[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 189 (Friday, September 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 50559-50561]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-24190]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers


Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) 
for Future 404 Permit Actions on the Santa Clara River and its 
Tributaries, Los Angeles County, California

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DOD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Corps will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
(DEIS) for a Proposed General Permit on future 404 permit activities 
associated with the phased development of the Valencia Master Plan 
along a portion of the Santa Calra River and its tributaries, Los 
Angeles County, California. The proposed 404 decision(s) are associated 
with proposed flood control and transportation projects related to 
residential, commercial and industrial development on lands owned by 
Valencia Company. The EIS will address project-specific impacts, 
indirect and cumulative impacts, and a range of alternatives. 
Information in the EIS will be used in the decision whether to issue a 
404 permit or series of permits for future flood control improvements, 
bridges, drainage facilities, and other actions associated with the 
continual development of the region. The draft EIS is currently 
scheduled for public review in early 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Bruce Henderson, Regulatory Branch, CESPL-CO-R, Permit Number 94-
504-BH, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District--300 North 
Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Copies of the Special 
Scoping Notice dated March 16, 1994 may be obtained by calling (213) 
894-5606 and indicating that you are requesting a copy of the Valencia 
Special Scoping Notice, and leaving your name, address (or fax number), 
and phone number. Additional documents relative to the project may be 
reviewed by contacting the Los Angeles District (address above); the 
Ventura Field Office of the Corps of Engineers 2151, Alessandro Drive, 
Suite 255, Ventura CA 93001, (805) 641-1127; or Mr. Mark Subbotin, 
Valencia Company, 23823 Valencia Company, 23823 Valencia Blvd., 
Valencia, CA 91335, (805) 255-4069.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Notices

    A Notice of Intent (NOI) for a previous version of this project was 
issued Oct. 10, 1990. The DEIS was not completed. Since 1990 Valencia 
Company has: (1) Completed hydrologic studies which resulted in 
revisions to the proposed flood control improvements; and (2) explored 
the use of a general permit and Environmental Assessment/Finding of No 
Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the proposed project.
    A Special Scoping Notice to consider a General Permit for the 
project was issued by the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers on 
March 16, 1994 (See below to obtain copies.) Comments were received, 
responded to by the applicant, and reviewed by the Corps. The Corps 
determined that an EIS should be prepared because: (1) Potentially 
significant individual and cumulative impacts to wetlands, riparian 
habitat, and endangered species resources along portions of the river 
might occur; (2) there is a need to evaluate cumulative impacts to such 
resources from other discharges in the vicinity; and (3) other permit 
processes in the watershed have generated impacts to the biological 
community. The Corps further determined that it was premature to make a 
decision regarding whether a General Permit was the appropriate form of 
permit for this project. This determination was based on the fact that 
it appeared that the proposed project, with mitigation, could not meet 
the ``minimal impacts'' requirement for a General Permit.

Study Area

    The project area includes 2.0 liner miles of the South Fork of the 
Santa Clara River, the mouth of Bouquet Creek, 2.5 linear miles of San 
Francisquito Creek, 7.6 linear miles of the mainstream of the Santa 
Clara River and jurisdictional tributaries from near the Los Angeles 
Aqueduct crossing to the Castaic Creek confluence.

Proposed Action

    The proposed action is the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section 
404 permit or set of permits to Valencia Company that would authorize 
numerous flood control and drainage facilities, and bridges over a 15 
to 20 year period. These public works projects will be associated with 
various residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational 
developments. Most of the proposed development projects would be 
carried out by Valencia Company; however, several of the identified 
projects may be constructed by others, using the proposed permit issued 
to Valencia Company. If a general permit is issued, it would apply to 
other applicants in addition to Valencia Company.
    Valencia Company is currently planning and constructing various 
component projects of the Valencia Master Plan along portions of the 
Santa Clara River and its tributaries. Certain projects along the river 
and its tributaries will result in excavation and/or the discharge of 
dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (``waters'') 
as defined in 33 CFR 320-330 under provisions of Section 404 of the 
Clean Water Act. These activities require a Department of the Army 
permit. Projects resulting in excavation and/or discharges include 
channel bank protection for flood control, drainage structures, 
bridges, fill, mitigation or other encroachment into the Santa Clara 
River and its tributaries.
    The proposed action to be addressed in the EIS has been 
substantially revised since the 1990 NOI, but is essentially the same 
as that described as the ``Natural River Management Concept'' in the 
1994 Special Scoping Notice. This concept includes the following 
elements: (1) Channel bank protection will be placed only where 
necessary; (2) bank protection will be placed such that 

[[Page 50560]]
impacts to wetlands along the river will be avoided or minimized where 
practicable; (3) a balance of wetland losses and wetland gains (by 
mitigation) will be sought; and (4) as proposed, clearing of vegetation 
in the finished river channel for maintenance purposes will not be 
necessary. (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works is in 
concurrence with this goal for most areas of the proposed project. 
Negotiations on the details of the maintenance agreement 
(``agreement'') between Valencia Company and L.A. County Public Works 
are in process. The agreement must be signed prior to completion of the 
DEIS in order that the agreement and a discussion of its ramifications 
can be included in the DEIS. (If the signed agreement cannot be 
included in the DEIS other alternative maintenance regimes will be 
considered in the DEIS.)

Scope of Analysis in the EIS

    The scope of the EIS impact analysis will follow the directives in 
33 CFR 325 (Appendices B and C) which require the scope of an EIS be 
limited to the impacts of the specific activities requiring a 404 
permit and only those portions of the project outside of waters where 
there is sufficient federal control and responsibility to warrant 
federal review. The latter activities are characterized as those which 
would not occur ``but for'' the 404 discharge activity. That is, 
related actions that are clearly and solely dependent upon the nearby 
404 activities.
    The EIS will address impacts of facilities that would occur within 
jurisdictional waters. In addition, the EIS will address adjacent land 
development projects in the ``but for zone'' (see below) that are 
directly dependent on adjacent bank protection or levees.
    The EIS will address potential permitting strategies in which an 
individual permit, general permit, or combination of individual, 
nationwide, and/or general permits, are issued. The permit timeframe 
would be 5 years, with administrative renewals over a 15 to 20 year 
period in accordance with Corps regulations.

``But for Zone''

    The EIS will clearly delineate a ``but for zone'' along the edge of 
jurisdictional waters. The boundary of the ``but for zone'' to be used 
as the upland limit of the EIS impact assessment is defined as 105 feet 
inland from the existing river bank. The 105 feet determination is 
based on information that 105 feet is the distance necessary to move 
the levee laterally in order that both the toe of the levee and the 
construction zone would be behind the bank (i.e. all structures and 
construction would be in uplands and therefore not regulated by the 
Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Bank protection 
installed within ``but for zone'' will result in permanent or temporary 
discharges of dredged or fill material to waters, and therefore require 
a 404 permit. Bank protection installed outside this zone, would not 
affect waters and therefore would not require a 404 permit.
    Valencia Company submitted the following statement in justification 
for limiting the lateral extent of the Scope of Analysis to 105 feet:

