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
<![CDATA[
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
