Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for Future 404 Permit Actions on the Santa Clara River and its Tributaries, Los Angeles County, California

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers

Intent to Prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)

for Future 404 Permit Actions on the Santa Clara River and its

Tributaries, Los Angeles County, California

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers DOD.

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The Corps will prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(DEIS) for a Proposed General Permit on future 404 permit activities

associated with the phased development of the Valencia Master Plan

along a portion of the Santa Calra River and its tributaries, Los

Angeles County, California. The proposed 404 decision(s) are associated

with proposed flood control and transportation projects related to

residential, commercial and industrial development on lands owned by

Valencia Company. The EIS will address project-specific impacts,

indirect and cumulative impacts, and a range of alternatives.

Information in the EIS will be used in the decision whether to issue a

404 permit or series of permits for future flood control improvements,

bridges, drainage facilities, and other actions associated with the

continual development of the region. The draft EIS is currently

scheduled for public review in early 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Bruce Henderson, Regulatory Branch, CESPL-CO-R, Permit Number 94-

504-BH, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District--300 North

Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. Copies of the Special

Scoping Notice dated March 16, 1994 may be obtained by calling (213)

894-5606 and indicating that you are requesting a copy of the Valencia

Special Scoping Notice, and leaving your name, address (or fax number),

and phone number. Additional documents relative to the project may be

reviewed by contacting the Los Angeles District (address above); the

Ventura Field Office of the Corps of Engineers 2151, Alessandro Drive,

Suite 255, Ventura CA 93001, (805) 641-1127; or Mr. Mark Subbotin,

Valencia Company, 23823 Valencia Company, 23823 Valencia Blvd.,

Valencia, CA 91335, (805) 255-4069.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Previous Notices

A Notice of Intent (NOI) for a previous version of this project was

issued Oct. 10, 1990. The DEIS was not completed. Since 1990 Valencia

Company has: (1) Completed hydrologic studies which resulted in

revisions to the proposed flood control improvements; and (2) explored

the use of a general permit and Environmental Assessment/Finding of No

Significant Impact (EA/FONSI) for the proposed project.

A Special Scoping Notice to consider a General Permit for the

project was issued by the Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers on

March 16, 1994 (See below to obtain copies.) Comments were received,

responded to by the applicant, and reviewed by the Corps. The Corps

determined that an EIS should be prepared because: (1) Potentially

significant individual and cumulative impacts to wetlands, riparian

habitat, and endangered species resources along portions of the river

might occur; (2) there is a need to evaluate cumulative impacts to such

resources from other discharges in the vicinity; and (3) other permit

processes in the watershed have generated impacts to the biological

community. The Corps further determined that it was premature to make a

decision regarding whether a General Permit was the appropriate form of

permit for this project. This determination was based on the fact that

it appeared that the proposed project, with mitigation, could not meet

the ``minimal impacts'' requirement for a General Permit.

Study Area

The project area includes 2.0 liner miles of the South Fork of the

Santa Clara River, the mouth of Bouquet Creek, 2.5 linear miles of San

Francisquito Creek, 7.6 linear miles of the mainstream of the Santa

Clara River and jurisdictional tributaries from near the Los Angeles

Aqueduct crossing to the Castaic Creek confluence.

Proposed Action

The proposed action is the issuance of a Clean Water Act Section

404 permit or set of permits to Valencia Company that would authorize

numerous flood control and drainage facilities, and bridges over a 15

to 20 year period. These public works projects will be associated with

various residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational

developments. Most of the proposed development projects would be

carried out by Valencia Company; however, several of the identified

projects may be constructed by others, using the proposed permit issued

to Valencia Company. If a general permit is issued, it would apply to

other applicants in addition to Valencia Company.

