52964 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices 

incremental adaptive management 

approach should be compared to one 

another, and the better of these two 

options should be pursued. 

9.2 Project Types. 

Commercial Navigation & 

Hydropower. For commercial navigation 

and hydropower features, the plan with 

high net economic return (benefit cost 

ratio of at least 1.5) to the Nation for 

each increment of such work, consistent 

with protecting the environment, will be 

considered minimally acceptable. Plans 

that address the most critical needs and 

have an increasingly higher benefit cost 

ratio should be more heavily weighted 

in the selection process. 

Flood and Storm Damage Reduction. 

Flood and storm damage reduction 

features could include structural and 

non-structural components. As both 

monetary and non-monetary values are 

likely to be part of the decision process 

when non-structural components are 

included, a comparative approach as 

identified in the Multi-Criterion 

Evaluation, Consistency & Transparency 

section will provide the clarity in these 

situations for decision making. Where 

benefits are measured in monetary 

values only, the plan with high net 

economic return (benefit cost ratio of at 

least 1.5) to the Nation for each 

increment of such work, consistent with 

protecting the environment, will be 

considered minimally acceptable. Plans 

that address the most critical needs and 

have an increasingly higher benefit cost 

ratio should be more heavily weighted 

in the selection process. Generally, 

when structural and non-structural 

components provide viable options 

when considering all evaluation criteria, 

including benefits, costs and adverse 

effects, preference should be given to 

non-structural components so long as 

the monetary benefits are at least at 

unity. If the non-monetary benefits 

represent a majority of the total benefits 

and are of National significance, then 

consideration can be given to selecting 

a plan with monetary benefits less than 

unity. 

Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration. For 

aquatic ecosystem restoration features, 

the plan that is cost-effective, 

sustainable, and is the alternative plan 

that best reflects an appropriate level to 

invest for that ecosystem from a national 

perspective, after considering the 

national or regional significance and 

cost of protecting or restoring that 

ecosystem compared to others will be 

considered as minimally acceptable for 

selection. Plans that address the most 

critical ecological needs using the 

minimum action needed to substantially 

improve the natural functions or 

services with increasingly higher cost 

effectiveness should be more heavily 

weighted in the selection process. 

Multiple Objectives. For multiple 

objective projects with features and 

increments of work whose benefits and 

costs are jointly distributed among more 

than one objective, each such feature or 

increment of work should yield a net 

overall return to the Nation after 

considering its cost, effectiveness, and 

other beneficial and adverse effects. 

Where the benefits are measured in 

monetary values only; those with high 

net economic return (benefit cost ratio 

of at least 1.5) to the Nation for each 

increment of such work, consistent with 

protecting the environment, will be 

considered minimally acceptable. Plans 

that address the most critical needs and 

have an increasingly higher benefit cost 

ratio should be more heavily weighted 

in the selection process. Where plans 

have both monetary and non-monetary 

values, a comparative approach as 

identified in the Multi-Criterion 

Evaluation, Consistency & Transparency 

section is to be used to inform a 

decision. The monetary benefits of a 

multi-criteria plan must at least be 

unity. If the non-monetary benefits 

represent a majority of the total benefits 

and are of national significance, then 

consideration can be given to selecting 

a plan with monetary benefits less than 

unity. 

9.3 Agency Exception. The Secretary 

will ordinarily consider exceptions to 

the selection criteria under the 

following circumstances: where there 

are overriding reasons for doing so, 

including safety and other Federal, 

State, local, Tribal, and international 

concerns. The reasons for an exception 

are to be given in a request from the 

Chief of Engineers and must be 

appropriately documented. The full 

planning process carried forth through 

the study must be documented, 

completed and submitted along with the 

documented exception in order to 

uphold the ideal of a transparent 

process. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E8–21294 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3710–92–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Bureau of Reclamation 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Notice of Intent To Prepare an 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

for the Intake Diversion Dam 

Modification, Lower Yellowstone 

Project, Montana 

AGENCIES: Bureau of Reclamation, 

Interior, and Corps of Engineers, Army. 

ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) 

for the Intake Diversion Dam 

Modification, Lower Yellowstone 

Project, Montana. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(C) 

of the National Environmental Policy 

Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, and 

the Council on Environmental Quality’s 

(CEQ) regulations for implementing the 

procedural provisions of NEPA, the 

Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) 

and the U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers 

(Corps) propose to jointly prepare an 

EIS that analyzes and discloses effects 

associated with modifications to Intake 

Diversion Dam. The proposed Federal 

action is to modify Intake Diversion 

Dam and canal headworks, features of 

Reclamation’s Lower Yellowstone 

Project, to improve passage and reduce 

entrainment for endangered pallid 

sturgeon and other native fish in the 

lower Yellowstone River. 

