Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisquito Creek Study, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA, 18292-18294 [06-3458]

Download as PDF 18292 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 2006 / Notices Dated: April 6, 2006. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 06–3445 Filed 4–10–06; 8:45 am] [FR Doc. 06–3447 Filed 4–10–06; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 5001–06–C DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE BILLING CODE 5001–06–M Office of the Secretary Defense Science Board AGENCY: DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Department of Defense. Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers Notice of advisory committee meetings. ACTION: The Defense Science Board 2006 Summer Study on Information Management for Net-Centric Operations will meet in closed session on April 20– 21, 2006, May 18–19, 2006, and July 18– 19, 2006; at Systems Planning Corporation; and on June 15, 2006, at Strategic Analysis Inc. The address for both locations is 3601 Wilson Boulevard, 3rd Floor, Arlington, VA. These meetings continue the task force’s work and will consist of classified and proprietary briefings on current technologies and programs. The mission of the Defense Science Board is to advise the Secretary of Defense and the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology & Logistics on scientific and technical matters as they affect the perceived needs of the Department of Defense. At these meetings, the Defense Science Board Task Force will: Assess the features and capabilities VTOL/STOL aircraft should have in order to support the nation’s defense needs through at least the first half of the 21st century. In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. 92–463, as amended (5 U.S.C. App. II), it has been determined that these Defense Science Board Task Force meetings concern matters listed in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(1) and that, accordingly, the meetings will be closed to the public. SUMMARY: wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: LtCol Scott Dolgoff, USA, Defense Science Board, 3140 Defense Pentagon, Room 3C553, Washington, DC 20301– 3140, via e-mail at scott.dolgoff@osd.mil, or via phone at (703) 571–0082. Due to scheduling difficulties, there is insufficient time to provide timely notice required by Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act and § 102–3.150(b) of the GSA Final Rule on Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR 102–3.150(b), which further requires publication at least 15 calendar days prior to the meeting. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:37 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisquito Creek Study, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. ACTION: Notice of intent. AGENCY: SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500–1508), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Public Law 102–484 section 2834, as amended by Public Law 104–106 section 2867, the Department of the Army and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) hereby give notice of intent to prepare a joint Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) for the San Francisquito Creek Project in San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA to consider opportunities to reduce both fluvial and tidal flooding, to reduce the threat to public safety due to flooding and to restore ecosystem quality and function, where possible. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the lead agency for this project under NEPA. The SFCJPA is the lead agency for this project under CEQA. A public scoping meeting will be held to solicit comments on the environmental scope of the project and the appropriate scope of the joint EIS/ EIR. DATES: The public scoping meeting will be held on April 27, 2006 from 7 to 8:30 p.m. at the International School of the Peninsula, Cohn Campus, 151 Laura Lane, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, CA. Written comments from all interested parties are encouraged and must be received on or before May 26, 2006. ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for information should be sent to Sarah Gaines, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 333 Market St., 7th floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 Sara.M.Gaines@spd02.usace.army.mil, (415) 977–8533. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning the CEQA aspects of the study, contact Cynthia D’Agosta, San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025, (650) 330–6765. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses an area of approximately 45 square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco Bay in California. The majority of the watershed lies in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Bay Foothills northwest of Palo Alto; the remaining 7.5 square miles lie on the San Francisquito alluvial fan near San Francisco Bay. San Francisquito Creek watershed contains mainstem San Francisquito Creek and the main tributary streams of West Union Creek, Corte Madera Creek, Bear Creek and Los Trancos Creek. Los Trancos Creek and San Francisquito Creek form the boundary between San Mateo and Santa Clara counties. The reaches are divided up as follows: Reach 1 extends from San Francisco Bay to the upstream face of Highway 101; Reach 2 extends from Highway 101 to Highway 280; and Reach 3 continues from Highway 280 to the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Also under consideration are two additional reaches subject to tidal flooding. The tidal reaches are as follows: (1) Tidal Reach 1 begins near the railroad trestle south of the Dumbarton Bridge and extends to the Menlo Park City limits in San Mateo County; (2) Tidal Reach 2 is from Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek in Santa Clara County. The non-Federal sponsor for the Feasibility phase of the study is the SFCJPA. The SFCJPA is comprised of the following member agencies: The City of Palo Alto; the City of Menlo Park; the City of East Palo Alto; the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and the San Mateo County Flood Control District, as well as the following associate members: Stanford University and the San Francisquito Watershed Council. 1. Background. The carrying capacity of San Francisquito Creek is affected by the presence of development, vegetation, sedimentation, land subsidence, levee settlement, erosion, and culverts and bridges in the project area. Tidal influence compounds the flooding problem in Reach 1, particularly during times of heavy rainfall and high tides. Erosion has caused the undermining of roads and structures in many places throughout E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 2006 / Notices the watershed. Flooding on San Francisquito Creek affects the cities on Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and the city of Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. Flooding has been a common occurrence from San Francisquito Creek. The most recent flood event occurred as a result of record creek flows in February 1998, when the Creek overtopped its banks in several areas, affecting approximately 1,700 residential and commercial structures and causing more than $26.6 million in property damages. After these floods, the SFCJPA was formed to pursue flood control and restoration opportunities in the area. Low-lying portions of the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and Menlo Park are also subject to tidal flooding caused by the potential overtopping or breaching of Bayfront levees during extreme high tide events. In this scenario, the waters of San Francisco Bay could inundate all land below the high tide level, potentially flooding hundreds of residential and commercial properties in all three cities. The current Corps Feasibility study is a continuation of the authority passed on May 22, 2002 by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, which is in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941. The resolution reads as follows: wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES ‘‘Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That, the Secretary of the Army, in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941, is hereby requested to conduct a study of the Guadalupe River and Tributaries, California, to determine whether flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, storm water retention, water conservation and supply, recreation and other allied purposes are advisable in the interest of the San Francisquito Creek Watershed, including San Francisquito Creek, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California.’’ 2. Proposed Action. The joint EIS/EIR will consider the environmental impact of possible flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration alternatives with the end goal of reducing flood damage and improving environmental conditions in the San Francisquito Creek Watershed. 3. Proposed Alternatives. The joint EIS/EIR will include at a minimum the following alternatives. The possible measures have been organized by topic areas: no action, non-structural, fluvial flooding, tidal flooding, and ecosystem restoration. Measures will be combined to compose project alternatives. VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:37 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 a. No Action: With the No Action Plan (which is the ‘‘Future Without-Project Condition’’), it is assumed that no longterm actions would be taken to provide flood control improvements along San Francisquito Creek or the Bayfront levees; flood control improvements would consist of emergency fixes to damage areas, consistent with available funding. b. Non-Structural Alternative: A nonstructural plan is comprised entirely of nonstructural measures or a combination of nonstructural measures and traditional structural measures. Examples of common nonstructural measures include: Flood warning and evacuation, relocation, land management designated floodways, and flood proofing measures such as raising structures. c. Fluvial Flooding Action Measures— Reach 1: Some flood damage reduction measures that have been proposed for Reach 1 include (1) Widening the culvert at Highway 101 by constructing an additional culvert barrel and covering the surface opening between Highway 101 and West Bayshore Road, (2) raising levees or constructing floodwalls, (3) constructing weirs in existing levees to allow controlled overflow to open space areas, (4) widening the channel and constructing new levees, and (5) constructing a secondary channel in the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course area. d. Tidal Flooding Action Measures— Reach 1 and Tidal Reaches 1 and 2: Protection against tidal flooding could be provided by (1) the installation of flap gates that control the amount of tidal water entering San Francisquito Creek, (2) construction of higher levees or floodwalls along the creek to prevent tidal waters from entering the creek, and/or (3) construction of new or upgraded Bayfront levees or floodwalls between the city of Menlo Park’s northernmost city limits and Adobe Creek to protect against tidal inundation. e. Ecosystem Restoration Measures— Reach 1: Depending on the flooddamage-reduction measure selected for Reach 1, a number of restoration activities could be performed in this area. Restoration would primarily be in the form of wetland restoration and could be implemented in the area of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (if it is redesigned to accommodate the project), in the creekside area if the levees are set back or in areas further downstream. Because threatened, endangered and special-status species occur in the study area, any restoration project would need to provide improved habitat quality for these species. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 18293 f. Fluvial Flooding Action Measures— Reaches 2&3: Some flood-damagereduction measures under consideration for Reaches 2&3 include: (1) Upland detention, (2) concrete channelization, (3) bank stabilization, (4) new levee or floodwall construction, (5) channel widening, (6) construction of diversion conduit(s), (7) construction of new reservoirs or modification of existing reservoir(s), and (8) replacement or modification of bridges. g. Ecosystem Restoration Measures— Reaches 2&3: A number of methods have been proposed for improving the habitat quality of San Francisquito Creek, depending on the need for bank stabilization in any particular area. These methods include: (1) Stabilize bank through use of vegetation only (remove invasive plant materials and replace riparian canopy), (2) repair structural bank protection locally, (3) use vegetative structure to reinforce existing bank protection, (4) remove and replace structural bank protection, (5) regrade and replant using biological techniques of bank stabilization, (6) stabilize banks by creating vegetated terraces, (7) combine a biotechnical approach to bank stabilization with toe placement of large rocks to prevent bank washout and toe scour, (8) use vegetated riprap along the bank, (9) stabilize the bank using a near-vertical vegetated wall, and (10) removal or modification of steelhead trout migration barriers. 4. Environmental Considerations. In all cases, environmental considerations will include riparian habitat, aquatic habitat, sediment budget, fish passage, recreation, public access, aesthetics, cultural resources, and environmental justice as well as other potential environmental issues of concern. 5. Scoping Process. The Corps and SFCJPA are seeking input from interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American representatives, and other interested private organizations and parties through provision of this notice and holding of a scoping meeting (see DATES). The purpose of this meeting is to solicit input regarding the environmental issues of concern and the alternatives that should be discussed in the joint EIS/EIR. The public comment period closes May 26, 2006. 6. Availability of Joint EIS/EIR. The public will have an additional opportunity in the NEPA/CEQA process to comment on the proposed E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1 18294 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 69 / Tuesday, April 11, 2006 / Notices alternatives after the draft joint EIS/EIR is released to the public in 2008. Philip T. Feir, Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer. [FR Doc. 06–3458 Filed 4–10–06; 8:45am] BILLING CODE 3710–19–M DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity; Notice of Members National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, Department of Education. AGENCY: wwhite on PROD1PC61 with NOTICES What Is the Purpose of This Notice? The purpose of this notice is to list the members of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity (National Advisory Committee) and to give the public the opportunity to nominate candidates for the positions to be vacated by those members whose terms will expire on September 30, 2006. This notice is required under Section 114(c) of the Higher Education Act (HEA), as amended. What is the Role of the National Advisory Committee? The National Advisory Committee is established under Section 114 of the HEA, as amended, and is composed of 15 members appointed by the Secretary of Education from among individuals who are representatives of, or knowledgeable concerning, education and training beyond secondary education, including representatives of all sectors and type of institutions of higher education. The National Advisory Committee meets at least twice a year and provides recommendations to the Secretary of Education pertaining to: • The establishment and enforcement of criteria for recognition of accrediting agencies or associations under subpart 2 of part H of Title IV, HEA. • The recognition of specific accrediting agencies or associations. • The preparation and publication of the list of nationally recognized accrediting agencies and associations. As the Committee deems necessary or on request, the Committee also advises the Secretary about: • The eligibility and certification process for institutions of higher education under Title IV, HEA. • The development of standards and criteria for specific categories of vocational training institutions and institutions of higher education for which there are no recognized VerDate Aug<31>2005 19:37 Apr 10, 2006 Jkt 208001 accrediting agencies, associations, or State agencies in order to establish the interim eligibility of those institutions to participate in Federally funded programs. • The relationship between (1) accreditation of institutions of higher education and the certification and eligibility of such institutions, and (2) State licensing responsibilities with respect to such institutions. • Any other advisory functions relating to accreditation and institutional eligibility that the Secretary may prescribe. What Are the Terms of Office for Committee Members? The term of office of each member is 3 years, except that any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring prior to the expiration of the term for which the member’s predecessor was appointed is appointed for the remainder of the term. A member may be appointed, at the Secretary’s discretion, to serve more than one term. Who Are the Current Members of the Committee? The current members of the National Advisory Committee are: Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/06 • Dr. Carol D’Amico, Chancellor, Ivy Tech State College, Central Indiana. • Mr. Ronald S. Blumenthal, Senior Vice President, Administration, Kaplan University, Iowa. • Dr. Thomas E. Dillon, President, Thomas Aquinas College, California. • Mr. David Johnson, III, Student, Brigham Young University and University of Utah. Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/07 • Dr. Lawrence J. DeNardis, President Emeritus, University of New Haven, Connecticut. • Dr. Geri H. Malandra, Associate Vice Chancellor for Institutional Planning and Accountability, University of Texas System. • Ms. Andrea Fischer-Newman, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs, Northwest Airlines. • Dr. Laura Palmer Noone, President, University of Phoenix, Arizona. Members With Terms Expiring 9/30/08 • Dr. Karen A. Bowyer, President, Dyersburg State Community College, Tennessee. • Dr. Arthur Keiser, Chancellor, Keiser Collegiate System, Florida. • Dr. George A. Pruitt, President, Thomas A. Edison State College, New Jersey. PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 How Do I Nominate An Individual for Appointment As a Committee Member? If you would like to nominate an individual for appointment to the Committee, send the following information to the Committee’s Executive Director: • A copy of the nominee’s resume; and • A cover letter that provides your reason(s) for nominating the individual and contact information for the nominee (name, title, business address, and business phone and fax numbers). The information must be sent by June 2, 2006 to the following address: Francesca Paris-Albertson, Executive Director, National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, U.S. Department of Education, room 7110, MS 7592, 1990 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006. How Can I Get Additional Information? If you have any specific questions about the nomination process or general questions about the National Advisory Committee, please contact Ms. Francesca Paris-Albertson, the Committee’s Executive Director, telephone: (202) 219–7009, fax: (202) 219–7008, e-mail: Francesca.ParisAlbertson@ed.gov between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1011c. Dated: April 5, 2006. Sally L. Stroup, Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education. [FR Doc. E6–5250 Filed 4–10–06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4000–01–P DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION Office of Postsecondary Education; Overview Information; Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education—Special Focus Competition: EU–U.S. Atlantis Program; Notice Inviting Applications for New Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.116J. Dates: Applications Available: April 11, 2006. Deadline for Transmittal of Applications: July 7, 2006. Deadline for Intergovernmental Review: September 7, 2006. Eligible Applicants: Institutions of higher education (IHEs) or combinations of IHEs and other public and private nonprofit institutions and agencies. Estimated Available Funds: $500,000. Estimated Range of Awards: $50,000– $150,000 for the first year; $200,000– E:\FR\FM\11APN1.SGM 11APN1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 11, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 18292-18294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-3458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army; Corps of Engineers


Intent To Prepare a Joint Environmental Impact Statement/
Environmental Impact Report for the San Francisquito Creek Study, San 
Mateo and Santa Clara Counties, CA

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as implemented by the Council on 
Environmental Quality regulations (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), the 
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and Public Law 102-484 
section 2834, as amended by Public Law 104-106 section 2867, the 
Department of the Army and the San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers 
Authority (SFCJPA) hereby give notice of intent to prepare a joint 
Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (EIS/EIR) 
for the San Francisquito Creek Project in San Mateo and Santa Clara 
Counties, CA to consider opportunities to reduce both fluvial and tidal 
flooding, to reduce the threat to public safety due to flooding and to 
restore ecosystem quality and function, where possible. The U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the lead agency for this project under 
NEPA. The SFCJPA is the lead agency for this project under CEQA.
    A public scoping meeting will be held to solicit comments on the 
environmental scope of the project and the appropriate scope of the 
joint EIS/EIR.

DATES: The public scoping meeting will be held on April 27, 2006 from 7 
to 8:30 p.m. at the International School of the Peninsula, Cohn Campus, 
151 Laura Lane, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County, CA. Written comments 
from all interested parties are encouraged and must be received on or 
before May 26, 2006.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and requests for information should be sent 
to Sarah Gaines, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District, 
333 Market St., 7th floor, San Francisco, CA 94105, 
Sara.M.Gaines@spd02.usace.army.mil, (415) 977-8533.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For questions concerning the CEQA 
aspects of the study, contact Cynthia D'Agosta, San Francisquito Creek 
Joint Powers Authority, 701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025, (650) 
330-6765.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The San Francisquito Creek watershed 
encompasses an area of approximately 45 square miles, extending from 
the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to San Francisco Bay in 
California. The majority of the watershed lies in the Santa Cruz 
Mountains and Bay Foothills northwest of Palo Alto; the remaining 7.5 
square miles lie on the San Francisquito alluvial fan near San 
Francisco Bay.
    San Francisquito Creek watershed contains mainstem San Francisquito 
Creek and the main tributary streams of West Union Creek, Corte Madera 
Creek, Bear Creek and Los Trancos Creek. Los Trancos Creek and San 
Francisquito Creek form the boundary between San Mateo and Santa Clara 
counties. The reaches are divided up as follows: Reach 1 extends from 
San Francisco Bay to the upstream face of Highway 101; Reach 2 extends 
from Highway 101 to Highway 280; and Reach 3 continues from Highway 280 
to the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Also under consideration are 
two additional reaches subject to tidal flooding. The tidal reaches are 
as follows: (1) Tidal Reach 1 begins near the railroad trestle south of 
the Dumbarton Bridge and extends to the Menlo Park City limits in San 
Mateo County; (2) Tidal Reach 2 is from Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek 
in Santa Clara County.
    The non-Federal sponsor for the Feasibility phase of the study is 
the SFCJPA. The SFCJPA is comprised of the following member agencies: 
The City of Palo Alto; the City of Menlo Park; the City of East Palo 
Alto; the Santa Clara Valley Water District; and the San Mateo County 
Flood Control District, as well as the following associate members: 
Stanford University and the San Francisquito Watershed Council.
    1. Background. The carrying capacity of San Francisquito Creek is 
affected by the presence of development, vegetation, sedimentation, 
land subsidence, levee settlement, erosion, and culverts and bridges in 
the project area. Tidal influence compounds the flooding problem in 
Reach 1, particularly during times of heavy rainfall and high tides. 
Erosion has caused the undermining of roads and structures in many 
places throughout

[[Page 18293]]

the watershed. Flooding on San Francisquito Creek affects the cities on 
Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and the city of Palo 
Alto in Santa Clara County.
    Flooding has been a common occurrence from San Francisquito Creek. 
The most recent flood event occurred as a result of record creek flows 
in February 1998, when the Creek overtopped its banks in several areas, 
affecting approximately 1,700 residential and commercial structures and 
causing more than $26.6 million in property damages. After these 
floods, the SFCJPA was formed to pursue flood control and restoration 
opportunities in the area.
     Low-lying portions of the cities of Palo Alto, East Palo Alto, and 
Menlo Park are also subject to tidal flooding caused by the potential 
overtopping or breaching of Bayfront levees during extreme high tide 
events. In this scenario, the waters of San Francisco Bay could 
inundate all land below the high tide level, potentially flooding 
hundreds of residential and commercial properties in all three cities.
     The current Corps Feasibility study is a continuation of the 
authority passed on May 22, 2002 by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, which is 
in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941. The 
resolution reads as follows:

     ``Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and 
Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That, 
the Secretary of the Army, in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood 
Control Act of 1941, is hereby requested to conduct a study of the 
Guadalupe River and Tributaries, California, to determine whether 
flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, 
storm water retention, water conservation and supply, recreation and 
other allied purposes are advisable in the interest of the San 
Francisquito Creek Watershed, including San Francisquito Creek, 
Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California.''

     2. Proposed Action. The joint EIS/EIR will consider the 
environmental impact of possible flood damage reduction and ecosystem 
restoration alternatives with the end goal of reducing flood damage and 
improving environmental conditions in the San Francisquito Creek 
Watershed.
     3. Proposed Alternatives. The joint EIS/EIR will include at a 
minimum the following alternatives. The possible measures have been 
organized by topic areas: no action, non-structural, fluvial flooding, 
tidal flooding, and ecosystem restoration. Measures will be combined to 
compose project alternatives.
     a. No Action: With the No Action Plan (which is the ``Future 
Without-Project Condition''), it is assumed that no long-term actions 
would be taken to provide flood control improvements along San 
Francisquito Creek or the Bayfront levees; flood control improvements 
would consist of emergency fixes to damage areas, consistent with 
available funding.
     b. Non-Structural Alternative: A non-structural plan is comprised 
entirely of nonstructural measures or a combination of nonstructural 
measures and traditional structural measures. Examples of common 
nonstructural measures include: Flood warning and evacuation, 
relocation, land management designated floodways, and flood proofing 
measures such as raising structures.
     c. Fluvial Flooding Action Measures--Reach 1: Some flood damage 
reduction measures that have been proposed for Reach 1 include (1) 
Widening the culvert at Highway 101 by constructing an additional 
culvert barrel and covering the surface opening between Highway 101 and 
West Bayshore Road, (2) raising levees or constructing floodwalls, (3) 
constructing weirs in existing levees to allow controlled overflow to 
open space areas, (4) widening the channel and constructing new levees, 
and (5) constructing a secondary channel in the Palo Alto Municipal 
Golf Course area.
     d. Tidal Flooding Action Measures--Reach 1 and Tidal Reaches 1 and 
2: Protection against tidal flooding could be provided by (1) the 
installation of flap gates that control the amount of tidal water 
entering San Francisquito Creek, (2) construction of higher levees or 
floodwalls along the creek to prevent tidal waters from entering the 
creek, and/or (3) construction of new or upgraded Bayfront levees or 
floodwalls between the city of Menlo Park's northernmost city limits 
and Adobe Creek to protect against tidal inundation.
    e. Ecosystem Restoration Measures--Reach 1: Depending on the flood-
damage-reduction measure selected for Reach 1, a number of restoration 
activities could be performed in this area. Restoration would primarily 
be in the form of wetland restoration and could be implemented in the 
area of the Palo Alto Municipal Golf Course (if it is redesigned to 
accommodate the project), in the creekside area if the levees are set 
back or in areas further downstream. Because threatened, endangered and 
special-status species occur in the study area, any restoration project 
would need to provide improved habitat quality for these species.
     f. Fluvial Flooding Action Measures-- Reaches 2&3: Some flood-
damage-reduction measures under consideration for Reaches 2&3 include: 
(1) Upland detention, (2) concrete channelization, (3) bank 
stabilization, (4) new levee or floodwall construction, (5) channel 
widening, (6) construction of diversion conduit(s), (7) construction of 
new reservoirs or modification of existing reservoir(s), and (8) 
replacement or modification of bridges.
    g. Ecosystem Restoration Measures--Reaches 2&3: A number of methods 
have been proposed for improving the habitat quality of San 
Francisquito Creek, depending on the need for bank stabilization in any 
particular area. These methods include: (1) Stabilize bank through use 
of vegetation only (remove invasive plant materials and replace 
riparian canopy), (2) repair structural bank protection locally, (3) 
use vegetative structure to reinforce existing bank protection, (4) 
remove and replace structural bank protection, (5) regrade and replant 
using biological techniques of bank stabilization, (6) stabilize banks 
by creating vegetated terraces, (7) combine a biotechnical approach to 
bank stabilization with toe placement of large rocks to prevent bank 
washout and toe scour, (8) use vegetated riprap along the bank, (9) 
stabilize the bank using a near-vertical vegetated wall, and (10) 
removal or modification of steelhead trout migration barriers.
    4. Environmental Considerations. In all cases, environmental 
considerations will include riparian habitat, aquatic habitat, sediment 
budget, fish passage, recreation, public access, aesthetics, cultural 
resources, and environmental justice as well as other potential 
environmental issues of concern.
    5. Scoping Process. The Corps and SFCJPA are seeking input from 
interested federal, state, and local agencies, Native American 
representatives, and other interested private organizations and parties 
through provision of this notice and holding of a scoping meeting (see 
DATES). The purpose of this meeting is to solicit input regarding the 
environmental issues of concern and the alternatives that should be 
discussed in the joint EIS/EIR. The public comment period closes May 
26, 2006.
    6. Availability of Joint EIS/EIR. The public will have an 
additional opportunity in the NEPA/CEQA process to comment on the 
proposed

[[Page 18294]]

alternatives after the draft joint EIS/EIR is released to the public in 
2008.

Philip T. Feir,
Lieutenant Colonel, Corps of Engineers, District Engineer.
[FR Doc. 06-3458 Filed 4-10-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 3710-19-M