[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 38 (Tuesday, February 26, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13082-13083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-04334]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Draft 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 of availability and notice of public hearings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Bureau of Reclamation has made available for public review
and comment the draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact
Statement/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS/EIS) for the Upper
Truckee River Restoration and Marsh Restoration Project (Project). The
California Tahoe Conservancy and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency,
the other lead agencies for the Project, made the EIR/EIS/EIS available
to the public on February 8, 2013.
DATES: Submit written comments on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS on or before
April 29, 2013.
Two public hearings will be held at 9:30 a.m. on Wednesday, March
13, 2013 and Wednesday, March 27, 2013 in Stateline, Nevada, to receive
oral and written comments regarding the Project's environmental
effects.
ADDRESSES: Send written comments on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS to Scott
Carroll, 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 [email protected]. Emailed comments
are preferred. See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for directions on
how to prepare email comments for the Project.
The public hearings will be held at 128 Market Street, Stateline,
Nevada.
The draft EIR/EIS/EIS is accessible at the following Web sites:
http://tahoe.ca.gov/upper-truckee-marsh-69.aspx. http://www.usbr.gov/mp/nepa/nepa_projdetails.cfm?Project_ID=2937.
Compact disks are also available upon request from the California
Tahoe Conservancy at [email protected].
See SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Section for location where copies of
the draft EIR/EIS/EIS are available for public review.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Carroll, California Tahoe
Conservancy, at 530-543-6062; or Adam Lewandowski, Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency; and Myrnie Mayville, Bureau of Reclamation, both at
775-588-4547.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the Project is to restore
natural geomorphic processes and ecological functions in this lowest
reach of the Upper Truckee River and the surrounding marsh to improve
ecological values of the restoration area and help reduce the river's
discharge of nutrients and sediment that diminish Lake Tahoe's clarity.
The approximately 592-acre study 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 study area is owned by the California Tahoe
Conservancy though the study area 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), are analyzed in the draft EIR/EIS/
EIS. Alternative 1 would involve restoration of the Upper Truckee River
by increasing channel length and decreasing channel capacity.
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 restoration would be the
excavation of a new river channel that has less capacity than the
existing channel. Alternative 3 would promote the development, through
natural processes, of a new main channel and/or distributary channels
in the central portion of the study area. A ``pilot'' channel would be
constructed from the existing river channel to historical channels in
the center of the study area, but no construction would occur in the
central or northern portions of the study 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 study area. 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 5 would not provide any
actions to restore the river channel and its connection to the
floodplain in the study 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.
Significant or Adverse Environmental Effects Anticipated
Alternative 1 would involve restoration of the Upper Truckee River
by increasing channel length and decreasing channel capacity.
Implementation of Alternative 1 would result in short-term project and
cumulative construction impacts to sensitive communities
(jurisdictional wetlands, riparian vegetation, and Stream Environment
Zone); disruption of wildlife habitat use and loss of wildlife; and
potential risk of surface water degradation during construction and the
interim adjustment period thereafter.
Implementing Alternative 1 would provide the maximum recreation
elements, but in turn would result in additional significant and
unavoidable project-related impacts including damage to or mortality of
special-status plants resulting from recreational activities; conflicts
with regional conservation strategies for Tahoe yellow cress; operation
and expansion of recreation facilities having an adverse physical
effect on the environment; and degradation of the scenic quality of
shoreline and mapped scenic resources related to the Upper Truckee
River bridge.
Implementing Alternative 2 would involve river restoration by
directly raising the streambed elevation, increasing the channel
length, and decreasing channel capacity by excavation of a new river
channel that has less capacity than the existing
[[Page 13083]]
channel. This alternative would result in the same significant and
unavoidable project-related and cumulative impacts discussed above for
Alternative 1.
Alternative 3 would allow natural processes to dictate the flow
path(s), bed and bank elevations, and capacities of the channel(s)
through portions of the study area and would result in the same
significant and unavoidable project-related and cumulative impacts
discussed above for Alternative 1, as well as potentially resulting in
long-term disruption of fish passage and migration patterns as the
channel adjusts.