Valencia Company is currently planning and constructing various

component projects of the Valencia Master Plan along portions of the

Santa Clara River and its tributaries. Certain projects along the river

and its tributaries will result in excavation and/or the discharge of

dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (``waters'')

as defined in 33 CFR 320-330 under provisions of Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act. These activities require a Department of the Army

permit. Projects resulting in excavation and/or discharges include

channel bank protection for flood control, drainage structures,

bridges, fill, mitigation or other encroachment into the Santa Clara

River and its tributaries.

The proposed action to be addressed in the EIS has been

substantially revised since the 1990 NOI, but is essentially the same

as that described as the ``Natural River Management Concept'' in the

1994 Special Scoping Notice. This concept includes the following

elements: (1) Channel bank protection will be placed only where

necessary; (2) bank protection will be placed such that

[[Page 50560]]

impacts to wetlands along the river will be avoided or minimized where

practicable; (3) a balance of wetland losses and wetland gains (by

mitigation) will be sought; and (4) as proposed, clearing of vegetation

in the finished river channel for maintenance purposes will not be

necessary. (Los Angeles County Department of Public Works is in

concurrence with this goal for most areas of the proposed project.

Negotiations on the details of the maintenance agreement

(``agreement'') between Valencia Company and L.A. County Public Works

are in process. The agreement must be signed prior to completion of the

DEIS in order that the agreement and a discussion of its ramifications

can be included in the DEIS. (If the signed agreement cannot be

included in the DEIS other alternative maintenance regimes will be

considered in the DEIS.)

Scope of Analysis in the EIS

The scope of the EIS impact analysis will follow the directives in

33 CFR 325 (Appendices B and C) which require the scope of an EIS be

limited to the impacts of the specific activities requiring a 404

permit and only those portions of the project outside of waters where

there is sufficient federal control and responsibility to warrant

federal review. The latter activities are characterized as those which

would not occur ``but for'' the 404 discharge activity. That is,

related actions that are clearly and solely dependent upon the nearby

404 activities.

The EIS will address impacts of facilities that would occur within

jurisdictional waters. In addition, the EIS will address adjacent land

development projects in the ``but for zone'' (see below) that are

directly dependent on adjacent bank protection or levees.

The EIS will address potential permitting strategies in which an

individual permit, general permit, or combination of individual,

nationwide, and/or general permits, are issued. The permit timeframe

would be 5 years, with administrative renewals over a 15 to 20 year

period in accordance with Corps regulations.

``But for Zone''

The EIS will clearly delineate a ``but for zone'' along the edge of

jurisdictional waters. The boundary of the ``but for zone'' to be used

as the upland limit of the EIS impact assessment is defined as 105 feet

inland from the existing river bank. The 105 feet determination is

based on information that 105 feet is the distance necessary to move

the levee laterally in order that both the toe of the levee and the

construction zone would be behind the bank (i.e. all structures and

construction would be in uplands and therefore not regulated by the

Corps under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act). Bank protection

installed within ``but for zone'' will result in permanent or temporary

discharges of dredged or fill material to waters, and therefore require

a 404 permit. Bank protection installed outside this zone, would not

affect waters and therefore would not require a 404 permit.

Valencia Company submitted the following statement in justification

for limiting the lateral extent of the Scope of Analysis to 105 feet:

``Arguments For Justifying The Development Assumptions Outside

The ``But For'' Zone, Valencia Master Plan 404 Permit

The scope of the EIS impact analysis will follow the directives

in 33 CFR 325 that require the scope of an EIS be limited to the

impacts of the specific activities requiring a 404 permit, and only

those portions of the project outside of ``waters'' over which the

Corps has sufficient control and responsibility to warrant federal

review. The latter activities would include actions that would not

occur ``but for'' the 404 discharge activity. That is, related

actions that are clearly and solely dependent upon the nearby 404

activities.

The boundary of the ``but for zone'' to be used as the upland

limit of the EIS impact assessment is defined as 105 feet inland

from the existing river bank. Bank protection installed in uplands

within this zone will result in temporary impact to ``waters,'' and

therefore require a 404 permit. Bank protection installed outside

would not affect ``waters'', and therefore would not require a 404

permit.

The impacts of future land development and public works projects

outside the ``but for zone'' would not be addressed in the EIS

because it is a reasonable assumption that such projects would occur

with or without the issuance of a 404 permit for bank protection,

which would allow land development within the ``but for zone''. In

other words, future land development and public works projects are

independent of the proposed bank protection and will not be

addressed in the EIS as an action that is linked, dependent upon, or

otherwise caused by the proposed 404 permit. The justification for

this approach is based on the reasonable assumption that lands

outside the ``but for zone'' where the Corps has no permit

jurisdiction will be developed in the future. This assumption is

based on the following considerations:

1. There are tremendous economic and population pressures in the

region. The population of the Santa Clarita Valley has been growing

rapidly since 1970 and 1980. The valley experienced a 23.7% increase

in population. Between 1980 and 1989, the population doubled to

approximately 154,000 people. The City and County's General Plans

project populations which will double again by the year 2010. The

Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted a new

demographic projections in June 1994 which showed the Santa Clarita

Valley population at 462,000 people by the year 2015.

Employment is expected to increase by even greater percentage.

SCAG Forecasts from the City of Santa Clarita General Plan shows

employment growing from an estimated 23,000 in 1984 to 97,000 jobs

in the year 2010, an increase of over 315%. At its peak in the late

1980's industrial square footage was being added at a rate of a

million square feet per year. Another measure of demand for

industrial square footage is the vacancy rate which is currently

6.5% in the Valencia Industrial Center. This compares to 11.3% in

the San Fernando Valley and 12.7% in Southern California. Retail

commercial space has shown similar strengths in the Santa Clarita

Valley. The Santa Clarita area has exhibited an annual retail sales

rate of 11.5% in the last seven years, compared to retail sales rate

of only 2% in the last five years in California.

2. Lands outside the ``but for zone'' in the City are zoned for

development. Lands outside the ``but for zone'' in the City of Santa

Clarita are zoned for residential, commercial, and industrial uses

and are surrounded by these same land uses. Valencia Company intends

to continue this type of development to meet the demands of the

growing population in the Santa Clarita Valley. One of the principal

components of the City of Santa Clarita's General Plan is the

``Valley Center Concept''. This concept is intended to create a

valley identity and to unify surrounding communities by designating

a central core of the valley. Within this area, higher density

residential and commercial land uses would be allowed to permit

lower densities in the surrounding communities. The Santa Clara

River corridor is the major opportunity to link the components of

the center together with the uniform theme of natural open space

preservation and river enhancement.

3. Land outside the ``but for zone'' in the unincorporated

portions of the County are designated for commercial and industrial

development in the General Plan. Many are still zoned for

agriculture; however, zone change requests for residential,

commercial, and industrial uses are being processed by the County to

make the zoning consistent with the General Plan designations and

allow urban development. Valencia Company and others intend to

continue residential, commercial, and industrial developments to

meet the demands of the growing population in the region.

4. Lands outside the ``but for zone'' in the County are zoned

for Development. Land development outside the ``but for zone'' is

feasible without adjacent 404 permits. If a Corps permit were not

issued and the ``but for zone'' was not developed, land development

would still be feasible outside the ``but for zone''. However, less

land would be available and many parcels would be reduced in size

and altered in terms of their configurations. These effects would

reduce the value and potential uses of these

[[Page 50561]]

properties. However, these lands are located within areas already

surrounded by urban land uses. As such, there is a high priority to

develop these lands prior to developing lands at more remote

locations in the Santa Clarita Valley for several reasons: (1) The

infrastructure is already present in these areas; and (2) the City

and County General Plans emphasize in-filling of such areas within

the urbanized portions of the valley in order to prevent scattered

and disjunct development of outlying areas.

Development of flood protection features outside the ``but for

zone'' if feasible. Such protection could involve several options:

(1) Elevating land development projects above the floodway in

accordance with Los Angeles County requirements; or (2) excavating

dry land and installing levees and/or bank protection. Hence, the

distance of the ``but for zone'' from the river (105 or more feet)

would not represent a constraint on flood protection improvements.

Based on the above considerations, the assumption that the land

outside the ``but for zone'' would be developed with or without the

proposed 404 permit is reasonable.

Key Environmental Impacts

The key types of environmental impacts to be addressed in the EIS

are listed below:

a. Riparian habitat and wetlands--Future flood control projects

could result in the permanent or temporary loss or temporary

disturbance of riparian and wetland habitat. The Valencia Master Plan

includes the creation and restoration of riparian and wetland habitats

along the river to compensate for these losses in other portions of the

river. The EIS will assess the loss or gain of these resources over the

short term and long term based on their acreages, functions, and

values.

b. Threatened and endangered species--Portions of the Santa Clara

River support the Federally listed endangered unarmored threespine

stickleback fish (Gasterosteus aculeatus williamsoni).

In addition, riparian habitat along the river provides potentially

suitable habitat for the Federally listed endangered least Bell's vireo

(Vireo belli pusillus). These species could be affected by loss of

wetlands, change in hydrologic conditions, and increased urban runoff.

Species Proposed or designated as Candidates for Federal listing will

also be addressed in the EIS.

c. Hydraulics, hydrology, and water quality--The EIS will address

the effects of bank protection, bridges, and adjacent upland

development on the river's hydrology, flood hazard conditions,

hydraulic characteristics, sediment transport, and water quality.

d. The EIS will also address impacts of the proposed action (within

the scope of analysis) related to air quality, groundwater, recreation,

visual resources, noise, traffic, land use, and cultural resources.

Cumulative Impacts

The EIS will address the combined effects of various future flood

control facilities and urban development encroaching into the river

from Lang Station (7.1 miles upstream of the east end of the project

reach) to the Ventura County line 4.1 miles downstream of the west end

of the project reach), including major tributaries. The assessment will

focus on adverse cumulative impacts to water quality, sediment

transport conditions, riparian and wetland habitat, and threatened and

endangered species. Other cumulative impacts will also be addressed

regarding air quality, groundwater, recreation, visual resources, and

cultural resources.

Alternatives

The following alternatives will be addressed in the EIS: (1) No

action Alternative--denial of a long-term comprehensive permit and lack

of any new Section 404 authorizations allowing future development

projects; limited authorizations issued by the Corps would be presumed

only for emergency work on existing projects and minimal impact

maintenance projects; (2) Full Encroachment Alternative--conventional

uniform bank protection according to previous Los Angeles County Public

Works Department plans, resulting in encroachment into the river at

most locations (which would maximize developable land); (3) Complete

Avoidance Alternative-placement of levees and bank protection outside

of waters at all locations, avoiding the need for a Corps 404 permit

except at bridge and side drain locations; (4) Refined Proposed Project

Alternative--the proposed project with revisions to the channel

alignment and placement to avoid certain site-specific impacts or

highly sensitive areas that will be identified in the EIS impact

studies; (5) Other Alternatives--other alternatives identified in the

public scoping process that are consistent with the project objectives

and do not have other new significant impacts; and (6) Permitting

Alternatives--a range of permitting process alternatives, including

various combinations of general, nationwide, and individual permits and

administrative processes.

Public Involvement

Interested parties are encouraged to be involved in the scoping

process by sending written comments concerning the scope of the EIS to

the contact person noted above. Written comments on the NOI are due to

Corps Regulatory at the address noted below no later than October 31,

1995.

In addition, a public scoping meeting is scheduled for October 5,

1995, 7:00 pm to 10 pm, at the Valencia Hilton Garden Inn in the

Pacific A and B rooms, 27710 The Old Road, Valencia. Interested parties

are encouraged to attend.

Richard J. Schubel,

Acting Regulatory Branch.

[FR Doc. 95-24190 Filed 9-28-95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3710-KF-M