[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 21401-21404]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9990]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army


Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare a Environmental Impact 
Statement for the Lower Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project, San 
Jose and Santa Clara, CA

AGENCY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

[[Page 21402]]

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), San Francisco 
District, has received an application for a Department of the Army 
authorization from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) to 
construct portions of the Lower Guadalupe River Flood Protection 
Project (LGRP). The project is located on the Guadalupe River in the 
cities of San Jose and Santa Clara, California, between Interstate 880 
and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR) bridge in the Community of Alviso 
and on Alviso Slough from the UPRR bridge to the terminus of Alviso 
Slough with San Francisco Bay. In accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the proposed action 
may have a significant impact on the human environment and therefore 
requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS). A 
combined environmental impact report (EIR)/EIS will be prepared with 
the USACE as the federal lead agency and the SCVWD as the local lead 
agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
    The LGRP was authorized by SCVWD to provide flood protection, 
environmental protection, and public access opportunities, and will be 
designed and constructed to ensure that the channel improvements are 
operated and managed to convey design floodflows in the Guadalupe River 
from Interstate 880 to San Francisco Bay. The LGRP is also 
incorporating measures to avoid existing fish and wildlife habitat, to 
protect special status species, and to meet conditions for water 
quality certification under the Clean Water Act.
    1.  A scoping meeting is scheduled for May 3, 2000, from 6 to 8:30 
p.m.
    2.  Please submit any written comments by May 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: 1. The scoping meeting will be held at the Silicon Valley 
Conference Center, 2161 North First Street, San Jose, California 95113,
    2.  Mail comments to: Robert F. Smith, U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers, 333 Market Street, CESPN-OR-R, San Francisco, CA, 94105-
2197, or
    3.  Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, San 
Jose, CA, 95118-3686.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:   
    1. Robert Smith, (415) 977-8450, or electronic mail: 
[email protected].
    2. Lower Guadalupe River Flood Protection Project, (408) 265-2607 
Ext. 2724, or electronic mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Lower Guadalupe River Flood Protection 
Project (LGRP) reach is located within the cities of San Jose and Santa 
Clara, California, between Interstate 880 and the UPRR bridge in Alviso 
and on Alviso Slough from the UPRR bridge to the terminus of Alviso 
Slough with San Francisco Bay. The primary project area is located 
along approximately 6.5 miles of the lower Guadalupe River and 4.0 
miles along Alviso Slough. The LGRP reach receives runoff from a highly 
urbanized region comprising a steep upper watershed, an urban 
residential and light commercial zone (the upper Guadalupe River), and 
a significantly developed and encroaching downtown commercial zone. 
Storm drainage from these areas and from within the project area is 
also discharged into the lower Guadalupe River, adding to the runoff 
volume.
    The LGRP is being implemented along the Guadalupe River from 
Interstate 880 to the UPRR bridge in Alviso, California. The Downtown 
Guadalupe River Project, located upstream of the LGRP, is scheduled to 
be completed by the end of 2002. Once the downtown project is 
completed, the result will be an increase of peak floodflows that are 
able to reach the lower river reach. Because the lower Guadalupe River 
does not currently have the ability to convey the expected design flood 
event, floodway modifications will be designed and constructed to 
ensure that the channel improvements are operated and managed to convey 
the design floodflow with a peak of 20,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) 
at Alviso.
    The Guadalupe River, located primarily in the cities of San Jose 
and Santa Clara south of San Francisco Bay, drains an area of about 160 
square miles into the Bay. The primary project area is located along 
approximately 4.6 miles of the lower Guadalupe River between Interstate 
880 and UPRR bridge in Alviso.

Reasonable Alternataives

    The following is a brief description of the range of alternatives 
that will be evaluated in the draft EIR/EIS. The SCVWD has not yet 
identified a proposed action and will evaluate the environmental 
impacts of each alternative at an equal level of detail to satisfy the 
requirements of NEPA.
    Alternative 1: Dredging from Montague Expressway to UPRR. Dredging 
is a construction method that removes channel-bottom material. To meet 
the flood-protection objective of the LGRP, the excavation of all or 
most of the material would be required between the inboard levee toes 
in a depth of 2.5-5 meters (8.2-16.4feet)-- from the Montague 
Expressway bridge to the UPRR bridge. Initial hydraulic modeling 
indicates this would increase the capacity of the river sufficiently to 
convey the design flow within the existing levees, including providing 
freeboard. Numerous, potentially major constraints have been identified 
for this alternative that will need to be evaluated more extensively, 
including the following:
     Impacts on approximately 16.2 hectares (40 acres) of 
aquatic habitat and 1.21 hectares (3 acres) of riparian forest and 
other habitat areas.
     Regular Dredging would be required to maintain the 
initially dredged cross sections.
     Structural modifications may be required to bridge piers 
that would become more exposed than in their current condition.
     The Hetch Hetchy Adqueduct and other utilities may need to 
be relocated.
     The order-of-magnitude cost to implement the initial 
dredging is estimated to be $41 million, which excludes any bridge 
modifications. Maintenance dredging would be expected to be performed 
on a scheduled 10-year frequency.
    Alternative 2: Bypass Culvert(s). This alternative would involve 
the construction of a structure that will convey the flows that exceed 
the existing capacity of the lower Guadalupe River to a downstream 
discharge location. The anticipated structure would be a reinforced 
concrete box constructed within one of the existing levees, with an 
invert that follows the toe of the levee. It is expected to extend from 
a location immediately downstream of the U.S. 101 bridge to a location 
shortly downstream of the UPRR bridge. The dimensions would range from 
10 to 15 meters (32.8 to 49.2 feet) wide and between 3.5 and 5 meters 
(11.5 and 16.4 feet) high. A few potentially major constraints have 
been identified for this alternative that will be evaluated more 
extensively, including:
     Constructing the bypass at several bridges, which 
potentially would involve property acquisition at some of the bridges; 
and
     Interferences and the consequent relocations of existing 
utilities, including the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct.
    The order-of-magnitude cost to implement this alternative is 
estimated to be $200 million; maintenance costs have not yet been 
quantified.
    Alternative 3: Floodwalls, Bypasses, and Aggressive Vegetation 
Management. This alternative would involve the construction of 1- to 7-
meter-high (3.28-

[[Page 21403]]

to 23-foot-high) reinforced concrete walls to contain the design flows 
and provide freeboard. There are a number of configurations that may be 
appropriate for the LGRP, with the most cost-effective configuration 
appearing to be one that would maximize the use of the existing right-
of-way (ROW) by placing the floodwalls a short distance inside the ROW, 
along with the removal of the existing levees to provide additional 
conveyance capacity and the reduction of the floodwall heights.
    To allow for maintenance access from the bridge access points to 
the channel, ramps will be needed over the walls, which in turn will 
necessitate jobs in the wall and result in a conveyance constriction. 
This alternative is therefore expected to also include two other 
measures: Aggressive management of vegetation in the channel and 
construction of up to four bridge bypasses (Highway 237, Tasman, 
Montague, and Trimble). Numerous potentially major constraints have 
been identified for this alternative that will be evaluated more 
extensively, including:
     Extensive foundation systems that will be required to 
support free-standing floodwalls, or the use of walls considerably 
farther inside the ROW that are partially supported by the existing 
and/or improved levees;
     Effects on channel habitat, wildlife movement and 
escapement during flood events;
     Interferences and the consequent relocations of existing 
utilities;
     Modifications to the other bridges that may be required to 
ensure that freeboard continues across them (i.e., at the floodwall's 
termination at each bridge); and
     Flood-fighting access would possibly be significantly 
limited should the entire ROW become dedicated to flood conveyance 
(i.e., with the walls placed alongside the outside of the ROW, no room 
is left for access along the ROW that is also outside the flood 
waters).
    The order-of-magnitude cost to implement this alternative is 
estimated to be $100 million; maintenance costs have not yet been 
quantified.
    Alternative 4: Channel Modification, All Concrete, from Montague 
Expressway to UPRR. This alternative would involve the excavation of 
the inboard toe of the existing levees, construction of a vertical or 
near-vertical wall at the inside of the existing levee, and 
construction of a concrete apron at the resulting channel bench. This 
improvement would be constructed between Montague Expressway and the 
UPRR bridge. In places, it is expected that the wall portion would need 
to be extended up to provide a short-height floodwall, that a bypass 
would be required at Highway 237, and that the alternative would 
include selective removal of sediment. The work for this alternative is 
not expected to encroach into wetlands areas, as it is anticipated to 
be entirely constructed above the existing levee toe. No major 
constraints have been identified for this alternative at this time. The 
order-of-magnitude cost to implement this alternative is estimated to 
be $81 million; maintenance costs have not yet been quantified.
    Alternative 5: Channel Modification, Alternate Materials, from 
Montague Expressway to UPRR. This alternative would be similar to 
Alternative 4 above and would also involve the excavation of the 
inboard toe of the existing levees and construction of a vertical or 
near-vertical wall with an apron at the resulting channel bench. 
However, the wall and apron would not be straight planes of concrete, 
they would be constructed of some alternate material(s), such as 
interlocking blocks, mechanically stabilized earth (MSE), gabions 
(gravity wall constructed of stacked wire baskets filled with rocks), 
or deep-rooting vegetation (biostabilization). These improvements would 
also be constructed between Montague Expressway and the UPRR bridge and 
would require selective removal of sediment, a short-height floodwall, 
and construction of a bypass at Highway 237 (as under Alternative 4). 
Further analysis would be performed during the next stage of the 
project to determine the materials and configuration that provide a 
balance of cost, hydraulic function, appearance, and other project 
objectives. Initial hydraulic and structural analyses suggest that, to 
provide the desired water-surface lowering, it is expected that this 
alternative would also include selective management of vegetation in 
the channel. No major constraints have been identified for this 
alternative at this time. The order-of-magnitude cost to implement this 
alternative is estimated to be $65 million; maintenance costs have not 
yet been quantified.
    Alternative 6: No Action. District staff has performed a number of 
maintenance activities along the lower Guadalupe River, including 
sediment removal, debris removal, and vegetation control, with these 
activities constrained in the past 10 years because of increasing 
natural resources regulatory requirements and the increasing concerns 
over sensitive natural resources areas. Nonetheless, maintenance 
activities performed in the past will continue to be needed and 
performed on the lower Guadalupe River. Further LGRP analysis will 
determine the extent of this work, and the extent to which some or all 
of this work is appropriately considered part of the No-Action 
Alternative.
    Alviso Baylands: Each of the action alternatives 1-5, described 
above, would also include an Alviso baylands flood control component 
that is intended to reduce the flooding potential on Alviso Slough near 
the community of Alviso. The focus of the LGRP in Alviso is primarily 
to address the Guadalupe River contribution to flood conditions in the 
area. Six components are currently being considered:
     Extension of improved levees adjacent to Alviso Slough to 
its terminus in the Bay;
     Extension of Alternative 1 dredging in Alviso Slough to 
its terminus in the Bay.
     Construction of setback levees west of Alviso Slough to 
the Bay that provides an auxiliary overflow conveyance system;
     Construction of an engineered overflow structure from 
Alviso Slough to flood easements in Cargill ponds for flood storage or 
conveyance (two components considered);
     Construction of a phased solution with an engineered 
overflow to Cargill ponds, flood easements in Cargill ponds west of 
Alviso Slough isolation of Alviso and pond A8D from LGRP design floods 
and improvements to the New Chicago Marsh source canal flow control 
mechanisms; and
     Tidal restoration of the existing salt ponds adjacent to 
Alviso Slough by phasing out salt production, breaching salt pond 
levees, and allowing tidal processes to reestablish.

Proposed Scoping Process

    This NOI initiates the scoping process whereby the USACE and SCVWD 
will refine the scope of issues to be addressed in the draft EIR/EIS 
and identify potential significant environmental issues related to the 
proposed action.
    a. Issues to be analyzed in depth: The resources for which 
potential adverse effects were identified include:
     River Geomorphology. Operation of the LGRP could result in 
changes in river geomorphology in the subreaches downstream of 
Interstate 880. Post-project monitoring would focus on channel incision 
and sediment deposition.
     Biological Resources. Construction of the LGRP could, 
depending on the

[[Page 21404]]

alternative, require removal of some shaded riverine aquatic cover and 
disturbance of the river channel, impacts to wildlife habitat, possible 
effects on escape areas for wildlife during storm events, and possible 
effects on wildlife movements. Such activities could result in adverse 
effects on fish habitat during and after construction. Anadromous fish 
to be evaluated are steelhead, which is listed as threatened under the 
Endangered Species Act, and chinook salmon.
     Water Quality. Potential construction-related effects on 
water quality include temperature changes, turbidity, and possible 
disturbance and mobilization of mercury present in the sediments.
     Air Quality. Earthmoving associated with constructing 
Alternative 2 could result in increased PM10 (particulate matter less 
than 10 microns in diameter) emissions.
     Transportation and Traffic. Project construction could 
result in temporary construction-related traffic congestion.
     Hazardous Materials. Potential construction-related 
effects on areas surrounding the river would be disturbance and 
mobilization of mercury and other contaminants present in the area 
soils and in the groundwater.
     Cultural Resources. Several cultural resource sites exist 
along the lower Guadalupe River and, depending on the alternative, 
these sites might be disturbed during LGRP construction. In addition, 
unknown cultural resources could be discovered and disturbed during 
construction operations.
    b. Affected federal, state and local agencies, affected Indian 
tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties are 
invited to comment on the proposal to prepare the draft EIR/EIS and on 
the scope of issues to be included therein.
    c. The USACE and SCVWD will consult local, state, and federal 
agencies with regulatory or implementation responsibility for, or 
expertise in, the resources in the area of investigation. These 
include, but are not limited to, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 
National Marine Fisheries Service, and U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency; the State Historic Preservation Officer, California Department 
of Fish and Game, California Environmental Protection Agency, Regional 
Water Quality Control Boards, State Lands Commission, San Francisco Bay 
Conservation and Development Commission, and California Department of 
Transportation; and the City of San Jose and San Jose Redevelopment 
Agency. The USACE will conduct an environmental review of the project 
in accordance with:
     National Environmental Policy Act,
     Section 404 of Clean Water Act,
     Section 10 of Rivers & Harbors Act,
     Endangered Species Act,
     Magnuson-Stevens Act Provisions; Essential Fish Habitat,
     Clean Air Act,
     National Historic Preservation Act,
     Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act,
     Coastal Zone Management Act.
    d. Meetings with interested persons will be held during the scoping 
period and after release of the draft EIR/EIS. Coordination with 
federal and state agencies, tribal governments, and local governments 
will take place throughout the entire process as necessary.
    e. On May 3, 2000, a scoping meeting will be held in the community 
to describe the LGRP and solicit suggestions, recommendations, and 
comments to help refine the issues, measures, and alternatives to be 
addressed in the draft EIR/EIS. Specific locations, dates, and times of 
the meeting(s) will be published in local newspaper(s) or other media, 
and provided to those persons receiving this notice and those who call 
or write after seeing a published version.
    f. A 45-day period will be provided for public review and comment 
on the draft EIR/EIS. All interested persons should respond to this 
notice and provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the 
draft EIR/EIS. A 30-day public review period will be provided for 
review and comment on the final EIR/EIS.

Availability

    The draft EIR/EIS is expected to be available for a 45-day public 
review and comment period in fall 2000. The final EIR/EIS is expected 
to be available for a 30-day review period in March 2001.

    (Authority: 40 CFR part 1501.7)

    Dated: April 17, 2000.
Calvin C. Fong,
Chief, Regulatory Branch.
[FR Doc. 00-9990 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-19-M