Implementing Alternative 4 would require excavating an inset
floodplain along much of the river channel. This alternative would
result in the same significant and unavoidable project-related and
cumulative impacts discussed above for Alternative 1. Alternative 5
(No-Project/No-Action) would allow, but not facilitate the long-term,
passive recovery of the river system by natural processes; therefore,
this alternative would not result in any significant and unavoidable
impacts.
Beneficial Effects
Implementing Alternative 1 would result in long-term enhancement
and creation of jurisdictional wetlands, riparian vegetation, and
Stream Environment Zone habitats resulting from restoration and
enhancement elements. Alternative 1 would have beneficial project
related and cumulative effects on hydrologic/hydraulic processes from
reconfiguration of stream channels and lagoon surface water features.
Project and cumulative beneficial effects would include decreased
erosion along the Upper Truckee River, increased overbank flooding for
small streamflow events and associated retention of fine sediment and
nutrients, and groundwater level improvements within the study area.
Alternative 2 would result in the same project-related and
cumulative beneficial effects as discussed above for Alternative 1. In
addition, implementing Alternative 2 would result in long-term
beneficial effects on common or special-status wildlife resources and a
decrease in recreational conflicts in the core habitat area.
Alternative 1 would also have these benefits, however to a lesser
extent than other action alternatives.
Implementation of Alternative 3 would result in the same project-
related and cumulative beneficial effects as discussed above for
Alternative 2.
Alternative 4 would result in the same project-related and
cumulative beneficial effects as discussed above for Alternative 2.
Alternative 5 (No-Project/No-Action) would allow, but not
facilitate the long-term, passive recovery of the river system by
natural processes; therefore, this alternative would not directly
result in any beneficial effects.
A preferred or proposed alternative has not yet been defined.
Following receipt and evaluation of public comments on the draft EIR/
EIS/EIS, the lead agencies will determine which alternative or
combinations of features from multiple alternatives will become the
proposed action. A discussion of the decision will be included in the
final EIR/EIS/EIS. A summary description of the alternatives is
presented below. The detailed description of each alternative is
presented in Chapter 2 of the draft EIR/EIS/EIS.
The draft EIR/EIS/EIS is being distributed to interested agencies,
stakeholder organizations, and individuals. This distribution ensures
that interested parties have an opportunity to express their views
regarding the environmental effects of the Project, and to ensure that
information pertinent to permits and approvals is provided to decision
makers for the lead agencies.
For comments provided via email, please utilize the following
format:
Email to: [email protected]
Subject Line: Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project
draft EIR/EIS/EIS directions:
(1) Attach comments in an MS Word document.
(2) Include commenter's U.S. Postal Service mailing address in MS
Word.
All comments will be distributed by the California Tahoe
Conservancy to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the Bureau of
Reclamation.
Hearing Process and Distribution Information
The California Tahoe Conservancy, Bureau of Reclamation, and Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency will conduct a public hearing on the draft
EIR/EIS/EIS. It is not necessary to provide testimony during the public
hearing; comments on the draft EIR/EIS/EIS will be accepted throughout
the meeting and will be recorded at the public comment table. Comments
may also be submitted throughout the comment period as described above.
Once all comments have been assembled and reviewed, responses will be
prepared to address significant environmental issues that have been
raised in the comments.
Copies of the draft 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.
Natural Resources Library, Department of the Interior,
1849 C Street NW., Main Interior Building, Washington, DC 20240-0001.
Special Assistance for the Public Hearing
If special assistance is required to participate in the public
hearing, please contact Marja Ambler at 775-589-5287, or via email at
[email protected]. Please notify Marja Ambler as far in advance as
possible to enable the Bureau of Reclamation to secure the needed
services. If a request cannot be honored, the requestor will be
notified. A telephone device for the hearing impaired (TDD) is
available at 916-978-5608.
Public Disclosure
Before including your 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 may
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: February 12, 2013.
Pablo R. Arroyave,
Deputy Regional Director, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. 2013-04334 Filed 2-25-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P