<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1400" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Bureau of Reclamation</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>ATTN:<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Frank
Michny</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>2800 Cottage Way</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Sacramento, CA 95825-1898</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 37.4pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns =
"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 37.4pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Re:<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Comments on Draft Supplemental Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding
</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 37.4pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>of
No Significant Impact for Central Valley Project Interim Renewal
Contract</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"
size=3>Dear Mr. Michny: </FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>On behalf of the Hoopa Valley Indian Tribe, we have reviewed and now
submit the following comments on the above referenced Draft Supplemental
Environmental Assessment (SEA) and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These comments reflect the
Tribe’s ongoing concern with management of the Central Valley Project (“CVP”),
which includes the Trinity River Division.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Because of the CVP’s effect on fisheries reserved for our tribe, we are
committed to ensuring that Reclamation actions subject to the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) reflect and comply with recent court decisions
requiring, for example, that mitigation measures imposed as a result of
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act be addressed in draft
environmental review documentation prepared pursuant to NEPA.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">See e.g</I>. <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Westlands v. United States</I>, 275
F.Supp.2d 1157 (E.D. Cal. 2002) (discussed below).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This approach ensures that the public is
fully informed and has the opportunity to comment and participate in the
decision-making process on all aspects of projects affecting the human
environment. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Reclamation has tentatively concluded that the proposed project, the
renewal of up to fifty-nine (59) water service contracts for a term of up to two
(2) years, will have no significant impact requiring assessment in an
Environmental Impact statement.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Draft FONSI at 2.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>That
conclusion, however, is unsupported in a number of particulars as more fully
described below.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It also relies in
part on deferral of consideration of impacts to threatened and endangered
species pending completion of consultation with NOAA-Fisheries and the Fish and
Wildlife Service.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I> Such an approach is impermissible in
light of recent court decisions.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT
size=3>1.</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></B><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT size=3>Failure to
Require Interim Contract Language to Reflect CVPIA Mandated Fishery Restoration
Flows.<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>On February 5, 2004, the Hoopa Valley Tribe (“Tribe”) formally requested
that language referencing the instream fishery flow requirements of the Trinity
River be incorporated into the terms of interim renewal contracts between the
Bureau of Reclamation (“Bureau”) and Central Valley Project (“CVP”) water
service contractors.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>This language
is authorized by section 3404 of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act,
Pub. L. 102-575, 106 Stat. 4600 (1992) (“CVPIA”), which
subjects new and renewal CVP water service contracts to the fishery restoration
provisions of the CVPIA, which includes the Bureau</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: 'WP TypographicSymbols'; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: 'WP TypographicSymbols'"><SPAN
style="mso-char-type: symbol; mso-symbol-font-family: 'WP TypographicSymbols'">=</SPAN></SPAN><FONT
face="Times New Roman">s obligation to meet the fishery restoration requirements
of the Trinity River as established by the Trinity River Flow Evaluation-Final
Report (“Flow Study”).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">See
</I>CVPIA § 3406(b)(23).</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Contract language acknowledging Trinity River restoration requirements
also reflects long-standing congressional directives that prioritize Trinity
fishery releases over transbasin diversions to Central Valley contractors and is
consistent with the federal government’s trust responsibility to protect and
preserve the Hoopa Valley Tribe’s federally reserved fishing right.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Tribe’s request was narrowly
tailored to require compliance with scientifically based fishery flow
requirements set forth in the Flow Study.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Those requirements must be implemented pursuant to CVPIA
§ 3406(b)(23), and should be included as conditions on supply made
available for delivery to Central Valley Project contractors. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>The decisions of the federal courts since the enactment of the CVPIA make
clear that the Bureau can and should reduce quantities of water delivered when
fishery needs demand greater allocations.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">See O’Neill v. United States</I>,
50 F.3d 677, 686 (9th Cir. 1998) (holding that the CVPIA modified priority of
water users and thus changed contractual obligations under pre-existing
long-term water delivery contracts); <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>NRDC v. Houston</I>, 146 F.3d 1118, 1126
(9th Cir. 1998) (invalidating CVP renewal contracts for failure to comply with
environmental requirements); <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Klamath
Water Users Protective Ass’n v. Patterson</I>, 204 F.3d 1206, 1213 (9th Cir.