``Arguments For Justifying The Development Assumptions Outside

The ``But For'' Zone, Valencia Master Plan 404 Permit

    The scope of the EIS impact analysis will follow the directives 
in 33 CFR 325 that require the scope of an EIS be limited to the 
impacts of the specific activities requiring a 404 permit, and only 
those portions of the project outside of ``waters'' over which the 
Corps has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant federal 
review. The latter activities would include actions that would not 
occur ``but for'' the 404 discharge activity. That is, related 
actions that are clearly and solely dependent upon the nearby 404 
activities.
    The boundary of the ``but for zone'' to be used as the upland 
limit of the EIS impact assessment is defined as 105 feet inland 
from the existing river bank. Bank protection installed in uplands 
within this zone will result in temporary impact to ``waters,'' and 
therefore require a 404 permit. Bank protection installed outside 
would not affect ``waters'', and therefore would not require a 404 
permit.
    The impacts of future land development and public works projects 
outside the ``but for zone'' would not be addressed in the EIS 
because it is a reasonable assumption that such projects would occur 
with or without the issuance of a 404 permit for bank protection, 
which would allow land development within the ``but for zone''. In 
other words, future land development and public works projects are 
independent of the proposed bank protection and will not be 
addressed in the EIS as an action that is linked, dependent upon, or 
otherwise caused by the proposed 404 permit. The justification for 
this approach is based on the reasonable assumption that lands 
outside the ``but for zone'' where the Corps has no permit 
jurisdiction will be developed in the future. This assumption is 
based on the following considerations:
    1. There are tremendous economic and population pressures in the 
region. The population of the Santa Clarita Valley has been growing 
rapidly since 1970 and 1980. The valley experienced a 23.7% increase 
in population. Between 1980 and 1989, the population doubled to 
approximately 154,000 people. The City and County's General Plans 
project populations which will double again by the year 2010. The 
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted a new 
demographic projections in June 1994 which showed the Santa Clarita 
Valley population at 462,000 people by the year 2015.
    Employment is expected to increase by even greater percentage. 
SCAG Forecasts from the City of Santa Clarita General Plan shows 
employment growing from an estimated 23,000 in 1984 to 97,000 jobs 
in the year 2010, an increase of over 315%. At its peak in the late 
1980's industrial square footage was being added at a rate of a 
million square feet per year. Another measure of demand for 
industrial square footage is the vacancy rate which is currently 
6.5% in the Valencia Industrial Center. This compares to 11.3% in 
the San Fernando Valley and 12.7% in Southern California. Retail 
commercial space has shown similar strengths in the Santa Clarita 
Valley. The Santa Clarita area has exhibited an annual retail sales 
rate of 11.5% in the last seven years, compared to retail sales rate 
of only 2% in the last five years in California.
    2. Lands outside the ``but for zone'' in the City are zoned for 
development. Lands outside the ``but for zone'' in the City of Santa 
Clarita are zoned for residential, commercial, and industrial uses 
and are surrounded by these same land uses. Valencia Company intends 
to continue this type of development to meet the demands of the 
growing population in the Santa Clarita Valley. One of the principal 
components of the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan is the 
``Valley Center Concept''. This concept is intended to create a 
valley identity and to unify surrounding communities by designating 
a central core of the valley. Within this area, higher density 
residential and commercial land uses would be allowed to permit 
lower densities in the surrounding communities. The Santa Clara 
River corridor is the major opportunity to link the components of 
the center together with the uniform theme of natural open space 
preservation and river enhancement.
    3. Land outside the ``but for zone'' in the unincorporated 
portions of the County are designated for commercial and industrial 
development in the General Plan. Many are still zoned for 
agriculture; however, zone change requests for residential, 
commercial, and industrial uses are being processed by the County to 
make the zoning consistent with the General Plan designations and 
allow urban development. Valencia Company and others intend to 
continue residential, commercial, and industrial developments to 
meet the demands of the growing population in the region.
    4. Lands outside the ``but for zone'' in the County are zoned 
for Development. Land development outside the ``but for zone'' is 
feasible without adjacent 404 permits. If a Corps permit were not 
issued and the ``but for zone'' was not developed, land development 
would still be feasible outside the ``but for zone''. However, less 
land would be available and many parcels would be reduced in size 
and altered in terms of their configurations. These effects would 
reduce the value and potential uses of these 

[[Page 50561]]
properties. However, these lands are located within areas already 
surrounded by urban land uses. As such, there is a high priority to 
develop these lands prior to developing lands at more remote 
locations in the Santa Clarita Valley for several reasons: (1) The 
infrastructure is already present in these areas; and (2) the City 
and County General Plans emphasize in-filling of such areas within 
the urbanized portions of the valley in order to prevent scattered 
and disjunct development of outlying areas.
    Development of flood protection features outside the ``but for 
zone'' if feasible. Such protection could involve several options: 
(1) Elevating land development projects above the floodway in 
accordance with Los Angeles County requirements; or (2) excavating 
dry land and installing levees and/or bank protection. Hence, the 
distance of the ``but for zone'' from the river (105 or more feet) 
would not represent a constraint on flood protection improvements.
    Based on the above considerations, the assumption that the land 
outside the ``but for zone'' would be developed with or without the 
proposed 404 permit is reasonable.

