CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for May 2009 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT PROJECT Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for May 2009 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
2600 Capitol Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
208607
TABLE OF CONTENTS Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Page
1. Project Description 1-1 Introduction 1-1 CEQA Requirements 1-1 Responsible Agencies, Permits and Approvals 1-2 Project Location 1-2 Project Background 1-5 Project Objectives and Need 1-7 Project Description 1-7
2. Environmental Checklist Form 2-1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected 2-2 Environmental Impacts 2-3 Aesthetics and Visual Resources 2-3 Agriculture Resources 2-5 Air Quality 2-6 Biological Resources 2-11 Cultural Resources 2-43 Geology, Soils, and Seismicity 2-52 Hazards and Hazardous Materials 2-56 Hydrology and Water Quality 2-60 Land Use and Land Use Planning 2-66 Mineral Resources 2-68 Noise 2-69 Population and Housing 2-75 Public Services 2-77 Recreation 2-79 Transportation/Traffic 2-80 Utilities and Service Systems 2-84 Mandatory Findings of Significance 2-86
3. Supporting Information Sources and List of Abbreviations 3-1
4. List of Preparers 4-1 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 4-1 Environmental Science Associates 4-1
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project i ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Table of Contents
Page
Appendices A. Construction Emissions Technical Data Sheets B. Wetland Delineation C. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Search Results D. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants E. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species List F. Capay Dam Restoration Project Cultural Resources Survey Report
List of Figures 1-1 Regional Locator Map 1-3 1-2 Site and Vicinity Map 1-4 1-3 Site Photos 1-6 1-4 Proposed Site Plan 1-8 1-5 Typical Cross Section 1-9 1-6 Grade Control Structure Detail 1-10 2-1 Habitat Map 2-15
List of Tables 1-1 Regulatory Requirements, Permits, and Authorizations for Project Facilities 1-2 1-2 Summary of Proposed Construction Activities and Equipment 1-12 2-1 Air Quality Data Summary (2005–2008) For the Proposed Project Area 2-7 2-2 Summary of Modeled Max. Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions 2-8 2-3 Habitat Types Within the Project Study Area 2-12 2-4 Potential Jurisdictional Features Within the Study Area 2-17 2-5 Potential Non-Jurisdictional Features Within the Study Area 2-18 2-6 List of Potentially Occurring Special-Status Species 2-26 2-7 USGS Gaging Stations along Cache Creek 2-61 2-8 Average Annual Runoff to Cache Creek at USGS Gaging Stations 2-62 2-9 Sources and Relative Amounts of Annual Groundwater Recharge 2-63 2-10 Typical Construction Noise Levels 2-72 2-11 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment 2-73 2-12 Vibration Velocities for Construction Equipment 2-74
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project ii ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 SECTION 1 Project Description
Introduction
The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD or District) is proposing to modify the dam apron on the Capay Diversion Dam to prevent the dam from overturning during normal operations or extreme events. The District is proposing to extend the apron from its existing 16 foot length downstream of the dam toe to a point about 60 feet downstream. The extended apron would be placed across the entire 450 foot width of the dam and include a new cutoff wall at the downstream end. The project also includes installation of a grade control structure approximately 150 feet downstream of the dam that is designed to protect the dam from the potential advance of downstream erosion and the long-term streambed degradation of Cache Creek. This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to identify and assess the anticipated environmental effects of the proposed project. The District, as the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency, has determined that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project. CEQA Requirements
This document has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of the CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 15000 et seq.). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects over which they have discretionary authority before they approve or implement those projects.
