[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 19, 1999)]
[Notices]
[Pages 27240-27243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-12619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers


Notice of Intent To Prepare and Notice of Preparation of a Joint 
Environmental Impact Statement and Environmental Impact Report for 
Master Plans for Flood Damage Reduction and Integrated Ecosystem 
Restoration in the Sacramento River Basin and in the San Joaquin River 
Basins, California

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Sacramento District, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of Intent.

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

SUMMARY: The action being taken is a feasibility-level investigation to 
formulate master plans for flood damage reduction and integrated 
ecosystem restoration in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River basins 
and develop a strategy for project implementation that will identify 
immediate and long-term implementation objectives for resolving 
flooding and interrelated ecosystem problems in the two basins. The 
need to formulate master plans for flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration in these basins results from changed circumstances and new 
information. The study area encompasses the watersheds of the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers but concentrates on problems 
associated with the channels and floodplains of these rivers and their 
major tributaries. A wide array of measures will be investigated. A 
combined Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report 
(EIS/EIR) will be prepared to satisfy the requirements of the National 
Environmental Policy Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. 
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will serve as the Federal lead agency 
for the EIS with The Reclamation Board of the

[[Page 27241]]

State of California, the non-Federal sponsor, serving as the State lead 
agency for the EIR.

DATES: The public is asked to submit any issues (points of concern, 
debate, dispute or disagreement) regarding potential effects of the 
proposed action or alternatives by July 2, 1999. Through a series of 
scoping meetings, the Comprehensive Study will seek public input on 
alternatives, concerns, and issues to be addressed in the EIS/EIR. 
Scoping meetings are scheduled for June 1999, as follows: June 21 in 
Yuba City; June 23 in Red Bluff, June 24 in Sacramento, June 28 in 
Fresno, and June 29 in Modesto. Interested parties are requested to 
call or write to be included on the mailing list for specific meeting 
locations and times.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions about the proposed action 
and EIS/EIR can be answered by Tanis Toland, Comprehensive Study Team, 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1325 J Street, Sacramento, California, 
95814-2922. Phone number--916-557-5140.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background

    Federal construction of the first components of the present flood 
management system for the Sacramento River began in 1918. Since that 
time, a number of large projects have been constructed to comprise the 
present system. The flood management system for the San Joaquin River 
began to develop at about the same time and consists of a series of 
large federal projects constructed through the 1970's. However, 
development in the San Joaquin River basin was generally more piecemeal 
and less coordinated than development in the Sacramento River basin.

    From 1900 to 1997, the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins 
experienced 13 large floods. The latest floods--in 1983, 1986, 1995, 
and 1997--caused extensive damages in both basins and raised questions 
about the adequacy of the current flood management systems and land use 
in the floodplains. The flood of 1997 was one of the most 
geographically extensive in California's long history of flooding. 
Along with the floods of 1983, 1986, and 1995, the flood of 1997 
emphasized the urgent need for comprehensive flood management plans 
that would integrate flood management within each of the two river 
basins as well as preserve and restore the ecosystem. In response to 
the devastation of the 1997 flood, the Governor of California formed 
the Flood Emergency Action Team (FEAT). In its report, dated May 10, 
1997, the FEAT recommended the development of a new master plan for 
improved flood management in the Central Valley of California. Also in 
response to the 1997 flood, the U.S. House of Representatives directed 
the Corps of Engineers to conduct a comprehensive assessment of the 
entire flood control system and develop ``comprehensive plans for flood 
control and environmental restoration.''

2. Public Involvement

    a. In 1998, stakeholder focus groups were formed by the study 
management group to encourage public participation in problem 
identification. The many meetings and forums enabled diverse groups to 
share their perceptions of the problems; in turn, agency 
representatives were able to achieve a better understanding of the 
concerns of the public and other agencies. Ten local support group 
meetings were held between November 5 and December 1, 1998, in Fresno, 
Merced, Modesto, Sacramento, Knights Landing, Colusa, Marysville, Red 
Bluff, Willows, and Chico. The Corps and The Reclamation Board held an 
additional support group meeting with the California Environmental 
Water Caucus in February 1999. Information from these meetings, 
together with the agency's analysis of existing and new technical and 
scientific information, and legal requirements, were used in framing 
the problems, planning objectives, potential measures, and approach to 
formulating and implementing the master plans for flood damage 
reduction and integrated ecosystem restoration presented in this Notice 
of Intent.

