Notice of Intent To Prepare an Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study, San Francisco County, California, 48447-48449 [2023-15898]
Download as PDF
48447
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
TABLE 1—TAKE ANALYSIS—Continued
Authorized
take
Species
Pygmy killer whale ...........................................................................................
False killer whale .............................................................................................
Killer whale ......................................................................................................
Short-finned pilot whale ...................................................................................
Scaled take 1
504
801
7
619
149
236
n/a
183
Abundance 2
2,126
3,204
267
1,981
Percent
abundance
7.0
7.4
2.6
9.2
1 Scalar ratios were applied to ‘‘Authorized Take’’ values as described at 86 FR 5322, 5404 (January 19, 2021) to derive scaled take numbers
shown here.
2 Best abundance estimate. For most taxa, the best abundance estimate for purposes of comparison with take estimates is considered here to
be the model-predicted abundance (Roberts et al., 2016). For those taxa where a density surface model predicting abundance by month was
produced, the maximum mean seasonal abundance was used. For those taxa where abundance is not predicted by month, only mean annual
abundance is available. For Rice’s whale and killer whale, the larger estimated SAR abundance estimate is used.
3 Includes 31 takes by Level A harassment and 546 takes by Level B harassment. Scalar ratio is applied to takes by Level B harassment only;
small numbers determination made on basis of scaled Level B harassment take plus authorized Level A harassment take.
Based on the analysis contained
herein of Shell’s proposed survey
activity described in its LOA
application and the anticipated take of
marine mammals, NMFS finds that
small numbers of marine mammals will
be taken relative to the affected species
or stock sizes (i.e., less than one-third of
the best available abundance estimate)
and therefore the taking is of no more
than small numbers.
Authorization
NMFS has determined that the level
of taking for this LOA request is
consistent with the findings made for
the total taking allowable under the
incidental take regulations and that the
amount of take authorized under the
LOA is of no more than small numbers.
Accordingly, we have issued an LOA to
Shell authorizing the take of marine
mammals incidental to its geophysical
survey activity, as described above.
Dated: July 21, 2023.
Angela Somma,
Acting Director, Office of Protected Resources,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 2023–15860 Filed 7–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510–22–P
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Department of the Army, Corps of
Engineers
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for
the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal
Flood Study, San Francisco County,
California
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a
Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for the
San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
Study, San Francisco County,
California.
Pursuant to the requirements
of the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by
the Council on Environmental Quality
regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE), Tulsa District,
announces its intent to prepare a Draft
Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement (IFR–
EIS) for the San Francisco Waterfront
Coastal Flood Study. The study will
investigate the feasibility of managing
tidal and fluvial flooding and sea level
rise along 7.5 miles of the San Francisco
Waterfront, from Aquatic Park to Herons
Head Park, in the City of San Francisco,
San Francisco County, California. This
notice announces USACE’s intent to
determine the scope of the issues to be
addressed and identify the significant
issues related to a proposed action.
DATES: Written comments should be
submitted by August 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Written comments related
to the development of the Draft IFR–EIS
may be submitted by any of the
following methods:
• Email: SFWFRS@usace.army.mil.
• Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Tulsa District, ATTN: RPEC—SFWS,
2488 E 81st Street, Tulsa, OK 74137.
• For more information visit the
project website at: https://sfport.com/
wrp/usace.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Questions or comments regarding the
proposed Draft IFR–EIS may be directed
to Ms. Melinda Fisher at 918–669–7423
or by email at SFWFRS@usace.army.mil.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Authority. The San Francisco
Waterfront Coastal Flood Study (the
Study) was originally authorized under
section 110 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1950, Public Law (Pub. L.) 515,
64 stat. 163. The project was
subsequently authorized under Section
142 of the Water Resources
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Development Act (WRDA) of 1976, Pub.