Key Environmental Impacts

    The key types of environmental impacts to be addressed in the EIS 
are listed below:
    a. Riparian habitat and wetlands--Future flood control projects 
could result in the permanent or temporary loss or temporary 
disturbance of riparian and wetland habitat. The Valencia Master Plan 
includes the creation and restoration of riparian and wetland habitats 
along the river to compensate for these losses in other portions of the 
river. The EIS will assess the loss or gain of these resources over the 
short term and long term based on their acreages, functions, and 
values.
    b. Threatened and endangered species--Portions of the Santa Clara 
River support the Federally listed endangered unarmored threespine 
stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni).
    In addition, riparian habitat along the river provides potentially 
suitable habitat for the Federally listed endangered least Bell's vireo 
(Vireo belli pusillus). These species could be affected by loss of 
wetlands, change in hydrologic conditions, and increased urban runoff. 
Species Proposed or designated as Candidates for Federal listing will 
also be addressed in the EIS.
    c. Hydraulics, hydrology, and water quality--The EIS will address 
the effects of bank protection, bridges, and adjacent upland 
development on the river's hydrology, flood hazard conditions, 
hydraulic characteristics, sediment transport, and water quality.
    d. The EIS will also address impacts of the proposed action (within 
the scope of analysis) related to air quality, groundwater, recreation, 
visual resources, noise, traffic, land use, and cultural resources.

Cumulative Impacts

    The EIS will address the combined effects of various future flood 
control facilities and urban development encroaching into the river 
from Lang Station (7.1 miles upstream of the east end of the project 
reach) to the Ventura County line 4.1 miles downstream of the west end 
of the project reach), including major tributaries. The assessment will 
focus on adverse cumulative impacts to water quality, sediment 
transport conditions, riparian and wetland habitat, and threatened and 
endangered species. Other cumulative impacts will also be addressed 
regarding air quality, groundwater, recreation, visual resources, and 
cultural resources.

Alternatives

    The following alternatives will be addressed in the EIS: (1) No 
action Alternative--denial of a long-term comprehensive permit and lack 
of any new Section 404 authorizations allowing future development 
projects; limited authorizations issued by the Corps would be presumed 
only for emergency work on existing projects and minimal impact 
maintenance projects; (2) Full Encroachment Alternative--conventional 
uniform bank protection according to previous Los Angeles County Public 
Works Department plans, resulting in encroachment into the river at 
most locations (which would maximize developable land); (3) Complete 
Avoidance Alternative-placement of levees and bank protection outside 
of waters at all locations, avoiding the need for a Corps 404 permit 
except at bridge and side drain locations; (4) Refined Proposed Project 
Alternative--the proposed project with revisions to the channel 
alignment and placement to avoid certain site-specific impacts or 
highly sensitive areas that will be identified in the EIS impact 
studies; (5) Other Alternatives--other alternatives identified in the 
public scoping process that are consistent with the project objectives 
and do not have other new significant impacts; and (6) Permitting 
Alternatives--a range of permitting process alternatives, including 
various combinations of general, nationwide, and individual permits and 
administrative processes.

Public Involvement

    Interested parties are encouraged to be involved in the scoping 
process by sending written comments concerning the scope of the EIS to 
the contact person noted above. Written comments on the NOI are due to 
Corps Regulatory at the address noted below no later than October 31, 
1995.
    In addition, a public scoping meeting is scheduled for October 5, 
1995, 7:00 pm to 10 pm, at the Valencia Hilton Garden Inn in the 
Pacific A and B rooms, 27710 The Old Road, Valencia. Interested parties 
are encouraged to attend.
Richard J. Schubel,
Acting Regulatory Branch.
[FR Doc. 95-24190 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-KF-M