    b. Agency and stakeholder comments received during this period 
reflected a wide range of social perspectives. Participants largely 
agreed on broad principles but had many different perspectives on how 
the principles might be implemented. The wide variation in community 
responses confirmed the need to include local residents, as well as 
regional and national interests, in the design and refinement of 
measures, alternatives, and the master plans. The recommendations and 
suggestions received during meetings will be reviewed again during the 
scoping period.

3. Scope

    a. The preliminary selection of problems for inclusion in the EIS/
EIR was based on the following criteria: (1) New technical and 
scientific information is available about the extent, intensity, or 
duration of the problems, (2) geographic scale is broad, (3) public 
perception of flooding and/or interrelated environmental risk, as 
judged by the technical and science communities, indicate action should 
be taken now, and (4) the problems are not adequately addressed from a 
geographic standpoint by other programs.

    b. A single EIS/EIR is proposed because: (1) Some problems may only 
be addressed at a system-wide scale, (2) the public, Indian Tribes, 
other governmental agencies, the Corps and The Reclamation Board need 
to consider ways to meet flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration goals in an integrated, balanced, and system-wide scale, 
and (3) implementation can be made more efficient and effective.

    c. Flood problems identified for action in this EIS/EIR are:

    (1) The flood management system lacks adequate capacity. The flood 
management system was designed in the early 1900's based upon 
hydrologic information available at that time and does not have the 
capacity to convey peak floodflows recently experienced. In addition, 
since 1910, conditions such as levee subsidence, sediment transport, 
erosion, and deposition have changed.

    (2) Accurate information about flood risk is not available for 
parts of the system. For many parts of the system, the level of flood 
protection is not known and may not be correlated to the value of 
property at risk of flooding.

    (3) The structural integrity of the flood management system is not 
reliable. In some parts of the system, the structural integrity of the 
levees is not reliable.

    (4) System maintenance costs are high. The cost to maintain the 
system is extremely high because erosive floodflows damage the levees, 
which must be continually protected, usually with rock riprap. In turn, 
the riprap may affect riparian habitat and aquatic habitat, and the 
costs to mitigate the loss of riparian habitat have risen dramatically.

    (5) Operating flexibility is limited. There is little flexibility 
in operating the system to optimize flood protection because no system 
model for evaluating operational changes has been developed.

    d. Ecosystem Problems identified for action in this EIS/EIR are:

    (1) Loss of natural hydrologic and geomorphic processes. Confining 
floodflows in reservoirs and between levees has caused the loss of 
natural hydrologic and geomorphic processes.

    (2) Loss of fish and wildlife habitat. Habitat for fish and 
wildlife has been lost or severely degraded as a result of loss of 
natural processes.


[[Page 27242]]


    (3) Mitigating for loss of habitat is difficult. Mitigating for 
loss of habitat has been challenging because of funding constraints and 
impacts of mitigation measures to the structural integrity of the 
system and to the level of protection of the system (for instance, 
planting on the levees). Also, mitigation sites are sometimes either 
not available or are not suitable for creating habitat comparable to 
habitat at sites affected.

    (4) Ecosystem restoration opportunities are limited. Restoration of 
habitats and critical ecosystems has been limited by the lack of 
natural stream processes.

    (5) Invasive nonnative species threaten native species. Nonnative 
plants and animals threaten the survival of native species. Invasive 
nonnative plants can also decrease floodway capacity.

4. Purpose and Need for Action

    a. The impacts of recent floods, together with changes in public 
values and priorities, and advances in scientific knowledge have led to 
the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the existing flood 
management systems and development of comprehensive master plans for 
flood damage reduction and integrated ecosystem restoration. The 
purpose of the proposed action is to develop and implement master plans 
to reduce flood damages and integrate ecosystem restoration in the 
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins.

    b. Three general planning objectives guide this feasibility-level 
investigation:

    (1) improve flood risk management throughout the system; (2) 
integrate protection and restoration of ecosystem into the flood damage 
reduction measures; and (3) resolve policy issues and address limiting 
institutional procedures.

5. Proposed Action

    a. The proposed action, which is the development and implementation 
of master plans for flood damage reduction and integrated ecosystem 
restoration, responds to the needs identified above, the Governor's 
FEAT Report, direction from Congress, and concerns raised during 
stakeholder and agency focus group meetings.

    b. The proposed action calls for analysis of flood damage and 
interrelated ecosystem restoration problems and potential solutions at 
the watershed and sub-watershed scale to: (1) Link decisions at the 
project scale to larger scale decisions, (2) coordinate the master 
plans with the efforts of other agencies and interagency efforts, like 
CALFED, (3) prioritize and establish appropriate implementation 
sequencing within each of the two basins, and (4) facilitate 
collaborative planning and implementation.

    c. The proposed action will be implemented using a collaborative 
process to ensure coordination and consideration of the needs of other 
federal agencies, Indian Tribes, state and local governments and 
individuals. This involvement will help shape the master plans for 
flood damage reduction and integrated ecosystem restoration so that 
flood damages are reduced and ecosystem values are restored and 
maintained while taking into consideration other needs including local 
and regional economics, agriculture, water supply, and others. 
Implementation is proposed to be staged. Spin-off projects will be 
developed and implemented under existing authorities throughout the 
study. Early implementation projects will be identified and developed 
to feasibility-level and recommended for Congressional authorization 
and implementation in the Comprehensive Study Final Report. Full 
implementation of the master plans is expected to extend beyond the 
early implementation projects. The master plans would serve as a guide 
for future project development and for decisions about emergency 
response activities. The master plans will ensure that site-specific 
projects and actions are fully coordinated and integrated.

6. Alternatives

    The feasibility-level report and EIS/EIR will address an array of 
measures and alternatives for reducing flood damages and restoring 
interrelated ecosystem values. Alternatives analyzed during the 
feasibility-level investigation will be a combination of one or more 
measures identified from many sources, including early public 
involvement. Additional measures may be added and existing measures 
will be refined during public scoping. Potential measures: creating or 
modifying storage capacity and/or reservoir releases or otherwise 
affecting flow regimes; setting back or raising levees; constructing 
backup levees; improving or creating bypass systems; managing floodway 
vegetation and sediment; creating meanderbelts; and managing vegetation 
within exiting floodways; protecting streambanks; strengthening, 
raising, or repairing levees, and controlling seepage; modifying 
existing buildings to reduce future damage; discouraging future 
development in the flood plains; and redirecting incompatible land use 
and development out of the floodway/floodplain and other miscellaneous 
floodplain management actions.

7. Proposed Scoping Process

    a. This Notice of Intent initiates the scoping process whereby the 
Corps and The Reclamation Board will identify the scope of issues to be 
addressed in the EIS/EIR and identify the significant environmental 
issues related to the proposed action. The Corps and The Reclamation 
Board have initiated a process of involving concerned individuals, 
local, state, and Federal agencies.

    b. Public comment is invited on the proposal to prepare the EIS/EIR 
and on the scope of issues to be included in the EIS/EIR.

    c. The Corps and The Reclamation Board will consult, local, State 
and Federal agencies with regulatory or implementation responsibility 
for, or expertise with, the resources in the area of investigation. 
These include local planning and zoning jurisdictions, the State 
Historic Preservation Officer, California Department of Fish and Game, 
Department of Food and Agriculture, Department of Water Resources, 
California Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Parks and 
Recreation, Department of Boating and Waterways, Regional Water Quality 
Control Boards, Office of Emergency Services, State Lands Commission, 
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
National Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.

    d. Community meetings with interested publics will be held during 
scoping, after release of the Draft EIS/EIR, and after release of the 
Final EIS/EIR/ Coordination with Federal and State agencies, Tribal 
governments, and local governments will occur throughout the scoping 
process.

    e. In June 1999, community scoping workshops will be held in Yuba 
City, Red Bluff, Sacramento, Fresno, and Modesto. Specific locations, 
dates, and times of the meetings will be posted on the Internet at 
www.spk.usace.army.mil/civ/ssj and in the newspaper of record for each 
region. The purpose of these meetings is to explain the Notice of 
Intent and the Notice of Preparation, and to solicit suggestions, 
recommendations, and comments to help refine the issues, measures, and 
alternatives to be addressed in the EIS/EIR.

    f. A 45-day public review period will be provided for individuals 
and agencies to review and comment on the draft EIS/EIR. All interested 
parties should respond to this notice and

[[Page 27243]]

provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the draft EIS/
EIR circulation.

8. Availability

    The draft EIS/EIR is scheduled to be available for public review 
and comment in 2001.

9. Decision To Be Made and Responsible Official

    The Commander, Sacramento District is the Corps NEPA official 
responsible for compliance with NEPA for actions within the District's 
boundaries. The Reclamation Board is responsible for CEQA actions for 
the Comprehensive Study. After completion of review, the Chief of 
Engineers will sign his final report and transmit the report and 
accompanying documents to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil 
Works (ASA(CW)). After review, ASA(CW) will transmit the report to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) requesting its views in relation 
to the programs of the President. After OMB provides its views, ASA(CW) 
will sign the record of decision (ROD) and transmit the report to 
Congress. The responsible officials are: COL Michael Walsh, District 
Engineer, Sacramento District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1325 J 
Street, Sacramento, CA 95814-2922; Ms. Barbara LaVake, President, The 
Reclamation Board of the State of California, 1416 Ninth Street, 
Sacramento, CA 95814.

10. Coordination With Other Agencies

    While the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is the lead Federal agency 
and The Reclamation Board of California is the lead State agency with 
responsibility to prepare this EIS/EIR, 17 State and Federal Agencies 
and the interagency CALFED program participate on the Executive 
Committee for this feasibility-level investigation. The Executive 
Committee provides broad study direction, assists in resolving emerging 
policy issues, and ensures that the study effort and its results are 
consistent and coordinated. State agencies participating on the 
Executive Committee are the Department of Water Resources, Department 
of Food and Agriculture, Department of Fish and Game, State Water 
Resources Control Board, Department of Parks and Recreation, Department 
of Boating and Waterways, State Lands Commission, and Office of 
Emergency Services. Federal agencies participating on the Executive 
Committee are U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Federal Emergency 
Management Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, Natural Resources 
Conservation Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land 
Management, and U.S. Geological Survey. The Environmental Protection 
Agency and Fish and Wildlife Service have regulatory responsibilities 
that could not efficiently be considered without direct involvement; 
guidance regarding formal consultation responsibilities under the 
Endangered Species Act will be provided by a Fish and Wildlife Service 
specialist who will participate as a member of the interdisciplinary 
team. Coordination with the California Department of Water Resources 
and the California Department of Fish and Game is necessary because 
some mission responsibilities overlap or are closely aligned with the 
flood and ecosystem management activities of the Corps and The 
Reclamation Board. Each agency will continue to participate as 
resources and competing demands permit. Other agencies, local and 
county governments will also be invited to participate, as appropriate.

11. Commenting

    A draft EIS/EIR is expected to be available for public review and 
comment in 2001; and a final EIS/EIR in 2002. The comment period on the 
draft EIS/EIR will be 45 days from the date of availability published 
in the Federal Register by the Environmental Protection Agency.

    Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names 
and addresses of those who comment, will be considered part of the 
public record on this proposed action and will be available for public 
inspection. Comments submitted anonymously will be accepted and 
considered. Additionally, pursuant to 7 CFR 1.27(d), any person may 
request the agency to withhold a submission from the public record by 
showing how the Freedom of Information (FOIA) permits such 
confidentiality. Persons requesting such confidentiality should be 
aware that, under the FOIA, confidentiality may be granted in only very 
limited circumstances, such as to protect trade secrets. The Corps will 
inform the requester of the agency's decision regarding the request for 
confidentiality, and where the request is denied, the agency will 
return the submission and notify the requester that the comments may be 
resubmitted with or without the name and address.

    Dated: May 11, 1999.
Michael J. Walsh,
COL, EN, Commanding.
[FR Doc. 99-12619 Filed 5-18-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-EZ-P