The Initial Study is a public document used by the District, acting as lead agency, to determine whether a proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment. If the District finds substantial evidence that any aspect of the project, either alone or in combination with other projects, may have a significant effect on the environment, the District is required to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR), a supplement to a previously prepared EIR, or a subsequent EIR to analyze the project at hand. If the District finds no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant impact on the environment, a negative declaration may be prepared. If, over the course of the analysis, the project is found to have a significant impact on the environment that, with specific mitigation measures, can be reduced to a less-than-significant level, a mitigated negative declaration may be prepared.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-1 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Responsible Agencies, Permits, and Approvals
Table 1-1 summarizes the potential permits and/or approvals that may be required prior to construction of the proposed project. Additional local approvals and permits may be required. TABLE 1-1 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS, PERMITS, AND AUTHORIZATIONS FOR PROJECT FACILITIES
Agency Type of Approval
Federal Agencies U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Clean Water Act Permit State Agencies Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharge Associated with Construction Activities; 401Certification California Department of Fish and Game Streambed Alteration Agreement Local Agencies Yolo County Grading Permit Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District Authority to Construct
Project Location, Setting, and Existing Facilities
The District is located in Western Yolo County and is bordered by Solano County to the South (Figure 1-1). The District service area encompasses a large portion of unincorporated western Yolo County and the cities of Woodland, Davis, and Winters, and the towns of Capay, Esparto, and Madison. The District delivers water stored in Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir in Lake County for agricultural and municipal uses in Yolo County. Indian Valley Reservoir was constructed by the District and is located on the north fork of Cache Creek. Most of the water delivered is conveyed down Cache Creek and diverted out of the creek channel at Capay Dam. The Dam serves as the headworks for over 160 miles of irrigation canals within the District’s 195,000-acre jurisdiction. Typically the District delivers about 150,000 acre feet of water to about 55,000 acres of agricultural lands. The District’s Cache Creek water system is completely gravity-dependent and does not include any pumping facilities. The Capay Dam was built by the Yolo Water & Power Company in 1915. Water released from Clear Lake and Indian Valley Reservoir is diverted into the West Adams and the Winters canals at the Capay Diversion Dam, which are located to the north and south, respectively, of the dam. The Winters and West Adams canals feed the entire canal system. Figure 1-2 shows the extent of project study area, including the location of the Capay Dam and the grade control structure. The Capay Dam is used to divert water only during the irrigation season. Other times of the year water flowing down Cache Creek flows over the dam or through sluice gates without obstruction. During the irrigation season, typically mid April through early September, an inflatable bladder fitted to the top of the dam is filled, causing water to be ponded upsteam of the dam to a sufficient depth to flow through the canal headgates. Historically this ponding was achieved by installing flash boards on the top of the dam. The inflatable bladder was installed as a more efficient and safer method for managing the pond waters.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-2 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 DDeel NNoorrt t e SSiissk kiiy yoou u
MMoo ddoo c
ShSh asastat a LakLake HHuummb bool lddt t TTrr iinn iitt y LLaa ssss eenn ShShaas stta a
SSacr
a
c
r ama
m
eento River
n
t o
TeTe hhaa mama R
i 5 v PPllumu masa s e
r
BBuuttt t e
SSieie rrarra GGll enen n LakeLake O rroovvi illle le MMee nndd oocc iinn o
80
FFe NeNevav adda a
CoCollu u sasa e ata t YuYu bbaa r SuSuttt t eerr hhe e e ivve r Ri LLakeake T ahoa ho e R
CCa R n Ri ClCl earear LLakeake a i a chc h vve r i cca e e rri CrC r r e eee ek m A PPllaac ceer r . Ame SS.. A mme LaLa keke NN. erir i caca n RRiivve er YoloYolo PPaa cificcific OcO c eanean FoFo llss oomm Laak ke EEll D oorraad d o
SoSonon omam a LakeLake B erer ryerye sssasa PPROJECTROJECT SSITEITE
NNaappa a SSaaccr raam m eenntto o Am maa ddoo r
SSoolla anno o CCaalla a vveerra a s MaMa ririn SSaan JJo oaaq quui in TTuu oolluum m nnee 0 50 CCoonnt trra a Coos s ttaa
Miles SSttaan n iiss llaa usus
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: ESRI, 2005; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-1 Regional Location Proposed Project Staging Areas
0 100
Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2007; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-2 Project Vicinity Map 1. Project Description
The District generally distributes water to Yolo County farmers to grow a variety of crops including tomatoes, grapes, rice, corn, and alfalfa. In the winter, District canals and ditches capture some surface runoff and serve as drainage facilities (YCFCWCD, 2004). The District normally provides water to farmers within 24 hours of requests, delivering water via the canal system and then diverting it into local fields through ditches. Water deliveries are measured and sold by the acre-foot. One acre-foot of water is enough to cover an acre of land one foot deep and contains 325,851 gallons (YCFCWCD, 2009).
The 11 acre project study area consists primarily of open space, Cache Creek, the existing Capay Diversion Dam, and two irrigation canals connected to Capay Dam. This location corresponds to Township 10N, Range 2W, Section 16 of the Esparto, CA U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (USGS, 1980). Land uses within the vicinity of the study area include open space, row crop agriculture, orchards, grazing lands, flood protection, and rural residential. Two gravel roads located north and south of the dam provide access to the dam.
Project Background
In the winter of 2003, a severe pocket of erosion was discovered in the existing apron of the Capay Diversion Dam. A scour hole had developed at the downstream end of the apron and was threatening the structural integrity of the dam (Figure 1-3). In addition, a forty-five foot section of the dam apron broke off. The missing apron section, coupled with existing creek bed scouring and erosion, was damaging the foundation that supports the dam structure and created the potential for catastrophic failure of the dam (YCFCWCD, 2009). Emergency repair work was conducted in 2003 by placing gravel, grout and cement in the damaged apron section. The repair work solved the immediate problem of the broken apron, but a long-term solution was required to permanently address the potential for structural failure of the dam. Given the significant age and regional importance of the dam, the District undertook an assessment of its condition in 2006.
The results of the assessment revealed that while the dam was in good condition, there was a potential threat of the dam overturning during normal operational use or in the event of an earthquake. The evaluation also showed that decades of uncontrolled erosion and streambed degradation had damaged the dam apron and its supporting bedrock. Hydraulic analyses and scour calculations were performed and demonstrated that the critical condition for scour at the toe of the apron occurs at discharges of about 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 16,000 cfs. The average scour depth is approximately 10-feet deep at the toe of the apron and as deep as 15 feet in the area near the location of the 2003 apron failure. If left unchecked, the scour hole can be expected to expand laterally over time as the bedrock is eroded by the continued flow of water over the dam (YCFCWCD, 2009). An engineering analysis prepared for the District by Stantec Consulting, Inc. determined that an apron of nearly 60 feet in length is needed to accommodate the scour forces created by critical flow conditions. Based on this analysis, the District has identified the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project as a long-term solution to address dam stability by protecting the structure from accelerated erosion from water and debris.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-5 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 PHOTOGRAPH 1. Degradation of Cache Creek downstream of Capay Dam.
PHOTOGRAPH 2. Scour hole at toe of apron.
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: Stantec, 2007; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-3 Site Photographs 1. Project Description
Project Objectives and Need
The objective of the proposed project is to provide a long-term solution to address dam stability by protecting the structure from accelerated erosion from water and debris. Extension of the Capay Dam apron and installation of a downstream grade control structure is needed as a result of inadequate hydraulic performance of the existing apron, deterioration of the concrete apron due to sediment erosion, and exposure of the apron’s foundation due to a combination of Cache Creek degradation and creek bed scour at the end of the apron. Failure to address the degradation of this critical infrastructure has long-term implications on the water supply reliability that supports agricultural activities in Yolo County and on stream hydrology and geomorphology.
Project Description
Proposed Project Characteristics
The proposed project consists of the extension of the Capay Dam apron (measured from the face of the dam in a downstream direction) to a point approximately 60 feet downstream of the existing dam (Figure 1-4). The new concrete apron will be made of roller compacted concrete (RCC) and would be poured approximately 3 feet thick over the surface of the existing apron and its extension downstream. The toe of the apron would be capped with raised baffle blocks to assist in forming the hydraulic jump on the apron and to dissipate energy to prevent future scour at the edge of the apron. The cutoff at the end of the new apron would consist of a series of 3-foot by 3-foot steps. Figure 1-5 shows a typical cross-section of the proposed apron and downstream cutoff. The exact length of the apron and location and depth of the cutoff would depend on the location within the creek bed and the extent of the localized scour.
Grade Control Structure The proposed concrete grade control structure would be located approximately 150 feet down downstream of the dam and would be limited to the incised portion of Cache Creek (Figure 1-6). The grade control structure would be a concrete wall that is cast into the bed of Cache Creek with its top elevation at-grade with the existing streambed elevation. The wall of the structure would be keyed into the incised banks of Cache Creek. The structure would function to limit the advance of downstream erosion from extending to the toe of the new apron. It would also serve to protect the dam and new apron from headcutting that could advance upstream during a prolonged flood discharge in Cache Creek. The structure would also serve as a visual measure of future streambed degradation. The upper surface of the structure at streambed elevation will be subjected to erosion due to movement of bed load material.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-7 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Proposed Improvements 0 80 Grade Control Structure Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-4 Proposed Project Site Plan Existing Structure Fill Area Existing Ground Assumed Ground Proposed RCC Structure Water Surface Profile 020
Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-5 Typical Project Cross Section 020
Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-6 Grade Control Structure Detail 1. Project Description
Dewatering Activities Preliminary geologic site investigation indicates that groundwater may be encountered at a depth of 1 to 15 feet in the project area and is expected to be encountered in the vicinity of the apron at a depth of 1 to 5 feet (Stantec, 2007). The extent of dewatering required during the construction of the apron and grade control structure will ultimately vary depending on the location. Construction will be timed so that all in-stream activities would be scheduled to occur before the wet season and when operations at the dam have ceased (September – October 2009). Water that is pumped from excavations will be filtered through a nonwoven geotextile filter bag and discharged as dispersed flow into vegetated areas downstream where turbidity can be further reduced through additional filtration through vegetation and infiltration through the soil. A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be prepared to comply with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for construction projects to minimize erosion and water quality impacts.
Excavation and Fill Excavation and grading activities would occur primarily within the area of the existing apron and the location of the proposed grade control structure. Approximately 1,611 cubic yards (43,500 cubic feet) of material would be excavated from the creek bed. This material may be stockpiled close by or transported off-site. Excavated material from the apron would be replaced by approximately 2,900 cubic yards of native and imported fill. Fill under the new extended apron would be primarily coarse gravel.
Staging Areas and Site Access Construction workers, equipment, and haul trucks would access the construction area primarily from State Route 16 and the private driveway that provides access to the site. Additional access may be provided from the levee road on the north side of Cache Creek that extends east towards County Road 85. Staging areas would ideally be located in previously disturbed or non-vegetated areas, and would not be located within identified sensitive areas. It is assumed that the existing dam apron will be used to a limited extent for materials staging and storage during grading and excavation activities. Previously disturbed areas north and south of the dam have been identified and can be used as construction staging areas (Figure 1-2). If additional staging areas are required beyond those identified in the IS/MND, the contractor(s) selected for construction will make the appropriate arrangements with adjacent landowners to secure areas for equipment and material staging.
Project Construction and Schedule Table 1-2 summarizes construction activities and construction equipment required for each proposed project component. Construction of the apron replacement and downstream grade control structure will require cessation of dam operation and irrigation deliveries. Therefore, all construction work must be completed at the end of the 2009 irrigation season and in advance of the 2009 wet season, allowing only a short window for construction in the September – October 2009 timeframe. The anticipated construction schedule includes 4 to 6 weeks of activity.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-11 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Proposed Operations
The proposed project does not include any modifications to dam operations or water deliveries, nor would the proposed project result in any change in conveyance or diversion capacity. Following construction of the proposed project, the District would resume operation of the dam similar to existing operations. Routine operations and maintenance activities, such as daily inspections of facility conditions, would continue and not increase beyond existing levels.
TABLE 1-2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND EQUIPMENT
Construction Duration / