1
Regulatory Division
450 Golden Gate Ave., 4
th
Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102-3406
SAN FRANCISCO DISTRICT
PUBLIC NOTICE
PROJECT: Anderson Dam Seismic Retrofit
PUBLIC NOTICE NUMBER: SPN-2013-00327
PUBLIC NOTICE DATE: July 11, 2024
COMMENTS DUE DATE: August 10, 2024
PERMIT MANAGER: Sarah Firestone TELEPHONE: (415) 503-6776 E-MAIL: Sarah.M.Firestone@usace.army.mil
1. INTRODUCTION:
Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water,
POC: Ryan McCarter, 408-630-2983), 5750
Almaden Expressway, San José, California 95118,
through its agent, H. T. Harvey & Associates (POC:
Steve Rottenborn, 408-722-0931), 983 University
Avenue, Building D, Los Gatos, California 95032}
has applied to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), San Francisco District, f or a Department of
the Army Permit to complete the Anderson Dam
Seismic Retrofit Project, located in Santa Clara
County, California. This Department of the Army
permit application is being processed pursuant to the
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of
1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1344 et seq.). The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) will
serve as the lead federal agency with respect to
compliance with federal laws. Valley Water
submitted an Application for Surrender of Exemption
to FERC on February 20, 2024
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_N
umber=20240220-5207). On April 23, 2024, USACE
requested that FERC grant USACE cooperating
agency status under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) for the Anderson Dam Seismic
Retrofit Project.
2. PROPOSED PROJECT:
Project Site Location: Anderson Dam and
Anderson Reservoir are located near the junction of
Cochrane Road and Coyote Road in Santa Clara
County, California, 0.8 miles east of U.S. Highway
101 (Cochrane Road exit). The project site is 18
miles southeast of the City of San José, and 2.5
miles northeast of the City of Morgan Hill. Anderson
Reservoir is located on lands within unincorporated
Santa Clara County, the City of Morgan Hill, and the
City of San José (37.171° center latitude, -121.823°
center longitude). The project site includes Anderson
Reservoir, Anderson Dam, and other Seismic
Retrofit Components; the Live Oak Restoration
Reach Maintenance area; the North Channel Reach
Maintenance area; the Sediment Augmentation
Program; the Ogier Ponds restoration area
(approximately 4 miles downstream of Anderson
Dam); the Coyote Percolation Dam Phase 2
(approximately 10 miles downstream of Anderson
Dam); and lands in the immediate vicinity of
Anderson Reservoir and Coyote Creek that are
owned by Valley Water and the County of Santa
Clara, as well as portions of the Cochrane Road and
Coyote Road rights-of-way (Figure 1).
Project Site Description: Anderson Reservoir, was
constructed in 1950. It is a 235-foot-high earthen
dam that measures 1,430-feet long by 900-feet wide
and sits on the Coyote Creek-Range Front Fault. It
holds over 89,000 acre-feet (AF) of water when full,
with a surface area of 1,253 acres, more than all the
other Valley Water surface water reservoirs
combined and is therefore critical to the water supply
of Santa Clara County It is located on Coyote Creek,
2
approximately 1.5 miles downstream of Coyote
Reservoir.
The upstream reaches of Coyote Creek and the
watershed that feeds into Anderson Reservoir are
largely undeveloped. The contributing streams to
Anderson Reservoir include Upper Coyote Creek,
Las Animas Creek, Packwood Creek, and other
small streams that drain directly into the reservoir.
Downstream of Anderson Dam, Coyote Creek flows
approximately 32 miles north-northwest through
many densely urbanized areas in Santa Clara
County before reaching tidal waters, and another 8.5
miles before reaching the open waters of San
Francisco Bay (Figure 2).
Project Description: As shown in the attached
drawings, the proposed project consists of numerous
project components that fall into six over-arching
categories. Not all project components are regulated
by USACE.
1. Seismic Retrofit Components: Project components
related to the Anderson Dam facility upgrades and
improvements to stabilize and mitigate potential
seismic risks and comply with current public safety
requirements and to meet FERC and Division of
Safety of Dams (DSOD) safety requirements.
2. Conservation Measure Components: Project
components designed to avoid and minimize
adverse environmental impacts, and in some cases
provide environmental benefits. These components
would be implemented both during and after project
construction and would reduce construction-related
impacts and allow for managed aquifer recharge to
support water supply requirements, while improving
and maintaining wetted habitat for fish, wildlife and
other groundwater dependent habitats. Many of
these components align with the Fish and Aquatic
Habitat Collaborative Effort (FAHCE) Phase 1 non-
flow measures, as described in the Fish Habitat
Restoration Plan (FHRP), and would provide
improved fish passage, steelhead spawning and
rearing habitat, and restored hydrologic functions.
3. Construction Monitoring: Project components
include habitat and species monitoring during
construction to document project effects on the
environment and guide future habitat restoration
efforts.
4. Post-Construction Anderson Dam Facilities
Operations and Maintenance: Project components
that involve how proposed, permanent Anderson
Dam facilities would be operated and maintained
following construction. These Project components
include implementation of the FAHCE-plus Modified
flow measures at the Anderson Dam facility, post-
construction monitoring, and post-construction
maintenance. Post-construction dam operations are
not regulated by USACE,
5. Post-Construction Conservation Measure
Operations and Maintenance: Project components
that involve how proposed, permanent Conservation
Measure (CM) facilities would be operated and
maintained following construction. These CM
facilities include implementation of the Ogier Ponds
CM, Phase 2 Coyote Percolation Dam Fish Passage
Enhancements (Phase 2 Coyote Percolation Dam
CM), and the Sediment Augmentation Program, as
well as maintenance of the North Channel Reach
and Live Oak Restoration Reach.
6. Post-Construction Project and FAHCE Adaptive
Management Program: Adaptive management of all
post-construction operations, and all habitat
restoration CMs components would occur in
accordance with the Project and FAHCE Adaptive
Management Plan (AMP). Pursuant to the FAHCE
Framework and recommendations from NMFS, a
Project-specific ADSRP AMP has been developed.
The project and FAHCE AMP includes four key
elements to address key uncertainties regarding the
level of ecological improvement that can be attained
by proposed CMs: measurable objectives for
steelhead and salmon fisheries and their habitats;
compliance monitoring, validation monitoring,
effectiveness monitoring and long-term trend
monitoring; a menu of adaptive actions that may be
implemented or refined to assure measurable
objectives are met; and reporting. Post-construction
dam operations are not regulated by USACE,
The locations of these project components are
shown in Figures 3 and 6. Figures 4-5 show
proposed project impacts, and Figure 7 shows the
location of waters of the U.S. within the project area
3
and areas impacted by the FERC Order Compliance
Project (FOCP).
Basic Project Purpose: The basic project purpose
comprises the fundamental, essential, or irreducible
purpose of the project, and is used by USACE to
determine whether the project is water dependent.
The basic project purpose is to meet FERC and
DSOD safety requirements.
Overall Project Purpose: The overall project
purpose serves as the basis for the Section
404(b)(1) alternatives analysis and is determined by
further defining the basic project purpose in a
manner that more specifically describes the
applicant's goals for the project while allowing a
reasonable range of alternatives to be analyzed. The
overall project purpose is to seismically retrofit
Anderson Dam and Reservoir to meet FERC and
DSOD safety requirements while minimizing impacts
to aquatic resource functions in the watershed.
Project Impacts: The proposed project would result
in impacts to a maximum of 1,244 acres of reservoir,
2.7 acres of spillway, 0.2 acre of pond, 2.4 acres of
stream, and 0.5 acre of freshwater marsh. The
project is anticipated to result in the loss of 3 acres of
reservoir, 0.2 acre of pond, 0.4 acre of stream, and
0.5 acre of freshwater marsh. In addition, the Ogier
Ponds conservation measure would result in a loss
of 19.3 acres of pond (Ponds 1-5), 1.3 acre of
stream, 3.7 acres of freshwater marsh, and 0.05 acre
of wetland. Ogier Ponds would also result in the
creation/restoration of 12.5 acres of stream and 4.5
acres of freshwater marsh.