Reclamation and the Corps will serve 

as joint lead Federal agencies in the 

preparation of the Intake Diversion Dam 

Modification EIS. Reclamation will act 

as administrative lead for NEPA 

compliance activities during 

preparation of the EIS. Reclamation and 

the Corps will each consider and 

approve a Record of Decision regarding 

actions and decisions for which the 

respective agencies are responsible. 

DATES: Public scoping meetings will be 

held in October 2008. See the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section for 

dates and locations of these meetings. 

Written or e-mailed comments on the 

scope of issues and alternatives to be 

considered in the Draft EIS will be 

accepted through November 14, 2008. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments and 

requests to be added to the mailing list 

may be submitted to Bureau of 

Reclamation, Montana Area Office, 

Attention: Paula Holwegner, P.O. Box 

30137, Billings, MT 59107. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Paula Holwegner, Bureau of 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices 52965 

Reclamation, Montana Area Office, P.O. 

Box 30137, Billings, MT 59107; 

telephone (406) 247–7300; or facsimile 

to (406) 247–7338. You may submit 

comments, requests, and/or other 

information by e-mail to 

pholwegner@gp.usbr.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Dates of Public Scoping Meetings 

• October 21, 2008, 5:30 p.m.–8:30 

p.m., Sidney, MT 

• October 22, 2008, 5:30 p.m.–8:30 

p.m., Glendive, MT 

• October 23, 2008, 5:30 p.m.–8:30 

p.m., Billings, MT 

Locations of Public Scoping Meetings 

• Community Services Building— 

1201 West Holly, Sidney, MT 

• Dawson Community College—300 

College Drive—Ullman Center Room 

102, Glendive, MT 

• Montana State University 

Downtown Campus—207 North 

Broadway, Billings, MT 

The meeting facilities are physically 

accessible to people with disabilities. 

People needing special assistance to 

attend and/or participate in the public 

hearings should contact Patience Hurley 

at 701–221–1204 in the Dakotas Area 

Office in Bismarck as soon as possible. 

To allow sufficient time to process 

special requests, please call no later 

than one week before the public hearing 

of interest. 

Background Information 

Reclamation’s Lower Yellowstone 

Project is located in eastern Montana 

and western North Dakota. Intake 

Diversion Dam is located approximately 

70 miles upstream of the confluence of 

the Yellowstone and Missouri rivers 

near Glendive, Montana. The Lower 

Yellowstone Project was authorized by 

the Secretary of the Interior on May 10, 

1904. Construction of the Lower 

Yellowstone Project began in 1905 and 

included Intake Diversion Dam (also 

known as Yellowstone River Diversion 

Dam)—a 12-foot high wood and stone 

diversion dam that spans the 

Yellowstone River and diverts water 

into the Main Canal for irrigation. The 

Lower Yellowstone Project was 

authorized to provide a dependable 

water supply sufficient to irrigate 

approximately 52,000 acres of land on 

the benches above the west bank of the 

Yellowstone River. Water is also 

supplied to irrigate approximately 830 

acres in the Intake Irrigation Project and 

2,200 acres in the Savage Unit. Both of 

the smaller irrigation projects pump 

water from the Main Canal. The average 

annual volume of water diverted for 

these projects is 327,046 acre-feet. 

The Service listed the pallid sturgeon 

as endangered under the ESA in 1990. 

The wild population of pallid sturgeon 

inhabiting the Yellowstone River and 

the Missouri River between Fort Peck 

Dam and Lake Sakakawea are 

anticipated to be extirpated by 2017 if 

reproduction and recruitment of young 

fish does not improve. The best 

available science suggests Intake 

Diversion Dam impedes upstream 

migration of pallid sturgeon and their 

access to spawning and larval drift 

habitats. In addition, previous 

entrainment studies on other native fish 

in the Yellowstone River suggest that 

once passage is provided, pallid 

sturgeon may be entrained in the Main 

Canal. 

The lower Yellowstone River is 

considered to provide one of the best 

opportunities for recovery of pallid 

sturgeon. Section 7(a)(1) of the ESA 

directs Federal agencies to utilize their 

authorities to further the purposes of the 

ESA by carrying out conservation 

programs for listed species. Reclamation 

has been in informal consultation with 

the Service to identify potential 

conservation measures to minimize 

adverse effects to pallid sturgeon 

associated with continued operation of 

the Lower Yellowstone Project on the 

Yellowstone River. The Pallid Sturgeon 

Recovery Plan specifically identifies 

providing passage at Intake Diversion 

Dam to protect and restore pallid 

sturgeon populations. By providing 

passage at Intake Diversion Dam, 

approximately 160 river miles of 

spawning and larval drift habitat would 

become available in the Yellowstone 

River. By installing fish entrainment 

reduction measures, pallid sturgeon 

entrainment in the Main Canal would be 

minimized. 

The Service recommended in their 

2003 amendment to the Missouri River 

Master Manual biological opinion that 

the Corps assist Reclamation in 

providing passage for pallid sturgeon at 

Intake Diversion Dam as a conservation 

recommendation. Section 3109 of the 

2007 Water Resources Development Act 

authorizes the Corps to use funding 

from the Missouri River Recovery and 

Mitigation Program to assist 

Reclamation with compliance, design, 

and construction of modifications to the 

Lower Yellowstone Project for purposes 

of ecosystem restoration. 

Reclamation initiated a collaborative 

effort with the Service; Corps; Montana 

Fish, Wildlife and Parks; Lower 

Yellowstone Irrigation District; and The 

Nature Conservancy through a 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 

signed on July 8, 2005. Reclamation 

coordinated a value planning study in 

August 2005 with representatives from 

parties signatory to the MOU to explore 

and evaluate a broad range of 

alternatives for fish passage and 

entrainment reduction. 

Reclamation and the Corps will use a 

broad range of scoping activities to fully 

identify the range of potentially 

significant issues, actions, alternatives, 

and impacts to be considered in the EIS. 

These scoping activities will ensure the 

public has sufficient opportunity to 

review and comment on the proposed 

Federal action and reasonable 

alternatives for fish passage and 

entrainment reduction at Intake 

Diversion Dam. Public comments are 

invited and encouraged to assist 

agencies in identifying the scope of 

potentially significant environmental, 

social, and economic issues relevant to 

the proposed Federal action and 

determining reasonable alternatives to 

be considered in the EIS. 

Reclamation and the Corps have 

scheduled three public scoping 

meetings and are inviting agencies, 

tribes, non-governmental organizations, 

and the public to participate in an open 

exchange of information and to provide 

comments on the proposed scope of the 

EIS. 

Preliminary Alternatives 

As required by CEQ’s implementing 

regulations, all reasonable alternatives 

to the proposed Federal action that meet 

the purpose and need will be 

considered in the EIS. These 

alternatives will include no action and 

a range of reasonable alternatives for 

improving fish passage and reducing 

entrainment. Appropriate mitigation 

measures will be incorporated into the 

proposed action and reasonable 

alternatives. The EIS will analyze and 

disclose environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed Federal 

action and alternatives together with 

engineering, operations and 

maintenance, social, and economic 

considerations. Through MOU partner 

discussions and evaluations, 

alternatives for passage have been 

identified, discussed, and analyzed. 

Preliminary alternatives to improve fish 

passage include the following: 

(1) Passage around the existing 

diversion dam; 

(2) Relocation of the diversion dam 

and canal headworks to take advantage 

of hydrology and topography; 

(3) Removing the dam and 

constructing a single or multiple 

pumping plants; and 

(4) Variations of a low-gradient rock 

ramp in the river. 

The preliminary alternatives for 

reducing entrainment include: 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
52966 Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 178 / Friday, September 12, 2008 / Notices 

(1) A fish screen structure in the Main 

Canal with fish bypass to river; and 

(2) A rotary drum fish screen on the 

bank of the river. 

The EIS will also include a no action 

alternative that does not improve fish 

passage or reduce entrainment. The 

public is invited and encouraged to 

identify other reasonable alternatives to 

improve fish passage and reduce 

entrainment at the Intake Diversion Dam 

and canal headworks. 

Preliminary Identification of 

Environmental Issues 

A range of issues relevant to the 

proposed Federal action have 

tentatively been identified for 

consideration and analysis in the EIS. 

This list is preliminary and is intended 

to facilitate public comment on the 

scope of this EIS. Reclamation and the 

Corps invite you to comment on the 

following general questions that reflect 

potentially significant issues or 

questions of widespread public interest 

believed to be relevant to the proposed 

Federal action. Reclamation and the 

Corps invite and encourage comments 

that identify other potentially 

significant issues and effects that you 

believe should be addressed in the EIS. 

How would the proposed action affect 

or address the following: 

• Aquatic communities and habitats 

in the lower Yellowstone River? 

• Delivery of irrigation water for the 

Lower Yellowstone Project? 

• Continued operation and viability 

of irrigated agriculture in the Lower 

Yellowstone Project? 

• Water-based recreation, such as 

changes to boat ramps and/or changes to 

angling opportunities for paddlefish and 

other fish? 

• Economic conditions related to the 

paddlefish caviar industry? 

• Social and economic conditions in 

affected communities associated with 

construction activities and long-term 

operation and maintenance, including 

paddlefish caviar harvest and 

concession activities? 

• Short-term and long-term impacts 

on surface water quality? 

• Floodplain, wetlands, and riparian 

communities? 

• Water quantity associated with 

operations and climate change? 

• Land-based recreation, including 

possible changes to the public park area 

and river access? 

• Relevant cumulative environmental 

impacts to the Yellowstone River from 

past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions? 

• Cultural resources such as historic, 

archaeological, architectural, or 

traditional properties? 

• Environmental justice, particularly 

whether or not water management 

activities have a disproportionate 

adverse effect on minority and lowincome populations? 

• Compliance with all applicable 

Federal, State, and local statutes and 

regulations and with international 

agreements and required Federal and 

State environmental permits, 

consultations, and notifications? 

• Compliance with all applicable 

executive orders? 

Public Disclosure Statement 

Reclamation and the Corps believe it 

is important to inform the public of the 

environmental review process. To assist 

Reclamation and the Corps in 

identifying and considering issues 

related to the proposed Federal action, 

comments made during formal scoping 

and later on the draft EIS should be as 

specific as possible. Reviewers must 

structure their participation in the 

environmental review of the proposal so 

that it is meaningful and alerts 

Reclamation and the Corps to the 

reviewer’s position and contentions. It 

is very important that those interested 

in this proposed Federal action 

participate by the close of the scoping 

period so that substantive comments 

and objections are made available to 

Reclamation and the Corps at a time 

when they can meaningfully consider 

and respond to them. 

If you wish to comment, you may 

mail or e-mail your comments as 

indicated under the ADDRESSES section. 

Before including your name, address, 

phone number, e-mail address, or any 

other personal identifying information 

in your comment, you should be aware 

that your entire comment including 

your personal identifying information 

may be made available to the public at 

any time. 

While you can request in your 

comment for us to withhold your 

personal identifying information from 

public review, we cannot guarantee that 

we will be able to do so. 

Dated: September 5, 2008. 

Michael J. Ryan, 

Regional Director, Great Plains Region, 

Bureau of Reclamation. 

Witt Anderson, 

Director, Programs, Northwestern Division, 

Corps of Engineers. 

[FR Doc. E8–21188 Filed 9–11–08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–MN–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army, Corps of 

Engineers 

Intent To Prepare a Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

the Proposed Folsom South of U.S. 

Highway 50 Specific Plan Project, in 

Sacramento County, CA, Corps Permit 

Application Number SPK–2007–02159 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of Intent. 

SUMMARY: The South Folsom Property 

Owners Group proposes to implement a 

large-scale, mixed-use, mixed-density 

master planned community with 

residential, commercial, office, public/ 

quasi-public uses, open space, and 

parks. The proposed project consists of 

approximately 1,464 acres of residential 

development, 523 acres of mixed-use 

and commercial development, 109 acres 

of parks, and 1,053 acres of open space. 

The majority of the 1,053 acres of open 

space would be located in the western 

portion of the project site. This area 

includes Alder Creek, numerous 

cultural resources sites, and the highest 

concentration of oak woodland habitat 

within the project site. 

The proposed Folsom South of 50 

Specific Plan includes development of 

up to 10,045 mixed-density residential 

homes and approximately 7.4 million 

square feet of retail and office uses 

within an area south of Highway 50 that 

would be annexed to the City of Folsom. 

The proposed project would provide 

five elementary schools, one joint 

middle school/high school, and a 

campus for the Sacramento County Day 

School. It is anticipated that 

construction would begin in 2010. The 

initiation and duration of construction 

would depend on market conditions 

and receipt of environmental permits 

and clearances; full build-out would 

likely be completed within 20 years 

from construction commencement. 

The project site is approximately 

3,502 acres and contains 82.89 acres of 

waters of the United States. The 

proposed project would directly affect 

approximately 21.28 acres of waters of 

the United States, including vernal 

pools and other wetlands. These 

acreages do not include indirect impacts 

from the proposed action or impacts 

anticipated to result from off-site 

infrastructure that may be determined to 

be required as part of the U.S. Army 

Corps of Engineers’ (USACE) 

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 

process. 

The EIS will be prepared as a joint 

document with the City of Folsom. The 


ebenthall on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES