23G

• Board Meeting Date: 4/30/2004
• Description: 23G
• Board Meetings - Doc Type: Executive Session

in land -use authorizations to protect fisheries. Id. at 10.
The Forest Supervisor determined that bypass flows were required under the Joe Wright
permit because:
Id. at 11.
Aquatic habitat conditions on NFS lands below Joe Wright Reservoir are
marginal.... There remain up to eight months of zero or near zero flows. In the
half -mile section immediately below the reservoir the habitat for all life
stages of all fish species is zero. Viable self - sustaining fish populations do not
exist for 1.0 miles downstream and possibly farther. I wanted to find a balance
between the use of NFS lands for water diversions and protecting the aquatic
resources, but the JOP does not provide the minimum acceptable levels of
resource protection that I desire.
Supervisor Underwood declined to require bypass flows from the Long Draw Reservoir, despite
similar conclusions concerning zero flow conditions and destruction of aquatic habitat. (AR -LD
at 4593.)
The Forest Supervisor determined that the voluntary mitigation offered by the applicants
in this case reasonably protects NFS lands. However, the clear weight of the evidence in record
does not support a finding that Alternative B, even with the JOP mitigation measures, minimizes
damage to fish and wildlife habitat and otherwise protects the environment as required by
FLPMA. Therefore, the Forest Service's selection of this alternative in issuing a land -use
authorization for Long Draw Dam and Reservoir was arbitrary and capricious.
D. NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (NEPA)
Plaintiffs' remaining claims pursuant to NEPA are: (1) failure to include all necessary
information in the EIS; (2) failure to prepare a supplemental EIS discussing the grant of an
easement; and (3) failure to prepare a supplemental EIS evaluating the May 18, 1994 JOP.
NEPA requires all federal agencies to use a "systematic, interdisciplinary approach" in agency
-28-