1999) (recognizing Bureau’s </FONT></FONT>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
class=documentbody>responsibility to manage project operations to “meet the
requirements of the ESA, requirements that override the water rights of the
Irrigators”). </SPAN><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Ninth
Circuit has expressly recognized the Bureau’s obligation to operate to meet the
water needs of vested tribal fishing rights.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Klamath Water Users</I>, 204 F.3d at 1214
(<SPAN class=documentbody>holding that the Bureau has “a responsibility to
divert the water and resources needed to fulfill the Tribes' rights, rights that
take precedence over any alleged rights of the Irrigators”).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></SPAN>Accordingly, the terms of interim
renewal contracts should expressly acknowledge those requirements, and the
impacts of incorporating those requirements into the contracts should be
assessed in an EIS. </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Express subordination of water service delivery obligations to fishery
restoration needs is hardly unprecedented.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN><I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">E.g. id.</I><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Bureau has historically included
fishery restoration requirements as among the conditions on supply available to
satisfy interim renewal contracts.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>For example, in<I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"> California Trout
v. Schaefer</I>, </FONT></FONT>
<P class=MsoBodyText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><SPAN
class=documentbody>58 F.3d 469</SPAN> (9th Cir. 1995), the court noted that an
interim renewal contract for allocations from the New Melones Reservoir provided
“a<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>maximum of 75,000 acre-feet of
water annually, <U>subject to availability after the Bureau satisfied the water
needs of in-basin users and higher priority out-of-basin users</U>.” <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Id</I>. at 471 (emphasis added).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The “in-basin” needs given priority
under that contract included those of “fish and wildlife resources” in the
Stanislaus River Basin established under CVPIA § 3406(c)(2).<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Given that precedent, the Bureau would
not be breaking new ground by heeding the command of CVPIA § 3404(c) to
include similar conditions in the terms of interim renewal contracts.
</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>As of the date of these comments, HVT has received no indication from
Reclamation that the agency intends to honor the Tribe’s February 5, 2004
request.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Should such language be
added to the interim contracts, additional environmental review may be necessary
in order to evaluate what effect giving priority to the Trinity fishery flows
will have on the availability of supplies and hence the reasonableness of the
delivery obligations incurred in the interim contracts, as well as the various
mitigation obligations outlined in the EA/FONSI.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To the extent that additional mitigation
measures may be required as a result of prioritizing Trinity fishery releases
over contract deliveries, the effect of those mitigation measures must be fully
and fairly presented in any draft NEPA documentation, so as to allow the public
the opportunity to review and comment on that analysis.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">See e.g</I>. <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Westlands</I>, 275 F.Supp.2d at
1182.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT
size=3>2.</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></B><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT size=3>Improper
Deferral of Mitigation.<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>As noted above, the SEA improperly defers consideration of impacts to
threatened and endangered species pending completion of ESA § 7
consultation with NOAA‑Fisheries and the Fish and Wildlife Service.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Draft FONSI at 2; Draft SEA at 13<I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">.<A title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1"
href="mhtml:mid://00000062/#_ftn1" name=_ftnref1><SPAN
class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN
style="mso-special-character: footnote">[1]</SPAN></SPAN></A> </I><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Such an approach is impermissible
under the recent ruling in <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Westlands</I>,
275 F.Supp. 2d at 1182 -1185.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In
that case, the court found that a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)
did not adequately analyze the impact of the proposed action on certain
ESA-listed species.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I> at 1183.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Further, the court found that the DEIS
“did not consider or identify mitigation measures” for those impacts, other than
to “specify that mitigation for impacts…would consist of consulting with the
Service on impacts and implementing any required conservation measures.”<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The court concluded that Reclamation
violated NEPA.</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>That is precisely the approach adopted in the interim contract renewal
SEA.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>In the words of the <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Westlands</I> court, this approach “defers
consideration of mitigation efforts” and “precludes the parties from meaningful
analysis.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I> at 1184.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>See also <I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">id</I>. at 1188 (“The omission of discussion
of mitigation measures foreclosed any public input on the issues of whether and
what CVP operations management alternatives existed and were feasible; and
whether alternate water sources existed or if reduced flows could reduce the
impact on species and other CVP users.”). </FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Moreover, to the extent that mitigation measures are imposed as a result
of deferred ESA § 7 consultation, either in the form of Reasonable and
Prudent Measures (RPMs) or other terms and conditions that may have significant
effects, the <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Westlands </I>case requires
that the environmental impacts of those mitigation measures be discussed “with
reasonable thoroughness.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I> at 1192.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>These measures and their environmental
impacts must be disclosed to the public in a process that “included public
participation”, <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">i.e</I>. they must be
disclosed in a manner that allows meaningful public scrutiny, comment, and
participation.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.</I> at 1198.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>By deferring discussion of species
impacts pending completion of consultation with the fisheries agencies, the
Draft EA/FONSI for interim contract renewals fails to meet these requirements.
</FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT
size=3>3.</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></B><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT size=3>Inadequate
Discussion of Alternatives.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></B></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>The Draft EA is insufficient because it lacks any discussion of the
“environmental impacts of the proposed action <U>and alternatives</U>”<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>40 C.F.R. § 1508.9 (emphasis
added).<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) regulations require that an environmental assessment “shall
include” a discussion of the environmental impacts “of the proposed action and
alternatives….” <I style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">Id.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></I>The Draft EA/FONSI, however,
discusses only the proposed action of renewing interim contracts for an
additional two-year period on the same terms as previous interim contracts.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It contains no comparative evaluation of
alternatives to that action, and expressly excludes from consideration a number
of reasonable alternatives, including non-renewal, tiered pricing, and renewal
at reduced delivery amounts that would more accurately reflect current delivery
constraints.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN><I
style="mso-bidi-font-style: normal">See</I> Draft EA at 8-9.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>A comparative analysis of differential
environmental impacts of a range of alternatives to the proposed action must be
undertaken in order to allow the public a meaningful opportunity to assess the
proposed action.<B
style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><o:p></o:p></B></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal
style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt 0.5in; TEXT-INDENT: -0.5in; tab-stops: list .5in; mso-list: l0 level1 lfo1"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT
size=3>4.</FONT><SPAN
style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></B><B style="mso-bidi-font-weight: normal"><FONT size=3>City of Shasta
Lake (City) – Unjustified Increase in Contract
Amount.<o:p></o:p></FONT></B></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>An addendum to the interim renewal contract proposed action/project
description proposes increasing the City’s contract amount by 1650
acre-feet.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The addendum asserts
that no significant or demonstrable effects will result from this increase, in
large part because actual use of water will not change due to the presumption
that the City will “suspend the series of temporary water transfers it has
relied upon in recent years.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>However, no analysis is included addressing the potential scenario in
which the City does not suspend transfers but instead seeks to further augment
its supply by continuing to secure transfer of other CVP water.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 12pt 0in 0pt"><FONT size=3><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Furthermore, there is no explanation as to why the revised contract
amount is almost twice the City’s projected needs.<SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The revised contract represents a 60%
increase from current contract amount, over 46% more than 2003 projected actual
use.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The addendum claims that the
City’s water usage has increased on average 4½ percent annually over the last
four years, and thus projects that by 2005 the City will require 3,276ac-ft
/year.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The addendum also asserts
that increasing water supplies will not affect regional settlement or
development patterns, due to availability of groundwater supplies to meet
projected urban development needs.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>Given these facts, there is no readily apparent justification, and
certainly no justification given in the SEA, for the proposed increase to 4,400
ac-ft.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-tab-count: 1">
</SPAN>Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on the Draft
EA/FONSI.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>We trust that our
comments will be appropriately considered and responded to in any final NEPA
documentation for this proposed action.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Sincerely yours,</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>MORISSET, SCHLOSSER, JOZWIAK &
McGAW</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt 202.5pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Thomas P. Schlosser</FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
size=3><FONT face="Times New Roman"> <o:p></o:p></FONT></FONT></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 6pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-field-code: 'FILENAME \p \* MERGEFORMAT'">T:\WPDOCS\0020\05543\Corresp\Mich031604_L01.doc</SPAN><o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoHeader style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; tab-stops: .5in"><FONT
face="Times New Roman"><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 6pt"><SPAN
style="mso-field-code: 'USERINITIALS \* Lower'">nmc</SPAN>:</SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 6pt">3/16/04</SPAN></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman"></FONT></P>
<DIV style="mso-element: footnote-list"><BR clear=all><FONT
face="Times New Roman">
<HR align=left width="33%" SIZE=1>
</FONT>
<DIV id=ftn1 style="mso-element: footnote">
<P class=MsoFootnoteText style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt; TEXT-INDENT: 37.4pt"><A
title="" style="mso-footnote-id: ftn1" href="mhtml:mid://00000062/#_ftnref1"
name=_ftn1><SPAN class=MsoFootnoteReference><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><SPAN
style="mso-special-character: footnote"><FONT
face="Times New Roman">[1]</FONT></SPAN></SPAN></SPAN></A><SPAN
style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>The Draft SEA at page 11 purports to
incorporate by reference the FWS Biological Opinion for 2002 interim contracts
(“2002 Interim BiOp”), which it asserts contains “the commitments that
reclamation will undertake during the proposed 2004 interim renewal
period.”<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>To the extent that as a
result of consultation on the 2004 renewal, FWS imposes RPMs, terms and
conditions, or other requirements that differ in any respect from those
contained in the 2002 Interim BiOp, the environmental impacts of those
requirements must be disclosed to the public in a draft environmental document
that is released to the public for review and comment.
<o:p></o:p></FONT></SPAN></P></DIV></DIV></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>