L. 94–587, 90 stat. 2917, 2930, as
amended by Section 705 of WRDA of
1986, Pub. L. 99–662, 100 stat. 4082,
4158 and section 203 of WRDA 2020.
2. Background. The USACE and the
Port of San Francisco (Port) have
partnered to study flood risk along 7.5
miles of San Francisco’s bayside
shoreline including areas between
Aquatic Park and Heron’s Head Park.
The Study is one of several coordinated
waterfront resiliency efforts being
undertaken by the Port in partnership
with other federal, state, and local
agencies to plan and reduce the risk of
anticipated seismic activity, flooding,
coastal storm damages, and sea level
rise along the waterfront.
The Study began in 2018 under the
USACE San Francisco District, South
Pacific Division and was transferred to
the Tulsa District out of the
Southwestern Division in 2021. The
Study follows the USACE Specific,
Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed,
and Timely (SMART) planning process
which targets a feasibility study to be
completed within three years, but due to
several complexities, including
consideration of seismic conditions and
the diversity of the geographic regions
and stakeholders, the Study has been
approved to complete the process in
seven years.
3. Purpose and Need. The purpose of
the Study is to investigate the feasibility
of managing tidal and fluvial flooding
and sea level rise along 7.5 miles of the
San Francisco Bay shoreline. The
project area is at risk of flooding from
bay water during coastal storms,
extreme tides, and future sea level rise.
Flooding along the waterfront could
cause extensive damage to public
infrastructure and private property, loss
of life and deterioration of public health
and safety, degradation of the natural
environment, and adverse changes to
the social and economic character of the
waterfront community. The risk is
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
48448
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
expected to increase over time as sea
levels rise in the bay.
4. Proposed Action and Alternatives
Being Considered. Adapting the
waterfront will require changes on a
large scale that balance multiple factors
and priorities. The Study Team has
formulated an array of alternatives that
would reduce the risk of flooding along
the waterfront by considering the three
USACE sea level rise curve scenarios
(low, intermediate, and high), alignment
of the line of defense relative to the
existing shoreline, and adaptability of
the design to address higher sea levels
if certain thresholds are triggered after
construction. A total of seven
alternatives have been formulated for
this study including:
• Alternative A—No Action: Takes no
action to reduce flood risks through this
project. This alternative serves as the
baseline condition.
• Alternative B—Nonstructural:
Proposes nonstructural measures such
as relocation, raise in place,
floodproofing, and zoning in areas
identified with frequent flooding.
• Alternative C—Defend Low Rate of
Rise: Uses a combination of structural
(e.g., t-walls, sheet pile walls, berms,
curb extensions), nonstructural (e.g.,
deployable flood barriers,
floodproofing), and natural and naturebased features (NNBF) (e.g., ecological
armoring) to address flooding in ‘‘low
spots’’ along the shoreline. This
alternative does not include any future
year actions or adaptability once
construction is complete.
• Alternative D—Hybrid, Lower Rate
of Rise: Similar to Alternative C except
measures are adaptable for future
construction assuming the rate of rise
accelerates to a higher rate of sea level
change. Ecotone levees, ecological
armoring, and wetland preservation and
restoration are additional NNBF
included in this design.
• Alternative E—Defend, Higher Rate
of Rise: Uses a combination of structural
(e.g., wharf raises and rehabilitation,
seawalls, sheet pile walls, and berms),
nonstructural (e.g., building and bridge
raises, floodproofing) and NNBF (e.g.,
living seawalls/vertical shoreline,
embankment shorelines, ecotone levees,
and naturalized shorelines) to defend at
the existing shoreline and prevent
overtopping at the higher rate of sea
level change with recommendations for
adaptation in future years.
• Alternative F—Working with Water,
Higher Rate of Rise: Similar to
Alternative E, except there is managed
retreat inland along the southern
waterfront and tide gates at the mouths
of Islais and Mission creeks. The NNBF
include ecotone levees, ecological
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
armoring, naturalized shorelines, coarse
beaches, and wetland preservation and
restoration. Additional retreat and
adaptations are proposed as the rate of
sea level rise increases. This alternative
proposes the most bayward alignment.
• Alternative G—Living with Water,
Higher Rate of Rise: Similar to
Alternative F, except this alternative
concedes the largest area for managed
retreat and incorporates more
nonstructural measures (e.g., relocation
and zoning) and significantly more areas
of wetland restoration. It does not
include water control structures (i.e.,
tide gates). This alternative proposes the
most inland alignment and does not
require bay fill.
5. Brief Summary of Expected
Impacts. Expected impacts include
short- and long-term impacts to existing
aquatic habitats, fish and wildlife
including federally protected species
and their habitat, water quality, air
quality, aesthetic quality, noise,
transportation corridors, recreation
features, historic resources, and
socioeconomic resources. Impacts
anticipated to require compensatory
mitigation include aquatic habitats,
water quality, and air quality, while
many of the impacts to other resources
will be minimized or avoided through
project design. Long-term benefits are
anticipated to each of the
socioeconomic resources such as life
safety, critical infrastructure, utilities,
historic resources, historically
disadvantaged communities, recreation,
and the local economy through the
management of coastal flooding and sea
level rise. Long-term increases in
aquatic habitats may also be realized
with implementation of the NNBF.
The USACE San Francisco District
and Port issued a Notice of Early
Scoping in the Federal Register August
20, 2020. At that time, it was unclear if
significant effects would be realized and
the need for an EIS was not formally
announced. Since then, it was
determined that significant resource
impacts are anticipated and an EIS is
warranted. During early scoping, several
significant environmental and social
issues were raised including but not
limited to minimizing bay fill; effects of
high rates of sea level rise on any
alternative considered; disruptions to
businesses, transportation corridors and
walk paths; environmental justice
impacts on historically disadvantaged
communities; impacts to water quality,
contaminated sites, historic resources;
and the potential cost and time to
implement any of the strategies. In
general, there was wide support for use
of nature-based measures in lieu of gray
infrastructure, preserving and increasing
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
public access to the waterfront, and
incorporating adaptation components to
address uncertainties in sea level rise.
6. Anticipated Permits, Consultations,
or Coordination. The proposed action is
being coordinated with federal, state,
regional, and local agencies. In
accordance with relevant environmental
laws and regulations, the USACE will
consult with the following agencies: US
Fish and Wildlife Service and National
Marine Fisheries Service under the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act and
Endangered Species Act; National
Marine Fisheries Service under the
Marine Mammal Protection Act and
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act; the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act; the Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission under the Coastal Zone
Management Act; the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District under the
Clean Air Act; the California State
Historic Preservation Office and the
Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation under the National Historic
and Preservation Act; and tribes under
tribal coordination policies and
executive orders. Other Federal and
state agencies have been invited to
participate throughout the study process
as Coordinating or Participating
Agencies.
For compliance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the
USACE will serve as the lead Federal
agency in the preparation of the Draft
IFR–EIS. For the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
City of San Francisco Planning
Department (Planning Department) is
the lead agency for the Study. The
Planning Department is conducting
CEQA review under a separate process
and will not be integrated with this
NEPA effort.
7. Public Participation. USACE invites
all affected federal, state, and local
agencies, affected Native American
Tribes, other interested parties, and the
public to participate in the NEPA
process during development of the Draft
IFR–EIS.
Early scoping began in 2020, however
due to the scale of anticipated effects,
the USACE is inviting additional
comments on the potential alternatives,
issues of concern and any analyses
relevant to the proposed action with this
notice and formally announces the
intent to prepare an EIS. For more
information visit the project website at
https://sfport.com/wrp/usace.
The scoping comment period begins
with publication of this notice and ends
on August 28, 2023. All comments
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 143 / Thursday, July 27, 2023 / Notices
received during early scoping and the
scoping period are being used to
identify significant resources and effects
that should be considered in the
preparation of the Draft IFR–EIS.
Comments received after the comment
period closes will be considered prior to
the Draft IFR–EIS public review period,
to the extent possible. For those that
cannot be addressed prior to the public
review period, the comments will be
included within the public review
period and addressed at that time.
While no public scoping meetings are
scheduled during this scoping period,
virtual public scoping meetings were
held on September 16 and 17, 2020
coinciding with the Notice of Early
Scoping issued in the Federal Register
August 2020. The Port has also held
numerous public engagement sessions
including a robust outreach effort in the
Fall of 2022 with a total of sixteen
virtual and in-person public engagement
events to further describe the purpose of
the Study and strategies being
considered, as well as to seek feedback
on areas of concern and the plan
formulation process.
8. Availability of Draft IFR–EIS. The
USACE currently estimates that the
Draft IFR–EIS will be available for
public review and comment in the Fall
of 2023. At that time, the USACE will
provide a 60-day public review period
for individuals and agencies to review
and comment. The USACE will notify
all interested agencies, organizations,
and individuals of the availability of the
draft document at that time. All
interested parties are encouraged to
respond to this notice and provide a
current address if they wish to be
notified of the Draft EIS circulation.
Wesley E. Coleman, Jr.
Programs Director, Southwestern Division.
[FR Doc. 2023–15898 Filed 7–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720–58–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket No.: ED–2023–SCC–0142]
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with NOTICES1
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Comment Request; Ronald
E. McNair Postbaccalaureate
Achievement Program Annual
Performance Report
Office of Postsecondary
Education (OPE), Department of
Education (ED).
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of
1995, the Department is proposing a
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:21 Jul 26, 2023
Jkt 259001
revision of a currently approved
information collection request (ICR).
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before
September 25, 2023.
ADDRESSES: To access and review all the
documents related to the information
collection listed in this notice, please
use https://www.regulations.gov by
searching the Docket ID number ED–
2023–SCC–0142. Comments submitted
in response to this notice should be
submitted electronically through the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://
www.regulations.gov by selecting the
Docket ID number or via postal mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery.
If the regulations.gov site is not
available to the public for any reason,
the Department will temporarily accept
comments at ICDocketMgr@ed.gov.
Please include the docket ID number
and the title of the information
collection request when requesting
documents or submitting comments.
Please note that comments submitted
after the comment period will not be
accepted. Written requests for
information or comments submitted by
postal mail or delivery should be
addressed to the Manager of the
Strategic Collections and Clearance
Governance and Strategy Division, U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Ave. SW, LBJ, Room 6W203,
Washington, DC 20202–8240.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
specific questions related to collection
activities, please contact Julie Laurel,
202–453–6733.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Department, in accordance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA)
(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the
general public and Federal agencies
with an opportunity to comment on
proposed, revised, and continuing
collections of information. This helps
the Department assess the impact of its
information collection requirements and
minimize the public’s reporting burden.
It also helps the public understand the
Department’s information collection
requirements and provide the requested
data in the desired format. The
Department is soliciting comments on
the proposed information collection
request (ICR) that is described below.
The Department is especially interested
in public comment addressing the
following issues: (1) is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the
Department; (2) will this information be
processed and used in a timely manner;
(3) is the estimate of burden accurate;
(4) how might the Department enhance
the quality, utility, and clarity of the
information to be collected; and (5) how
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
48449
might the Department minimize the
burden of this collection on the
respondents, including through the use
of information technology. Please note
that written comments received in
response to this notice will be
considered public records.
Title of Collection: Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement Program
Annual Performance Report.
OMB Control Number: 1840–0640.
Type of Review: A revision of a
currently approved ICR.
Respondents/Affected Public: Private
Sector; State, Local, and Tribal
Governments.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Responses: 206.
Total Estimated Number of Annual
Burden Hours: 2,297.
Abstract: Ronald E. McNair
Postbaccalaureate Achievement
(McNair) Program grantees must submit
the Annual Performance Report each
year. The reports are used to evaluate
grantees’ performance for substantial
progress, respond to the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
and award prior experience points at the
end of each project (budget) period. The
Department also aggregates the data to
provide descriptive information on the
projects and to analyze the impact of the
McNair Program on the academic
progress of participating students.
In this revision, the Department
added two fields, at the project level,
requesting information on the
implementation of the Competitive
Preference Priorities (CPPs) used in the
most recent grant competition. The
addition of the CPP questions coupled
with an increase in the number of
respondents resulted in a slight increase
in total annual burden hours.
Dated: July 24, 2023.
Kun Mullan,
PRA Coordinator, Strategic Collections and
Clearance, Governance and Strategy Division,
Office of Chief Data Officer, Office of
Planning, Evaluation and Policy
Development.
[FR Doc. 2023–15963 Filed 7–26–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED–2023–FSA–0109]
Privacy Act of 1974; System of
Records
Federal Student Aid, U.S.
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of a Modified System of
Records.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
Privacy Act of 1974, as amended
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27JYN1.SGM
27JYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 143 (Thursday, July 27, 2023)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48447-48449]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15898]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers
Notice of Intent To Prepare an Integrated Feasibility Report and
Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal
Flood Study, San Francisco County, California
AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
ACTION: Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Integrated Feasibility
Report and Environmental Impact Statement for the San Francisco
Waterfront Coastal Flood Study, San Francisco County, California.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on
Environmental Quality regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), Tulsa District, announces its intent to prepare a Draft
Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR-
EIS) for the San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study. The study
will investigate the feasibility of managing tidal and fluvial flooding
and sea level rise along 7.5 miles of the San Francisco Waterfront,
from Aquatic Park to Herons Head Park, in the City of San Francisco,
San Francisco County, California. This notice announces USACE's intent
to determine the scope of the issues to be addressed and identify the
significant issues related to a proposed action.
DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 28, 2023.
ADDRESSES: Written comments related to the development of the Draft
IFR-EIS may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected].
Mail: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Tulsa District, ATTN:
RPEC--SFWS, 2488 E 81st Street, Tulsa, OK 74137.
For more information visit the project website at: https://sfport.com/wrp/usace.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or comments regarding the
proposed Draft IFR-EIS may be directed to Ms. Melinda Fisher at 918-
669-7423 or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Authority. The San Francisco Waterfront Coastal Flood Study (the
Study) was originally authorized under section 110 of the Rivers and
Harbors Act of 1950, Public Law (Pub. L.) 515, 64 stat. 163. The
project was subsequently authorized under Section 142 of the Water
Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1976, Pub. L. 94-587, 90 stat.
2917, 2930, as amended by Section 705 of WRDA of 1986, Pub. L. 99-662,
100 stat. 4082, 4158 and section 203 of WRDA 2020.
2. Background. The USACE and the Port of San Francisco (Port) have
partnered to study flood risk along 7.5 miles of San Francisco's
bayside shoreline including areas between Aquatic Park and Heron's Head
Park. The Study is one of several coordinated waterfront resiliency
efforts being undertaken by the Port in partnership with other federal,
state, and local agencies to plan and reduce the risk of anticipated
seismic activity, flooding, coastal storm damages, and sea level rise
along the waterfront.
The Study began in 2018 under the USACE San Francisco District,
South Pacific Division and was transferred to the Tulsa District out of
the Southwestern Division in 2021. The Study follows the USACE
Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Risk Informed, and Timely (SMART)
planning process which targets a feasibility study to be completed
within three years, but due to several complexities, including
consideration of seismic conditions and the diversity of the geographic
regions and stakeholders, the Study has been approved to complete the
process in seven years.
3. Purpose and Need. The purpose of the Study is to investigate the
feasibility of managing tidal and fluvial flooding and sea level rise
along 7.5 miles of the San Francisco Bay shoreline. The project area is
at risk of flooding from bay water during coastal storms, extreme
tides, and future sea level rise. Flooding along the waterfront could
cause extensive damage to public infrastructure and private property,
loss of life and deterioration of public health and safety, degradation
of the natural environment, and adverse changes to the social and
economic character of the waterfront community. The risk is
[[Page 48448]]
expected to increase over time as sea levels rise in the bay.
4. Proposed Action and Alternatives Being Considered. Adapting the
waterfront will require changes on a large scale that balance multiple
factors and priorities. The Study Team has formulated an array of
alternatives that would reduce the risk of flooding along the
waterfront by considering the three USACE sea level rise curve
scenarios (low, intermediate, and high), alignment of the line of
defense relative to the existing shoreline, and adaptability of the
design to address higher sea levels if certain thresholds are triggered
after construction. A total of seven alternatives have been formulated
for this study including:
Alternative A--No Action: Takes no action to reduce flood
risks through this project. This alternative serves as the baseline
condition.
Alternative B--Nonstructural: Proposes nonstructural
measures such as relocation, raise in place, floodproofing, and zoning
in areas identified with frequent flooding.
Alternative C--Defend Low Rate of Rise: Uses a combination
of structural (e.g., t-walls, sheet pile walls, berms, curb
extensions), nonstructural (e.g., deployable flood barriers,
floodproofing), and natural and nature-based features (NNBF) (e.g.,
ecological armoring) to address flooding in ``low spots'' along the
shoreline. This alternative does not include any future year actions or
adaptability once construction is complete.
Alternative D--Hybrid, Lower Rate of Rise: Similar to
Alternative C except measures are adaptable for future construction
assuming the rate of rise accelerates to a higher rate of sea level
change. Ecotone levees, ecological armoring, and wetland preservation
and restoration are additional NNBF included in this design.
Alternative E--Defend, Higher Rate of Rise: Uses a
combination of structural (e.g., wharf raises and rehabilitation,
seawalls, sheet pile walls, and berms), nonstructural (e.g., building
and bridge raises, floodproofing) and NNBF (e.g., living seawalls/
vertical shoreline, embankment shorelines, ecotone levees, and
naturalized shorelines) to defend at the existing shoreline and prevent
overtopping at the higher rate of sea level change with recommendations
for adaptation in future years.
Alternative F--Working with Water, Higher Rate of Rise:
Similar to Alternative E, except there is managed retreat inland along
the southern waterfront and tide gates at the mouths of Islais and
Mission creeks. The NNBF include ecotone levees, ecological armoring,
naturalized shorelines, coarse beaches, and wetland preservation and
restoration. Additional retreat and adaptations are proposed as the
rate of sea level rise increases. This alternative proposes the most
bayward alignment.
Alternative G--Living with Water, Higher Rate of Rise:
Similar to Alternative F, except this alternative concedes the largest
area for managed retreat and incorporates more nonstructural measures
(e.g., relocation and zoning) and significantly more areas of wetland
restoration. It does not include water control structures (i.e., tide
gates). This alternative proposes the most inland alignment and does
not require bay fill.
5. Brief Summary of Expected Impacts. Expected impacts include
short- and long-term impacts to existing aquatic habitats, fish and
wildlife including federally protected species and their habitat, water
quality, air quality, aesthetic quality, noise, transportation
corridors, recreation features, historic resources, and socioeconomic
resources. Impacts anticipated to require compensatory mitigation
include aquatic habitats, water quality, and air quality, while many of
the impacts to other resources will be minimized or avoided through
project design. Long-term benefits are anticipated to each of the
socioeconomic resources such as life safety, critical infrastructure,
utilities, historic resources, historically disadvantaged communities,
recreation, and the local economy through the management of coastal
flooding and sea level rise. Long-term increases in aquatic habitats
may also be realized with implementation of the NNBF.
The USACE San Francisco District and Port issued a Notice of Early
Scoping in the Federal Register August 20, 2020. At that time, it was
unclear if significant effects would be realized and the need for an
EIS was not formally announced. Since then, it was determined that
significant resource impacts are anticipated and an EIS is warranted.
During early scoping, several significant environmental and social
issues were raised including but not limited to minimizing bay fill;
effects of high rates of sea level rise on any alternative considered;
disruptions to businesses, transportation corridors and walk paths;
environmental justice impacts on historically disadvantaged
communities; impacts to water quality, contaminated sites, historic
resources; and the potential cost and time to implement any of the
strategies. In general, there was wide support for use of nature-based
measures in lieu of gray infrastructure, preserving and increasing
public access to the waterfront, and incorporating adaptation
components to address uncertainties in sea level rise.
6. Anticipated Permits, Consultations, or Coordination. The
proposed action is being coordinated with federal, state, regional, and
local agencies. In accordance with relevant environmental laws and
regulations, the USACE will consult with the following agencies: US
Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service under
the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and Endangered Species Act;
National Marine Fisheries Service under the Marine Mammal Protection
Act and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act; the
San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act; the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission under the Coastal Zone Management Act; the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District under the Clean Air Act; the California
State Historic Preservation Office and the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation under the National Historic and Preservation Act; and
tribes under tribal coordination policies and executive orders. Other
Federal and state agencies have been invited to participate throughout
the study process as Coordinating or Participating Agencies.
For compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA),
the USACE will serve as the lead Federal agency in the preparation of
the Draft IFR-EIS. For the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
the City of San Francisco Planning Department (Planning Department) is
the lead agency for the Study. The Planning Department is conducting
CEQA review under a separate process and will not be integrated with
this NEPA effort.
7. Public Participation. USACE invites all affected federal, state,
and local agencies, affected Native American Tribes, other interested
parties, and the public to participate in the NEPA process during
development of the Draft IFR-EIS.
Early scoping began in 2020, however due to the scale of
anticipated effects, the USACE is inviting additional comments on the
potential alternatives, issues of concern and any analyses relevant to
the proposed action with this notice and formally announces the intent
to prepare an EIS. For more information visit the project website at
https://sfport.com/wrp/usace.
The scoping comment period begins with publication of this notice
and ends on August 28, 2023. All comments
[[Page 48449]]
received during early scoping and the scoping period are being used to
identify significant resources and effects that should be considered in
the preparation of the Draft IFR-EIS. Comments received after the
comment period closes will be considered prior to the Draft IFR-EIS
public review period, to the extent possible. For those that cannot be
addressed prior to the public review period, the comments will be
included within the public review period and addressed at that time.
While no public scoping meetings are scheduled during this scoping
period, virtual public scoping meetings were held on September 16 and
17, 2020 coinciding with the Notice of Early Scoping issued in the
Federal Register August 2020. The Port has also held numerous public
engagement sessions including a robust outreach effort in the Fall of
2022 with a total of sixteen virtual and in-person public engagement
events to further describe the purpose of the Study and strategies
being considered, as well as to seek feedback on areas of concern and
the plan formulation process.
8. Availability of Draft IFR-EIS. The USACE currently estimates
that the Draft IFR-EIS will be available for public review and comment
in the Fall of 2023. At that time, the USACE will provide a 60-day
public review period for individuals and agencies to review and
comment. The USACE will notify all interested agencies, organizations,
and individuals of the availability of the draft document at that time.
All interested parties are encouraged to respond to this notice and
provide a current address if they wish to be notified of the Draft EIS
circulation.
Wesley E. Coleman, Jr.
Programs Director, Southwestern Division.
[FR Doc. 2023-15898 Filed 7-26-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3720-58-P