[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