81 FR 94351 - Intent To Prepare an Integrated Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Risk Management Study, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Federal Register Volume 81, Issue 247 (December 23, 2016)
| Page Range | 94351-94352 | |
| FR Document | 2016-30985 |
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 247 (Friday, December 23, 2016)] [Notices] [Pages 94351-94352] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2016-30985] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers Intent To Prepare an Integrated Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Risk Management Study, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. ACTION: Notice of intent. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Department of the Army and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) hereby give notice of intent to prepare an integrated Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Statement (FS/EIS) for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Risk Management Project in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA to consider opportunities to reduce fluvial flooding, to reduce the risk to public safety due to flooding consistent with protecting the Nation's environment, in accordance with national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is the lead agency for this project under NEPA. The SFCJPA is the lead agency for this project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and will be preparing a separate Environmental Impact Report (EIR). DATES: Written comments from all interested parties are encouraged and must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 17, 2017. ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for information should be sent to Eric Jolliffe, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 1455 Market St., 17th floor, San Francisco, CA 94103, [email protected]. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Eric Jolliffe, (415) 503-6869. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses an area of approximately 45 square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco Bay in California. The majority of the watershed lies in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Bay Foothills northwest of Palo Alto; the remaining 7.5 square miles lie on the San Francisquito alluvial fan near San Francisco Bay. The San Francisquito Creek watershed contains mainstem San Francisquito Creek and the main tributary streams of West Union Creek, Corte Madera Creek, Bear Creek and Los Trancos Creek. Los Trancos Creek and lower San Francisquito Creek form the boundary between San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The reaches are divided up as follows: Reach 1 extends from San Francisco Bay to the upstream face of Highway 101; Reach 2 extends from Highway 101 to El Camino Real; Reach 3 continues from El Camino Real to Sand Hill Road; and Reach 4 continues from Sand Hill Road to the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains. This FS/EIS will investigate flood risk management solutions related to breakout flow in Reach 2 only. The entire watershed will be considered when developing solutions to address flooding in Reach 2. The non-Federal sponsor for the Feasibility phase of the study is the SFCJPA. The SFCJPA is comprised of the following member agencies: the City of Palo Alto; the City of Menlo Park; the City of East Palo Alto; the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and the San Mateo County Flood Control District. 1. Background. The carrying capacity of San Francisquito Creek is affected by the presence of development, vegetation, sedimentation, land subsidence, levee settlement, erosion, and culverts and bridges in the project area. Erosion has caused the undermining of roads and structures in many places throughout the watershed. Flooding on San Francisquito Creek affects the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and the city of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. Flooding from San Francisquito Creek has been a common occurrence. The most recent flood event occurred in December 2012, and the flood of record occurred in February 1998, when the Creek overtopped its banks in several areas, affecting approximately 1,700 residential and commercial structures and causing more than $26.6 million in property damages. After these floods, the SFCJPA was formed to pursue flood control and restoration opportunities in the area. The current USACE Feasibility Study is a continuation of the authority passed on May 22, 2002 by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, which is in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941. The resolution reads as follows: ``Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That, the Secretary of the Army, in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941, is hereby requested to conduct a study of the Guadalupe River and Tributaries, California, to determine whether flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, storm water retention, water conservation and supply, recreation and other allied purposes are advisable in the interest of the San Francisquito Creek Watershed, including San Francisquito Creek, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California.'' 2. Proposed Action. The integrated FS/EIS will consider the environmental impact of potential flood risk management projects with the end goal of reducing flood damage in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed. 3. Project Alternatives. The integrated FS/EIS will include four alternatives. a. No Action: Alternative 1 is the No Action Plan. With the No Action Plan (which is the ``Future Without-Project Condition''), it is assumed that no long-term actions would be taken to reduce flood damage along San Francisquito Creek; flood control improvements would consist of emergency fixes to damage areas, consistent with available funding. b. Alternative 2 includes replacing bridges and widening channel constriction points to provide additional channel capacity in Reach 2 between Highway 101 and El Camino Real. Under this alternative, bridges and channel constrictions or ``bottlenecks'' [[Page 94352]] that cause creek flows to back up and rise would be widened to increase channel conveyance and thus reduce water surface elevation. Included in this widening is a proposed project element to align the channel with a CalTrans project to increase flow capacity at Highway 101 and adjacent frontage roads. Impacts from these activities will be evaluated in the FS/EIS. c. Alternative 3 includes constructing floodwalls along the channel. This Alternative would consider the addition of floodwalls in Reach 2 as a stand-alone measure and in combination with the bridge replacement and channel widening in Alternative 2. d. Alternative 4 would consider the addition of a bypass culvert as a stand-alone measure and in combination with the bridge replacement and channel widening in Alternative 2. This alternative may include floodwalls, though at a reduced scale compared to Alternative 3. This alternative includes a new bypass inlet located a few hundred feet upstream from University Avenue that would divert high flows to a culvert beneath Woodland Avenue or a street in Palo Alto. A box culvert would follow a roadway in the downstream direction for approximately 1.0 to 1.5 miles to an outlet structure where high flows would be returned to the creek. 