[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 174 (Thursday, September 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 54240-54243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-22954]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers


Notice of Intent (NOI) To Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact 
Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the Guadalupe 
Creek Restoration Project, San Jose, CA

AGENCY: Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

ACTION:  Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) is proposing 
to establish riparian vegetation and shaded riverine aquatic (SRA) 
cover vegetation and to improve aquatic habitat in the lower reaches of 
Guadalupe Creek between Almaden Expressway and Masson Dam. The 
Guadalupe Creek Restoration Project (GCRP) is intended to offset 
environmental impacts associated with future District projects.
    The intent of the Draft EIR/EIS is to describe and evaluate 
potential effects of these actions on environmental resources in the 
project area. The integrated EIR/EIS will include sufficient 
information for compliance with both the California Environmental 
Quality Act (CEQA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), as

[[Page 54241]]

well as opportunities for public participation in the planning and 
decision-making process. The lead agencies are the District and the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps).

DATES: A public scoping period will begin on September 8, 2000 and end 
on October 7, 2000. Please submit comments by October 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted to Al Gurevich, Project 
Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 5750 Almaden Expressway, 
San Jose, CA 95118. Electronic mail: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
    1. Al Gurevich, Project Manager, Santa Clara Valley Water District, 
(408) 265-2607, or electronic mail: [email protected].
    2. Mr. Brad Hubbard, (916) 557-7054, or electronic mail: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Background: The district is proposing to establish approximately 6 
acres of riparian vegetation and approximately 13,000 linear feet of 
SRA cover vegetation in order to improve aquatic habitat in the lower 
reaches of Guadalupe Creek between Almaden Expressway and Masson Dam. 
The GCRP in intended to offset environmental impacts associated with 
future District projects. Approximately 5,915 linear feet of the SRA 
cover vegetation planted along Guadalupe Creek under the proposed 
action could serve as offsite mitigation for the Guadalupe River 
Project in downtown San Jose (Downtown Project), if the Downtown 
Project is implemented. However, the GCRP is independent of the 
Downtown Project and will be implemented even if the downtown Project 
is not realized. This EIR/EIS intends to incorporate the Guadalupe 
River Project General Re-Evaluation Report/Environmental Impact Report-
Environmental Impact Statement (GRR/EIR-SEIS) by reference to reduce 
duplication and paperwork associated with the GCRP EIR/EIS.
    Study Area Location: Guadalupe Creek is located in the southwestern 
portion of the City of San Jose in San Jose in Santa Clara County. The 
project site is bordered upstream by Masson Dam, downstream by Almaden 
Expressway, to the north by residential development and the Los 
Capitancillos percolation pond system, and to the south by Coleman 
Road.
    Document Scope: The environmental document to support the GCRP was 
originally scoped as an Initial Study/environmental Assessment (IS/EA), 
prepared in compliance with NEPA and CEQA. Analyses performed during 
the development of the draft IS/EA determined that the project may have 
the potential to result in a significant adverse effect on the 
environment. Therefore, the lead agencies have decided to prepare an 
EIR/EIS for the GCRP. The purpose of the integrated EIR/EIS is to 
develop and assess alternative plans for the GCRP that will avoid 
adverse effects on environmental resources. The EIR/EIS will address 
new information pertaining to mercury contamination within the project 
site, as well as alternative plans for the GCRP, and the potential 
