinity County, and the Hoopa Valley Tribe, and was completed in June
1999. The final EIS/EIR was completed in November 2000. A ROD selecting
the alternative to be implemented for the TRMFRP was signed by the
Secretary, with the concurrence of the Hoopa Valley Tribe, pursuant to
section 3406(b)(23) of the CVPIA, and issued in December 2000. However,
the EIR was not certified by Trinity County and it is not a finalized
document under CEQA.
Subsequent to execution of the ROD, water and power interests in
the Central Valley of California amended a previously filed lawsuit
against the Federal agencies materially involved in either the decision
making process for the ROD or the associated Endangered Species Act
approvals for the TRMFRP (Reclamation, FWS, and NMFS), in Federal
district court. Plaintiffs sought, and were granted a preliminary
[[Page 35912]]
injunction for implementation of certain flow-related aspects of the
ROD. The terms of the injunction limit the increase in flows in the
Trinity River which may be implemented in the ROD, but allow the
Secretary to proceed with all other activities approved by the ROD.
Westlands Water District v. United States Department of the Interior,
CIVF-00-7124-OWW/DLB (E.D. Calif., filed May 3, 2001).
On February 20, 2003, the court entered final judgment in the case,
finding that the ROD for the Program, issued on December 10, 2000, and
the associated biological opinions issued by FWS and NMFS, were
unlawful in part. The court found that the ROD was in violation of NEPA
in that it had an improperly framed purpose statement and the range of
alternatives was inadequate. The biological opinions were found to
exceed the agencies' authority under the ESA in that they required
major modifications to operations of the CVP. Although the issue was
not before the court, nor briefed by any of the parties, the court also
found the government in breach of its general and specific Federal
trust obligations to the Hoopa Valley and Yurok Tribes, as set out
under CVPIA section 3406(b)(23) and related statutes. The case is now
on appeal.
Our practice is to make comments, including names and home
addresses of respondents, available for public review. Individual
respondents may request that we withhold their home address from public
disclosure, which we will honor to the extent allowable by law. There
also may be circumstances in which we would withhold a respondent's
identity from public disclosure, as allowable by law. If you wish us to
withhold your name and/or address, you must state this prominently at
the beginning of your comment. We will make all submissions from
organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying
themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or
businesses, available for public disclosure in their entirety.
Dated: June 11, 2003.
Frank Michny,
Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region, Bureau of
Reclamation.
Dated: June 11, 2003.
Mary Ellen Mueller,
Fisheries Supervisor, California and Nevada Operations Office, Fish and
Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 03-15219 Filed 6-16-03; 8:45 am]