4. Environmental Considerations. In all cases, environmental considerations will include riparian habitat, aquatic habitat, sediment budget, fish passage, recreation, public access, aesthetics, cultural resources, and environmental justice as well as other potential environmental issues of concern. 5. Scoping Process. The USACE and SFCJPA are seeking input from interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American representatives, and other interested private organizations and parties through provision of this notice and holding of a scoping meeting. The purpose of this meeting is to solicit input regarding the environmental issues of concern and the alternatives that should be discussed in the integrated FS/EIS. The public scoping meeting will be held on January 18, 2017 at 6:30 p.m. at the Laurel School Upper Campus, 275 Elliott Drive in Menlo Park, CA. 6. Availability of integrated FS/EIS. The public will have an additional opportunity in the NEPA process to comment on the proposed alternatives after the draft integrated FS/EIS is released to the public in 2017. It is being issued pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508). John C. Morrow, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers District Engineer. [FR Doc. 2016-30985 Filed 12-22-16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3720-58-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / Notices 94351
http://www.georgecountylakesEIS.com is the lead agency for this project under many places throughout the watershed.
at least 15 days prior to the meeting. NEPA. The SFCJPA is the lead agency Flooding on San Francisquito Creek
Comments are encouraged from the for this project under the California affects the cities of Menlo Park and East
public as well as Federal, state, and Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and the
local agencies and officials, Indian will be preparing a separate city of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County.
tribes, and other interested parties so Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Flooding from San Francisquito Creek
that the scope of the EIS may be DATES: Written comments from all has been a common occurrence. The
properly identified. interested parties are encouraged and most recent flood event occurred in
7. Coordination: The proposed action must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. December 2012, and the flood of record
is being coordinated with a number of on February 17, 2017. occurred in February 1998, when the
Federal and State agencies, including ADDRESSES: Written comments and
Creek overtopped its banks in several
the U.S. Environmental Protection requests for information should be sent areas, affecting approximately 1,700
Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to Eric Jolliffe, U.S. Army Corps of residential and commercial structures
Mississippi Department of Engineers, San Francisco District, 1455 and causing more than $26.6 million in
Environmental Quality, and Mississippi Market St., 17th floor, San Francisco, property damages. After these floods,
Department of Marine Resources. These CA 94103, eric.f.jolliffe@usace.army.mil. the SFCJPA was formed to pursue flood
agencies were requested by the USACE control and restoration opportunities in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
to be cooperating agencies for the EIS the area.
Eric Jolliffe, (415) 503–6869. The current USACE Feasibility Study
per Council on Environmental Quality
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The San is a continuation of the authority passed
regulations at 40 CFR 1501.6.
Francisquito Creek watershed on May 22, 2002 by the Committee on
Collaboration with other agencies,
encompasses an area of approximately Transportation and Infrastructure of the
including state resource protection
45 square miles, extending from the United States House of Representatives,
agencies, is anticipated during the EIS
ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to which is in accordance with Section 4
process.
8. Availability of the Draft EIS: The San Francisco Bay in California. The of the Flood Control Act of 1941. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will majority of the watershed lies in the resolution reads as follows:
advertise the availability of a Draft Santa Cruz Mountains and Bay Foothills ‘‘Resolved by the Committee on
Environmental Impact Statement when northwest of Palo Alto; the remaining Transportation and Infrastructure of the
it becomes available for the public 7.5 square miles lie on the San United States House of Representatives,
review. Francisquito alluvial fan near San That, the Secretary of the Army, in
Francisco Bay. accordance with Section 4 of the Flood
Brenda S. Bowen, The San Francisquito Creek Control Act of 1941, is hereby requested
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. watershed contains mainstem San to conduct a study of the Guadalupe
[FR Doc. 2016–30988 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am] Francisquito Creek and the main River and Tributaries, California, to
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P tributary streams of West Union Creek, determine whether flood damage
Corte Madera Creek, Bear Creek and Los reduction, environmental restoration
Trancos Creek. Los Trancos Creek and and protection, storm water retention,
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE lower San Francisquito Creek form the water conservation and supply,
boundary between San Mateo and Santa recreation and other allied purposes are
Department of the Army, Corps of Clara counties. The reaches are divided advisable in the interest of the San
Engineers up as follows: Reach 1 extends from San Francisquito Creek Watershed,
Francisco Bay to the upstream face of including San Francisquito Creek, Santa
Intent To Prepare an Integrated Highway 101; Reach 2 extends from
Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact Clara and San Mateo Counties,
Highway 101 to El Camino Real; Reach California.’’