effects and benefits of the GCRP. Furthermore, the document will 
explain the decision(s) that must be made, and identify the decision-
makers in this combined CEQA/NEPA analysis.
    Development and Evaluation of Alternative Plans for Project 
Modifications: The following primary objectives were developed by the 
project team, using input from public and agency scoping meetings. 
These objectives were used to develop the proposed action and 
alternatives.
    1. Meet the measurable mitigation objectives defined in the 
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) for the Guadalupe River Project, 
downtown San Jose, California, including requirements for instream 
cover, overhead cover, water temperature, stream stability, and shade.
    2. Create riparian habitat, including SRA cover vegetation, that 
could provide mitigation credit for future District projects.
    3. Restore physical processes and ecological functions of Guadalupe 
Creek along the project reach.
    4. Protect existing infrastructure in the project area.
    5. Maintain existing flood conveyance capacity.
    6. Minimize impacts on existing resources.
    In addition to the primary objectives, the project also has 
secondary objectives that may be achieved as part of the project, if 
they directly or indirectly support the primary objectives. The GCRP's 
secondary objectives are:
    1. To enhance and restore habitat for special-status fish and 
wildlife species, as consistent with other project objectives;
    2. To improve recharge of groundwater aquifers;
    3. To minimize long-term operations and maintenance requirements;
    4. To minimize impacts on existing water management operations;
    5. To strive to meet regional planning objectives as outlined in 
relevant regional planning documents; and
    6. Not to preclude future recreation uses that are compatible with 
other project objectives.
    Evaluation Criteria and Range of Alternatives: Development of the 
alternatives was initiated with the goal of considering all feasible 
measures to achieve the planning objectives. The preliminary 
alternatives include: (1) Reduce floodplain excavation, (2) raise the 
bed of the channel, (3) stabilize the channel, and (4) the no-action/
no-project alternative. Additional alternatives may be developed as a 
result of public comments received during the 30-day scoping period and 
further consultation with federal, state, and local regulatory 
agencies. Any additional alternatives that are developed will be 
included for evaluation in the EIR/EIS.
    Alternatives Considered:
    Proposed Action: The project site has been divided into four 
reaches. The following paragraphs describe proposed activities within 
each of the four reaches. In Reach 1, existing bank and terrace 
surfaces, including instream gravel bars, could be planted. Minimal 
physical modifications could be made to the channel and floodplain. 
Portions of the channel could be shifted to historic channel alignments 
creating surfaces for planting along Coleman Road. Instream structures 
(boulders and woody material) could be installed. Biotechnical 
structures could also be added along the north bank of the creek to 
increase channel complexity, narrow the low-flow channel, and increase 
hydraulic diversity while maintaining the low sinuosity of the existing 
channel.
    In Reach 2, the existing planform of the creek could generally be 
maintained. Minor modifications could be made to lower floodplains in 
most areas, except downstream from the Meridian Avenue Bridge, where 
more extensive excavation could occur. Instream structures and bank 
stabilization structures could also be installed in this reach.
    In Reach 3, project features could focus on modifying the existing 
channel and floodplain to reduce entrenchment, providing planting 
surfaces for riparian vegetation, and increasing hydraulic diversity in 
the channel. Instream structures could be added to stabilize the bed 
and banks, and woody material could be placed on bar surfaces to 
stabilize the bars and provide additional planting sites.
    Because of the vegetation and habitat that already exist in the 
downstream segment of Reach 4, minimal modifications could be made to 
the channel in this area. However,

[[Page 54242]]

downstream from Percolation Pond 1, approximately 350 feet of the 
existing maintenance road could be shifted to the north to create a 
wider bench adjacent to the channel. This could increase flood 
conveyance capacity and protect the road. In the upstream segment of 
Reach 4 the floodplain could be expanded.
    Soil and sediment spoils excavated during project construction 
could be temporarily stockpiled onsite and analyzed to ensure that 
potentially contaminated materials (e.g., soils containing elevated 
mercury concentrations) are handled, transported, and disposed of in 
accordance with applicable state regulations. Spoils with mercury 
levels below state hazardous materials thresholds may be reused as fill 
onsite; guidelines regarding reuse of spoils will be developed in 
collaboration with state and federal regulatory and resource agencies.
    Alternative 1. Reduced Floodplain Excavation: This alternative 
focuses on modifying the channel and adjacent floodplain surfaces to 
create SRA cover vegetation and instream cover. The extent of 
floodplain excavation (i.e., the limit of grading) on the project site 
would be reduced from the proposed action. Physical modifications would 
include altering channel and floodplain surfaces (e.g., channel 
relocation, floodplain development, and bank stabilization). Existing 
and created channel banks and floodplain surfaces would be planted and 
instream structures would be installed.
    The intent of reducing the extent of excavation from that defined 
in the proposed action is to address the uncertainty associated with 
the amount of mercury-contaminated soil and sediment on the project 
site and the degree of mercury contamination. In addition, reducing the 
amount of excavation would reduce the extent of mercury-contaminated 
spoils hauled offsite. Excavation of channel banks and floodplains 
would still occur to create conditions conducive to plant 
establishment.
    Alternative 2. Raising the Bed of the Channel: This alternative 
focuses on modifying channel and floodplain surfaces to create SRA 
cover vegetation and instream cover. Like Alternative 1, this 
alternative would include relocating portions of the channel, creating 
floodplain surfaces, stabilizing eroding banks, and installing instream 
structures. An additional element of Alternative 2 includes raising the 
bed of the channel to reverse the channel incision that has apparently 
occurred since the late 1800s. To raise the bed of the channel, 
existing riparian vegetation, SRA cover vegetation, and instream cover 
would need to be removed in some areas of Reach 4. This alternative 
would likely require additional excavation on floodplain surfaces to 
maintain flood capacity and would likely increase the frequency of 
flooding on existing lands adjacent to the channel, including the Los 
Capitancillos site.
    The intent of raising the bed of the channel is to reduce the 
extent of excavation of mercury-contaminated soils, reduce the amount 
of mercury-contaminated spoils hauled offsite, and reduce the tendency 
for bank erosion (and consequently reduce the transport of mercury-
laden sediments downstream). In addition, this alternative is intended 
to restore the existing bed elevation to historical conditions.
    Alternative 3. Channel Stabilization: This alternative emphasizes 
stabilizing the channel to support SRA cover vegetation and create 
instream cover. Elements of this alternative include installing bed and 
bank biotechnical structures with small amounts of rip-rap. These 
elements would maintain and control channel form, control bank erosion 
and bed incision, provide SRA cover planting sites, and create instream 
cover. Channel modifications would control hydraulic conditions by 
limiting pool depth, areas of slow-moving water, and channel width. The 
extent of channel realignments on the project site would be reduced in 
this alternative relative to those described in Alternatives 1 and 2 
and the Proposed Action. The intent of stabilizing the channel is to 
reduce the tendency for bank and bed erosion and thereby reduce the 
transport of mercury-laden sediments downstream.
    Alternative 4. No-Action/No-Project Alternative: Under the no-
action/no-project alternative, existing conditions and operations in 
the project reach would continue unchanged.
    Possible Environmental Effects: Based on the available information 
collected and analyzed to date, significant effects will be avoided or 
minimized by the project design and by implementation of mitigation 
measures that will be proposed for the project. The resources for which 
potential adverse effects were identified include the following:

    1. Air Quality. (1) Construction of the proposed action (or the 
alternatives) would generate increased air emissions for all 
criteria pollutants. In addition, sampling and analysis conducted 
for the proposed action have shown that soil and sediments along 
Guadalupe Creek contain elevated levels of mercury.
    (2) Dust emissions could be generated by excavation and grading 
of soils along Guadalupe Creek, and by stockpiling and offhauling of 
excavated soil and sediments.
    2. Biology: (1) Construction activities associated with the 
proposed action (or the alternatives) could result in the removal of 
approximately 1.1 acres of existing low-quality riparian scrub and 
forest habitat. (2) Although no state or federally listed wildlife 
species have been observed within the project area, potential 
habitat for California red-legged frog and southwestern pond turtle 
does exist onsite, and construction activities associated with the 
proposed action may adversely affect these species. Furthermore, 
construction activities associated with the proposed action may 
adversely affect all life stages of anadromous fish (steelhead and 
chinook salmon). (3) The proposed action was designed to avoid 
impacts on existing mature trees to the extent possible. However, 
mature trees may be removed or adversely affected by construction 
activities. (4) The project could result in the temporary loss of 
less than 1 acre of jurisdictional riverine wetland that is 
scattered in small patches along the edge of the low-flow channel, 
on benches, and on the edges of gravel bars.
    3. Cultural Resources. All ground-disturbing project activities, 
such as excavation, planting, installation of instream structures, 
bank stabilization, channel modification, and floodplain alteration, 
have the potential to directly affect unknown cultural resources 
that may be covered by soil deposits or vegetation and thus could 
not be identified during previous field surveys or test excavations.
    4. Hazardous Materials. (1) Construction activities associated 
with the proposed action (or the alternatives) may result in the 
exposure of soils with higher mercury concentrations than those 
found at the pre-excavation surface level. (2) Because historic and 
existing land use in the project area has been primarily 
agricultural and/or residential, it is unlikely that hazardous 
materials other than mercury-contaminated soils, sediments, and 
water could be found in the project area. However, during 
construction, subsurface hazards such as abandoned underground 
storage tanks and piping and contaminated material from undocumented 
dumping and landfilling may be encountered. (3) The project area is 
located approximately 0.25-0.3 miles from three schools: Pioneer 
High School, Vineland School, and Cinnabar School. (4) No hazardous 
emissions will be generated by the proposed action; however, 
excavation and the stockpiling, sampling, and disposal of excavated 
materials could require handling of mercury-contaminated soil and 
sediments.
    5. Hydrology and Water Quality. (1) Site preparation and 
construction activities, including excavation and grading, could 
result in substantial soil disturbance and could lead to temporary 
discharges of soil and sediment directly into stormwater runoff or 
the stream channel. Construction activities also have the potential 
to discharge hazardous substances into water, such as fuel, oils, 
greases, and other petroleum products that may be released from 
machinery. (2) Implementation of the

[[Page 54243]]

proposed action will require that Guadalupe Creek be dewatered 
during construction. Groundwater levels in the project area are 
affected by streamflow because the stream is a key recharge point 
for the aquifer. (3) The proposed action could alter hydraulic 
conditions in the project reach of the Guadalupe Creek, changing 
patterns of erosion and sediment deposition. (4) The proposed action 
could increase the potential for the formation of methyl mercury in 
the project reach.
    6. Socioeconomics. Recent health advisories have indicated that 
human consumption of fish caught in the Guadalupe River watershed 
may pose a hazard to human health.
    7. Traffic. (1) The proposed action could generate approximately 
10 commute trips by construction/restoration workers during both the 
a.m. and p.m. peak commute hours. Additionally, between 292 and 350 
one-way truck trips per day could be required to haul excavated 
material to and from the site. As much as 10% or 29-35 of the heavy 
truck trips could occur during the a.m. and p.m. peak commute hours. 
Implementation of the proposed action could temporarily add between 
312 and 370 total daily vehicle and truck trips to local and 
regional roadways. (2) Restoration site access points involving 
heavy trucks (Camden Avenue and Almaden Expressway) may create 
roadway operation safety hazards.

    Proposed Scoping Process: 1. This NOI initiates a 30-day period 
during which the District and the Corps will take comments on the 
issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS and the environmental 
issues related to the proposed action.
    2. Public comment is encouraged on the proposal to prepare the 
Draft EIR/EIS and on the scope of issues to be included. Please provide 
comments within 30 days of publication of this notice to Mr. Al 
Gurevich at the Santa Clara Valley Water District (see ADDRESS above).
    3. The District and the Corps will continue to consult local, 
state, and federal agencies with regulatory or implementation 
responsibility for, or expertise with, the resources in the area of 
investigation. These include, but are not limited to, the California 
Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National 
Marine Fisheries Service, and San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality 
Control Board.
    Previous Scoping Meetings: The District held two public scoping 
meetings during the IS/EA process to introduce the public and 
interested organizations to the project and to gather feedback. The 
meetings were held on February 17 and April 11, 2000. Public comments 
received at these meetings were recorded in scoping reports by the 
District.
    Availability: 1. The Draft EIR/EIS is expected to be available for 
a public review and comment period beginning in November 2000.
    2. The Final EIR/EIS is expected to be available for public review 
beginning in January 2001.

John A. Hall,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 00-22954 Filed 9-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-EZ-M