# Changes in Mammoth Creek Minimum Streamflow Requirements and Point of Measurement, and Changes in Place of Use > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-7773 ## Record - **Collection:** Federal Register - **Document type:** Notice - **Published:** March 27, 1997 - **Citation:** 62 FR 14666 ## Text DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Forest Service Changes in Mammoth Creek Minimum Streamflow Requirements and Point of Measurement, and Changes in Place of Use AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA. ACTION: Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, will prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for the proposed amendment to the existing Master Operating Agreement establishing minimum streamflow requirements for Mammoth Creek, and Point of Measurement. The Forest Service, Inyo National Forest, Mono County, California, is acting as joint lead agency on the project, together with the [[Page 14667]] Mammoth Community Water District (District). Under the California Environmental Quality Act, the District must conduct its own environmental assessment, and has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. In accordance with Federal and State regulations, a joint EIR/RIS will be prepared. The agency gives notice of the environmental analysis and decision making processes that will occur on the proposal so that interested and affected people are aware of how they may participate and contribute to the final decision. DATES: Comments regarding the scope of the analysis must be received by April 30, 1997. ADDRESSES: Submit written comments and suggestions concerning the proposed action to the responsible official, Dennis Martin, Forest Supervisor, Inyo National Forest, 873 North Main Street, Bishop, California 93154, Attn. MCWD EIR/EIS. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Direct questions about this environmental impact statement to Thom Heller, Special Use Permit Administrator, Inyo National Forest, P.O. Box 148, Mammoth Lakes, California 93546, or telephone (619) 924-5513. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The proposed action consists of two specific components: 1) a change in the minimum streamflow requirements for Mammoth Creek and the point of measurement, and 2) a change in the District's authorized Place of Use (POU) for Mammoth Creek water. The change in minimum streamflow requirements and point of measurement result in both state and federal actions that require CEQA and NEPA documentation. Although addressed in the joint EIR/EIS, the change in the POU is a state action only, and not subject to NEPA. Three alternatives are currently being considered: changing the minimum streamflow requirements to the schedule shown on Table 2 (Proposed action); changing the minimum streamflow requirements to an alternative, three-flow schedule; and not changing the minimum streamflow requirements (no action). Public participation will be specially important at several points during the analysis. The first point is the scoping process (40 CFR 1501.7). The Forest Service has and is seeking information, comments, and assistance from Federal, State, and local agencies and other individuals or organizations who may be interested in or affected by the proposed action. This input will be used in preparation of the draft EIR/EIS. The scoping process includes: 1. Identifying potential issues. 2. Identifying issues to be analyzed in depth 3. Eliminating insignificant issues or those which have been covered by a relevant previous environmental analysis. 4. Exploring additional alternatives. 5. Identifying potential environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives (e.g., direct, indirect, and cumulative effects and connected actions). 6. Determining potential cooperating agencies and task assignments. Mailings to individuals and agencies that participate in the above planning efforts will provide them with information about the proposed project. Public meetings, if held, will be announced locally. Federal, State, and local agencies, user groups and other organizations who would be interested in the study will be invited to participate in scoping the issues that should be considered. The draft EIR/EIS is scheduled to be completed by September, 1997. The comment period on this draft EIR/EIS will be 45 days from the date the Environmental Protection Agency's notice of availability appears in the Federal Register. It is very important that those interested in the proposed action participate at that time. The Forest Service believes, at this early stage, it is important to give reviewers notice of several court rulings related to public participation in the environmental review process. First, reviewers of draft environmental impact statements must structure their participation in the environmental review of the proposed action so that it is meaningful and alerts an agency to the reviewer's position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519 (1978). Also, environmental objections that could be raised at the draft EIR/EIS stage but that are not raised until after completion of the final EIR/EIS may be waived or dismissed by the courts. City of Angoon v. Hodel, 803 F.2d 1016, 1022 (9th Cir. 1986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E. D. Wis. 1980). Because of these court rulings, it is very important that those interested in this proposed action participate by the close of the 45- day comment period so that substantive comments and objections are made available to the Forest Service at a time when it can meaningfully consider them and respond to them in the final EIR/EIS. To assist the Forest Service in identifying and considering issues and concerns on the proposed action, comments on the draft EIR/EIS should be as specific as possible. It is also helpful if comments refer to specific pages or chapters of the draft document. Comments may also address the adequacy of the draft EIR/EIS or the merits of the alternatives formulated and discussed in the document. Reviewers may wish to refer to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act at 40 CFR 1503.3 in addressing these points. After the comment period ends on the draft EIR/EIS, the comments will be analyzed and considered by the Forest Service in preparing the final EIR/EIS, which is expected to be completed by December, 1997. The Forest Service is required to respond in the final EIS to the comments received (40 CFR 1503.4). The responsible official will consider the comments, responses, and environmental consequences discussed in the final EIS and applicable laws, regulations, and policies in making his decision on the proposal. The decision will either be approval of the proposed action as submitted, approval of the proposed action as modified, or denial of the proposed action (No. Action). If the proposal is approved, the existing Memorandum of Agreement would be modified and the revised minimum flow requirements for Mammoth Creek would be approved. The responsible official will document the decision and rationale in the Record of Decision. The decision will be subject to appeal under 36 CFR 215 or regulations applicable at the time of the decision. Dated: March 21, 1997. Dennis W. Martin, Forest Supervisor. [FR Doc. 97-7773 Filed 3-26-97; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-11-M --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A97-7773. Public record. Not legal advice.