Statement for the San Francisquito 3 continues from El Camino Real to 2. Proposed Action. The integrated
Creek Flood Risk Management Study, Sand Hill Road; and Reach 4 continues FS/EIS will consider the environmental
San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, from Sand Hill Road to the ridge of the impact of potential flood risk
CA Santa Cruz Mountains. This FS/EIS will management projects with the end goal
AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. investigate flood risk management of reducing flood damage in the San
Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. solutions related to breakout flow in Francisquito Creek Watershed.
ACTION: Notice of intent. Reach 2 only. The entire watershed will 3. Project Alternatives. The integrated
be considered when developing FS/EIS will include four alternatives.
SUMMARY: The Department of the Army solutions to address flooding in Reach 2. a. No Action: Alternative 1 is the No
and the San Francisquito Creek Joint The non-Federal sponsor for the Action Plan. With the No Action Plan
Powers Authority (SFCJPA) hereby give Feasibility phase of the study is the (which is the ‘‘Future Without-Project
notice of intent to prepare an integrated SFCJPA. The SFCJPA is comprised of Condition’’), it is assumed that no long-
Feasibility Study/Environmental Impact the following member agencies: the City term actions would be taken to reduce
Statement (FS/EIS) for the San of Palo Alto; the City of Menlo Park; the flood damage along San Francisquito
Francisquito Creek Flood Risk City of East Palo Alto; the Santa Clara Creek; flood control improvements
Management Project in San Mateo and Valley Water District; and the San would consist of emergency fixes to
Santa Clara Counties, CA to consider Mateo County Flood Control District. damage areas, consistent with available
opportunities to reduce fluvial flooding, 1. Background. The carrying capacity funding.
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
to reduce the risk to public safety due of San Francisquito Creek is affected by b. Alternative 2 includes replacing
to flooding consistent with protecting the presence of development, bridges and widening channel
the Nation’s environment, in accordance vegetation, sedimentation, land constriction points to provide additional
with national environmental statutes, subsidence, levee settlement, erosion, channel capacity in Reach 2 between
applicable executive orders, and other and culverts and bridges in the project Highway 101 and El Camino Real.
Federal planning requirements. The area. Erosion has caused the Under this alternative, bridges and
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) undermining of roads and structures in channel constrictions or ‘‘bottlenecks’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:33 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_94598/page/1.svg)
![94352 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 247 / Friday, December 23, 2016 / Notices
that cause creek flows to back up and Council on Environmental Quality 1. Authority. The study is authorized
rise would be widened to increase regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508). under Section 216 of the 1970 Rivers
channel conveyance and thus reduce and Harbor Act, Public Law 91–611,
John C. Morrow,
water surface elevation. Included in this 91st Congress, H.R. 19877, dated 31
widening is a proposed project element Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers December 1970.
District Engineer. 2. Proposed Action. The study will
to align the channel with a CalTrans
project to increase flow capacity at [FR Doc. 2016–30985 Filed 12–22–16; 8:45 am] evaluate a range of alternatives for
Highway 101 and adjacent frontage BILLING CODE 3720–58–P deepening and widening the MSC from
roads. Impacts from these activities will offshore in the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf)
be evaluated in the FS/EIS. through the Point Comfort turning
c. Alternative 3 includes constructing DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE basin. Modifications to the existing 26-
floodwalls along the channel. This mile long navigation channel are needed
Department of the Army; Corps of
Alternative would consider the addition to reduce transportation costs and
Engineers
of floodwalls in Reach 2 as a stand- increase operational efficiencies of
alone measure and in combination with Intent To Prepare a Draft maritime commerce movement through
the bridge replacement and channel Environmental Impact Statement for the channel. The existing MSC is
widening in Alternative 2. the Matagorda Ship Channel, TX, comprised of an entrance channel about
d. Alternative 4 would consider the Feasibility Study 4 miles long from the Gulf through a
addition of a bypass culvert as a stand- man-made cut across Matagorda
alone measure and in combination with AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Peninsula. The bayside channel is about
the bridge replacement and channel Army Corps of Engineers, DoD. 22 miles long across Matagorda and
widening in Alternative 2. This ACTION: Notice of Intent. Lavaca Bays to Point Comfort with a
alternative may include floodwalls, turning basin at Point Comfort. Offshore
though at a reduced scale compared to SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of and through the Matagorda Peninsula,
Alternative 3. This alternative includes Engineers (USACE) intends to prepare a the channel has a 300-foot bottom width
a new bypass inlet located a few Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and and is maintained at a depth of 40 feet
hundred feet upstream from University Environmental Impact Statement (DIFR– mean lower low water (MLLW).