Proposed Mitigation: Valley Water has proposed a
variety of standard minimization measures, including
maintaining downstream flows, removing temporary
fills, restoring any temporarily impacted riffle-pool
complexes, and monitoring water quality during
construction. Proposed mitigation measures include
separating Ogier Ponds from Coyote Creek,
enhancing multiple reaches of Coyote Creek, and
purchasing in-lieu fee credits.
Project Alternatives: Because the project is
necessarily focused on Anderson Dam and
Reservoir, the applicant has not proposed any off-
site alternatives (i.e., at locations other than
Anderson Dam and Reservoir). On-site alternatives
include:
1. No Project Alternative – The project would not
proceed, and existing (post-FOCP)
environmental conditions and Valley Water
operations would be maintained. This alternative
would provide limited incidental flood risk
reduction because FERC requirements to restrict
Anderson Reservoir water levels to a near
deadpool would remain in place.
2. Flood Risk Reduction Alternative – This
alternative would leave the existing Anderson
Dam in place following completion of the FOCP
and the Anderson Dam Tunnel Project. No
project construction would occur as described in
the Project Description. Following completion of
the FOCP, Anderson Dam would be operated at
a reduced capacity, consistent with FERC orders,
to allow for incidental flood risk reduction, but the
reservoir’s ability to sufficiently support current
and future regional water supply needs with
water would be eliminated.
3. Removal of Anderson Dam and Provision of
Alternative Water Supply Sources – This
alternative would entail the complete removal of
Anderson Dam, with no replacement. This would
eliminate any flood protection provided by the
dam incidental to storage of local water in the
reservoir for water supply and groundwater
recharge.
4. Downstream Fix Only – This alternative would
restrict excavation to the downstream shell of the
dam embankment by removing and replacing
portions of the potentially liquefiable material,
reconstructing the dam, and constructing a large
buttress on the downstream slope of the
embankment. The water surface level in the
reservoir would be maintained at the FERC-
restricted level (deadpool), so no further
dewatering would be required during
construction. The crest of the dam would be
raised to elev. 656 feet (approximately 8 feet) to
maintain the freeboard required. this alternative
would not fully meet the project objective to
seismically retrofit the dam. Shoring up the dam
would fail to address the safety issues identified
by FERC, DSOD, and Valley Water.
5. Reduction of Excavation from Anderson Dam
Embankment – This alternative would excavate
4
less material from the dam. The reduction in
volume would be achieved by retaining a larger
portion of the core and portions of the upstream
and downstream shells of the existing dam than
the applicant’s preferred alternative. Because of
uncertainties regarding seismic performance due
to the larger existing dam remnant and retention
of some liquefiable material, FERC and DSOD
have indicated that this alternative would not be
approved.
6. Use of Offsite Borrow Materials and Cut Material
Off-Hauled – This alternative would be similar to
the applicant’s preferred alternative, except that
all borrow material for retrofitting the dam would
be hauled in from an offsite borrow location and
cut material would be hauled off rather than
reused to avoid impacts to the Basalt Hill Borrow
Area (BHBA) and avoid placing materials in the
reservoir.
7. Increased Dredge Alternative – This alternative
would remove a larger volume of sediment from
the Anderson Reservoir bed compared to the
applicant’s preferred alternative, but all other
components of the proposed project would
remain the same.
8. Upland Stockpile and Disposal Locations
Alternative – This alternative would use upland
areas for some or all of the stockpile and
disposal activities that are currently proposed to
occur in waters of the state, within the bed of
Anderson Reservoir.
USACE has not endorsed the submitted alternatives
analysis at this time. USACE will conduct an
independent review of the project alternatives prior to
reaching a final permit decision.
3. STATE AND LOCAL APPROVALS:
Water Quality Certification: State water quality
certification or a waiver thereof is a prerequisite for
the issuance of a Department of the Army Permit to
conduct any activity which may result in a fill or
pollutant discharge into waters of the United States,
pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act of
1972, as amended (33 U.S.C. § 1341 et seq.). The
applicant has recently submitted an application to the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) to obtain water quality certification for the
project.. No Department of the Army Permit will be
issued until the applicant obtains the required
certification or a waiver of certification. A waiver can
be explicit, or it may be presumed if the RWQCB
fails or refuses to act on a complete application for
water quality certification within 60 days of receipt,
unless the District Engineer determines a shorter or
longer period is a reasonable time for the RWQCB to
act.
Water quality issues should be directed to the
Executive Officer, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, 1515
Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612,
by the close of the comment period.
Coastal Zone Management: Section 307(c) of the
Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, as amended
(16 U.S.C. § 1456(c) et seq.), requires a non-
Federal applicant seeking a federal license or permit
to conduct any activity occurring in or affecting the
coastal zone to obtain a Consistency Certification
that indicates the activity conforms with the state’s
coastal zone management program that indicates
the activity conforms with the state’s coastal zone
management program. Generally, no federal license
or permit will be granted until the appropriate state
agency has issued a Consistency Certification or has
waived its right to do so. The project does not occur
in the coastal zone, and a preliminary review by
USACE indicates the project is not likely to affect
coastal zone resources. This presumption of effect,
however, remains subject to a final determination by
the San Francisco Bay Conservation and
Development Commission.
Other Local Approvals: The applicant will be
applying for the following additional governmental
authorizations for the project: a Lake and Streambed
Alteration Agreement to be issued by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife.
4. COMPLIANCE WITH VARIOUS FEDERAL
LAWS:
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA): FERC
is the lead federal agency for the Proposed License
Surrender. As a cooperating agency, USACE will
coordinate with FERC, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Section
1501.8(b) and 1508.7, 33 C.F.R. Part 325, Appendix
B, paragraph 8(c), and 33 C.F.R. Section 230.16, to
ensure that FERC’s resulting NEPA documentation
may be adopted by USACE to meet our regulatory
5
authority under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
USACE’s final NEPA analysis will be incorporated in
the decision documentation that provides the
rationale for issuing or denying a Department of the
Army Permit for the Proposed Action. The final
USACE NEPA analysis and supporting
documentation will be on file with the San Francisco
District, Regulatory Division.
Endangered Species Act (ESA): Section 7(a)(2) of
the ESA of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1531 et
seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult with
either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) or
the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to
ensure actions authorized, funded, or undertaken by
the agency are not likely to jeopardize the continued
existence of any Federally-listed species or result in
the adverse modification of designated critical
habitat. As the Federal lead agency for this project,
FERC will be responsible for determining the
presence or absence of Federally-listed species and
designated critical habitat and the need to conduct
consultation. To complete the administrative record
and the decision on whether to issue a Department
of the Army Permit for the project, USACE will obtain
all necessary supporting documentation from the
applicant concerning the consultation process. Any
required consultation must be concluded prior to the
issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the
project.
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and
Management Act (MSFCMA): Section 305(b)(2) of
the MSFCMA of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. §
1801 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to consult
with the NMFS on all proposed actions authorized,
funded, or undertaken by the agency that may
adversely affect essential fish habitat (EFH). EFH is
defined as those waters and substrate necessary to
fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to
maturity. EFH is designated only for those species
managed under a Federal Fisheries Management
Plan (FMP), such as the Pacific Groundfish FMP, the
Coastal Pelagics FMP, or the Pacific Coast Salmon
FMP. As the Federal lead agency for this project,
FERC will be responsible for determining the
presence or absence of EFH and the need to
conduct consultation. To complete the administrative
record and the decision on whether to issue a
Department of the Army Permit for the project,
USACE will obtain all necessary supporting
documentation from the applicant concerning the
consultation process. Any required consultation must
be concluded prior to the issuance of a Department
of the Army Permit for the project.
Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries
Act (MPRSA): Section 302 of the MPRSA of 1972,
as amended (16 U.S.C. § 1432 et seq.), authorizes
the Secretary of Commerce, in part, to designate
areas of ocean waters, such as the Cordell Bank,
Gulf of the Farallones, and Monterey Bay, as
National Marine Sanctuaries for the purpose of
preserving or restoring such areas for their
conservation, recreational, ecological, or aesthetic
values. After such designation, activities in sanctuary
waters authorized under other authorities are valid
only if the Secretary of Commerce certifies that the
activities are consistent with Title III of the Act. No
Department of the Army Permit will be issued until
the applicant obtains any required certification or
permit. The project does not occur in sanctuary
waters, and a preliminary review by USACE
indicates the project is not likely to affect sanctuary
resources. This presumption of effect, however,
remains subject to a final determination by the
Secretary of Commerce or his designee.
National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA):
Section 106 of the NHPA of 1966, as amended (16
U.S.C. § 470 et seq.), requires Federal agencies to
consult with the appropriate State Historic
Preservation Officer to take into account the effects
of their undertakings on historic properties listed in or
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places. Section 106 of the Act further requires
Federal agencies to consult with the appropriate
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or any Indian tribe
to take into account the effects of their undertakings
on historic properties, including traditional cultural
properties, trust resources, and sacred sites, to
which Indian tribes attach historic, religious, and
cultural significance. As the Federal lead agency for
this project, FERC will be responsible for determining
the presence or absence of historic properties or
archaeological resources and the need to conduct
consultation. To complete the administrative record
and the decision on whether to issue a Department
of the Army Permit for the project, USACE will obtain
all necessary supporting documentation from the
6
applicant concerning the consultation process. Any
required consultation must be concluded prior to the
issuance of a Department of the Army Permit for the
project. If unrecorded archaeological resources are
discovered during project implementation, those
operations affecting such resources will be
temporarily suspended until USACE concludes
Section 106 consultation with the State Historic
Preservation Officer or the Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer to take into account any project
related impacts to those resources.
5. COMPLIANCE WITH THE SECTION 404(b)(1)
GUIDELINES:
Projects resulting in discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States must
comply with the Guidelines promulgated by the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. § 1344(b)). An evaluation pursuant to
the Guidelines indicates the project is not dependent
on location in or proximity to waters of the United
States to achieve the basic project purpose. This
conclusion raises the (rebuttable) presumption of the
availability of a less environmentally damaging
practicable alternative to the project that does not
require the discharge of dredged or fill material into
special aquatic sites. The applicant has submitted an
analysis of project alternatives which is being
reviewed by USACE.
6. PUBLIC INTEREST EVALUTION:
The decision on whether to issue a Department of
the Army Permit will be based on an evaluation of
the probable impacts, including cumulative impacts,
of the project and its intended use on the public
interest. Evaluation of the probable impacts requires
a careful weighing of the public interest factors
relevant in each particular case. The benefits that
may accrue from the project must be balanced
against any reasonably foreseeable detriments of
project implementation. The decision on permit
issuance will, therefore, reflect the national concern
for both protection and utilization of important
resources. Public interest factors which may be
relevant to the decision process include
conservation, economics, aesthetics, general
environmental concerns, wetlands, cultural values,
fish and wildlife values, flood hazards, floodplain
values, land use, navigation, shore erosion and
accretion, recreation, water supply and conservation,
water quality, energy needs, safety, food and fiber
production, mineral needs, considerations of
property ownership, and, in general, the needs and
welfare of the people.
7. CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS:
USACE is soliciting comments from the public;
Federal, State, and local agencies and officials;
Native American Nations or other tribal governments;
and other interested parties in order to consider and
evaluate the impacts of the project. All comments
received by USACE will be considered in the
decision on whether to issue, modify, condition, or
deny a Department of the Army Permit for the
project. To make this decision, comments are used
to assess impacts on endangered species, historic
properties, water quality, and other environmental or
public interest factors addressed in a final
environmental assessment or environmental impact
statement. Comments are also used to determine
the need for a public hearing and to determine the
overall public interest in the project.
8. SUBMITTING COMMENTS:
During the specified comment period, interested
parties may submit written comments via email to:
Sarah Firestone
San Francisco District, Regulatory Division
450 Golden Gate Avenue, 4
th
Floor
San Francisco, California 94102-3404
Sarah.M.Firestone@usace.army.mil
Comment letters should cite the project name,
applicant name, and public notice number to
facilitate review by the Regulatory Permit Manager.
Comments may include a request for a public
hearing on the project prior to a determination on the
Department of the Army permit application; such
requests shall state, with particularity, the reasons
for holding a public hearing. All substantive
comments will be forwarded to the applicant for
resolution or rebuttal. Additional project information
or details on any subsequent project modifications of
a minor nature may be obtained from the applicant
and/or agent or by contacting the Regulatory Permit
Manager by telephone or e-mail (cited in the public
notice letterhead). An electronic version of this public
