[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