Avenue that would divert high flows to EIS) to assess the social, economic and Generally, in Matagorda and Lavaca
a culvert beneath Woodland Avenue or environmental effects of widening and Bays, the channel has a 200-foot wide
a street in Palo Alto. A box culvert deepening the Matagorda Ship Channel bottom width and is authorized to a
would follow a roadway in the (MSC) in Calhoun and Matagorda project depth of 38 feet MLLW. In
downstream direction for approximately counties, Texas. The DIFR–EIS will addition to No Action, specific
1.0 to 1.5 miles to an outlet structure evaluate potential impacts of a range of alternatives to be evaluated are expected
where high flows would be returned to alternatives, including the No Action to include nonstructural measures,
the creek. alternative, structural and non- structural alternatives to modify the
4. Environmental Considerations. In structural alternatives which address bayside channels of the MSC at depths
all cases, environmental considerations proposed navigation improvements in ranging from –38 feet to –50 feet MLLW
will include riparian habitat, aquatic the study area. The DIFR–EIS will also and at widths ranging from 200 feet to
habitat, sediment budget, fish passage, present an assessment of impacts 400 feet, and alternatives to modify and
recreation, public access, aesthetics, associated with the placement of extend the Entrance Channel to depths
cultural resources, and environmental dredged material, including potential ranging from –40 feet to –55 fee MLLW
justice as well as other potential new upland, confined placement areas, and at widths ranging from 300 feet to
environmental issues of concern. beneficial use of dredged material sites, 600 feet. The DIFR–EIS will also
5. Scoping Process. The USACE and and at Ocean Dredged Material Disposal evaluate the impacts and potential
SFCJPA are seeking input from Sites (ODMDS). The U.S. Environmental benefits of a dredged material
interested federal, state, and local Protection Agency, as the lead Federal management plan (DMMP) for the
agencies, Native American agency for designation of an ODMDS material that would generated by
representatives, and other interested under Section 102 of the Marine construction and operation of the
private organizations and parties Protection, Research and Sanctuaries modified channel.
through provision of this notice and Act of 1972, will utilize this assessment 3. Scoping. A scoping meeting will be
holding of a scoping meeting. The and public comments on the DIFR–EIS held on January 24, 2017 at the Bauer
purpose of this meeting is to solicit to evaluate the potential designation of Civic Center, 2300 Highway 35 North,
input regarding the environmental a new ODMDS. The non-Federal Port Lavaca, TX 77979, from 5:30 to 7:30
issues of concern and the alternatives sponsor for the study is the Calhoun p.m. USACE requests public scoping
that should be discussed in the Port Authority. comments to: (a) Identify the affected
integrated FS/EIS. The public scoping DATES: Comments on the scope of the public and agency concerns; (b) identify
meeting will be held on January 18, DIFR–EIS will be accepted through the scope of significant issues to be
2017 at 6:30 p.m. at the Laurel School February 13, 2017. addressed in the DIFR–EIS; (c) identify
Upper Campus, 275 Elliott Drive in ADDRESSES: Scoping comments may be
the critical problems, needs, and
Menlo Park, CA. sent to: MSC-Feasibility@usace.army.mil significant resources that should be
6. Availability of integrated FS/EIS. considered in the DIFR–EIS; and (d)
or to USACE, Galveston District, (Attn:
The public will have an additional identify reasonable measures and
mstockstill on DSK3G9T082PROD with NOTICES
RPEC Coastal Section), P.O. Box 1229,
opportunity in the NEPA process to alternatives that should be considered
Galveston, TX 77553–1229.
comment on the proposed alternatives in the DIFR–EIS. Scoping comments are
after the draft integrated FS/EIS is FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
requested to be postmarked by February
released to the public in 2017. It is being Galveston District Public Affairs Office 13, 2017.
issued pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of at 409–766–3004 or swgpao@ 4. Coordination. Further coordination
the National Environmental Policy Act usace.army.mil. with environmental agencies will be
(NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: conducted under the National
VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:33 Dec 22, 2016 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM 23DEN1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/81_FR_94598/page/2.svg)
Document Created: 2016-12-23 12:29:30
Document Modified: 2016-12-23 12:29:30
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Notices | |
| Action | Notice of intent. | |
| Dates | Written comments from all interested parties are encouraged and must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. on February 17, 2017. | |
| Contact | Mr. Eric Jolliffe, (415) 503-6869. | |
| FR Citation | 81 FR 94351 |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR