[Federal Register: October 19, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 202)]
[Notices]
[Page 61797-61799]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19oc06-125]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Reclamation
Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project, El Dorado
County, CA
AGENCY: Bureau of Reclamation, Interior.
ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement/
environmental impact statement/environmental impact report (EIS/EIS/
EIR) and notice of scoping meetings.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Compact
and Chapter 5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, and the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the Department of the Interior,
Bureau of
[[Page 61798]]
Reclamation (Reclamation), the TRPA, and the California Tahoe
Conservancy (Conservancy), intend to prepare a joint EIS/EIS/EIR. The
EIS/EIS/EIR would evaluate a joint Reclamation and TRPA restoration
project along the reach of the Upper Truckee River that extends from
U.S. Highway 50 north to Lake Tahoe and its adjacent wetland. The
purpose of the proposed action 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 study area and help reduce the river's discharge of nutrients and
sediment that diminish Lake Tahoe's clarity.
The Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project is identified
in TRPA's Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) as a project that is
necessary to restore and maintain environmental thresholds for the Lake
Tahoe Basin. EIP projects are designed to achieve and maintain
environmental thresholds that protect Tahoe's unique and valued
resources.
Two public scoping meetings will be held to solicit comments from
interested parties to assist in determining the scope of the
environmental analysis, including the alternatives to be addressed, and
to identify the significant environmental issues related to the
proposed action.
DATES: The public scoping meeting dates are:
Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 12 to 2 p.m., South Lake Tahoe,
California.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006, 6 to 8 p.m., South Lake Tahoe,
California.
In addition, the proposed project will be an agenda item at a TRPA
Governing Board Meeting on Wednesday, October 25, 2006 in Stateline,
Nevada (see agenda item at http://www.trpa.org/
default.[fxsp0]aspx?tabid=258).
All comments are requested to be received by October 31, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Scoping meetings will be held at the Inn By The Lake, Sierra
Nevada Room, 3300 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
The TRPA meeting will be held at the TRPA Governing Board Rooms,
128 Market Street, Stateline, NV 89449.
Written comments on the scope of the environmental document,
alternatives, and impacts to be considered should be sent to Ms. Jacqui
Grandfield, Natural Resources Program Manager, California Tahoe
Conservancy, 1061 Third Street, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
If you would like to be included on the EIS/EIS/EIR mailing list,
please contact Ms. Grandfield by e-mail at upper--truckee--
marsh.tahoecons.ca.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Myrnie Mayville, Environmental
Specialist, Bureau of Reclamation, Mid-Pacific Region, 2800 Cottage
Way, Room E-2606, Sacramento, CA, 95825-1898, (916) 978-5037,
mmayville@mp.[fxsp0]usbr.gov; Ms. Jacqui Grandfield at the above
address or (530) 542-5580, upper_truckee_marsh@tahoecons.ca.gov or
Mr. Mike Elam, Associate Environmental Planner, Tahoe Regional Planning
Agency, P.O. Box 5310, Stateline, NV, 89448 or (775) 588-4547 ext. 308,
MElam@trpa.org.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Upper Truckee River has been substantially altered by land
practices during the past 150 years. Throughout its watershed, the
river has experienced ecosystem degradation typical of what has
occurred elsewhere in the Basin. The river has been modified from its
original conditions by human activities, such as logging; livestock
grazing; roads; golf courses; an airport; and residential, commercial
and industrial developments. These conditions have resulted in
increased sediment and nutrient loads discharging into Lake Tahoe from
the river, which contribute to the declining clarity of the lake. Human
influences have also resulted in reduced habitat quality for plant,
wildlife, and fish species in the watershed. Restoration of natural
processes and ecological functions of the river is an important part of
the response to the decline in lake clarity.
Restoration planning for the marsh began in the early 1990s with
studies conducted by the University of California. In 1995, the
Conservancy commissioned a restoration planning and design study, which
identified a tentatively preferred river restoration concept 2 years
later. However, it was determined that river restoration required use
of the entire Upper Truckee Marsh and, at that time the east side of
the marsh was not owned by the Conservancy; therefore, this tentatively
selected concept could not be pursued. In 1998, the Conservancy began
planning and design of an initial phase of wetland restoration on a 23-
acre portion of a study area located on the east side of the Upper
Truckee River near Lake Tahoe. This is an area, called the Lower West
Side Wetland Restoration Project (LWS), where the marsh had been
previously filled during the construction of the adjacent Tahoe Keys.
After careful investigations, planning, and design; extensive
environmental review; and community outreach, the Conservancy approved
restoration of 12 acres of wetland through fill removal as the LWS
Project in 2001. Construction commenced in the summer of 2001 and was
completed in the summer of 2003. In 2000, the Conservancy purchased 311
acres of land in the center of the marsh from a private party, bringing
nearly the entire Truckee Marsh into public ownership. Currently, the
majority of the study area is owned by the Conservancy, including the
marsh and meadows surrounding the lower reach of Trout Creek.
Restoration concepts encompassing the whole marsh and the lower reach
of the river could be developed after the acquisition. As part of this
process, the Conservancy has also conducted public access and
recreation use management planning for the river, marsh, and beach.
Initially, the Conservancy defined project objectives and desired
outcomes to direct the restoration planning process. A comprehensive
evaluation and documentation of the existing natural processes and
functions in the study area were conducted to begin the alternatives
planning process. This evaluation enabled the identification of
potential restoration opportunities and constraints. Armed with
detailed information about the river and marsh processes and ecological
functions, the Conservancy hosted a design charrette (i.e., interactive
workshop) for agencies and other stakeholders to identify the spectrum
of potentially feasible restoration ideas to be considered in the
development of concept plan alternatives. Four alternative concept
plans, all developed to be potentially feasible, were formulated to
represent a reasonable range of restoration approaches. The four
concepts generated by this extensive process are four action
alternatives being evaluated in the EIS/EIS/EIR. A preferred
alternative will be identified after public review of the alternatives
and public comments are received on the Draft EIS/EIS/EIR.
To date, key stages of the Upper Truckee River and Wetland
Restoration project have included the following:
Evaluating existing natural processes and functions of the
Upper Truckee River and marsh in 2000 and 2001.
Establishing project objectives and desired outcomes in
2002, and updating them in 2005.
Defining restoration opportunities and constraints in 2002
and 2003.
Conducting a restoration design charrette in 2003 to
receive input from stakeholders on project priorities, concerns and
constraints, and design ideas.
[[Page 61799]]
Conducting hydraulic modeling studies to support the
development and evaluation of project alternatives.
Initial development and comparative evaluation of four
conceptual restoration alternatives in 2004 and 2005.
Regulatory agency review of alternative concepts for key
issues and regulatory requirements in 2005.
Further refinement and evaluation of the alternatives, and
preparation of a Concept Plan Report (July 2006).
Project Objectives
The following objectives were developed for the proposed action:
Objective 1. Restore natural and self-sustaining river and
floodplain processes and functions.
Objective 2. Protect, enhance, and restore naturally
functioning habitats.
Objective 3. Restore and enhance fish and wildlife habitat
quality.
Objective 4. Improve water quality through enhancement of
natural physical and biological processes.
Objective 5. Protect and, where feasible, expand Tahoe
yellow cress populations.
Objective 6. Provide public access, access to vistas, and
environmental education at the Lower West Side and Cove East Beach.
Objective 7. Avoid increasing flood hazard on adjacent
private property.
Objective 8. Design with sensitivity to the site's history
and cultural heritage.
Objective 9. Design the wetland/urban interface to help
provide habitat value and water quality benefits.
Objective 10. Implement a public health and safety
program, including mosquito monitoring and control.
The following alternatives will be considered at an equal level of
detail in the EIS/EIS/EIR:
Alternative 1, Channel Aggradation and Narrowing (Maximum
Recreation Infrastructure);
Alternative 2, New Channel--West Meadow (Minimum
Recreation Infrastructure);
Alternative 3, Middle Marsh Corridor (Moderate Recreation
Infrastructure);
Alternative 4, Inset Floodplain (Moderate Recreation
Infrastructure); and
Alternative 5, No Project/No Action.
Alternative 1 would include raising and reconfiguring a portion of
the main channel, reconfiguring two sections of split channel, reducing
the capacity of the river mouth, changing the hydrologic connectivity
of the sailing lagoon, constructing a river corridor barrier to reduce
wildlife disturbance, restoring sand dunes at Cove East, re-routing an
existing recreational trail, and developing several new recreational
components (i.e., full- and self-service visitor centers, pedestrian
and bicycle trails, boardwalks, viewing platforms), an interpretive
program, and signage.
Alternative 2 would include excavation of a new channel and fill of
a portion of the existing channel, constructing a new river mouth,
changing the hydrologic connectivity of the sailing lagoon,
constructing a river corridor barrier to reduce wildlife disturbance,
and restoring sand dunes at Cove East, re-routing an existing
recreational trail, constructing observation platforms, and developing
an interpretive program and signage.
Alternative 3 would include excavation of a new channel and fill of
a portion of the existing channel, reducing the capacity of the river
mouth, changing the hydrologic connectivity of the sailing lagoon, re-
routing an existing recreational trail, developing several new
recreational components (i.e., self-service visitor center, pedestrian
and bicycle trails, boardwalks, viewing platforms), and an interpretive
program and signage.
Alternative 4 would include excavation of portions of the meadow
surface along the corridor of the existing channel to create an inset
floodplain, reducing the capacity of the river mouth, constructing a
river corridor barrier to reduce wildlife disturbance, (i.e., self-
service visitor center, pedestrian and bicycle trails, boardwalks,
viewing platforms), and an interpretive program and signage.
Under Alternative 5, existing conditions on the project site would
be projected into the future.
Potential Federal involvement may include the approval of the
proposed action and partial funding of the river restoration component
of the proposed action. The EIS will be combined with an EIR prepared
by the Conservancy pursuant to the CEQA and an EIS prepared by the TRPA
pursuant to its Compact and Chapter 5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
Additional Information
The environmental review will be conducted pursuant to NEPA, CEQA,
TRPA's Compact and Chapter 5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, the
Federal and State Endangered Species Acts, and other applicable laws,
to analyze the potential environmental impacts of implementing a range
of feasible alternatives. Public input on the range of alternatives
proposed for detailed consideration will be sought through the public
scoping process.
The EIS/EIS/EIR will assess potential impacts to any Indian Trust
Assets or environmental justice issues. There are no known Indian Trust
Assets or environmental justice issues associated with the proposed
action. Input about concerns or issues related to Indian Trust Assets
are requested from potentially affected federally recognized Indian
Tribes and individual Indians.
Our practice is to make comments, including names, home addresses,
home phone numbers, and e-mail addresses of respondents, available for
public review. Individual respondents may request that we withhold
their names and/or home addresses, etc., but if you wish us to consider
withholding this information you must state this prominently at the
beginning of your comments. In addition, you must present a rationale
for withholding this information. This rationale must demonstrate that
disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.
Unsupported assertions will not meet this burden. In the absence of
exceptional, documentable circumstances, this information will be
released. We will always make submissions from organizations or
businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as
representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, available
for public inspection in their entirety.
Robert Eckart,
Acting Regional Environmental Officer, Mid-Pacific Region.
[FR Doc. E6-17427 Filed 10-18-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MN-P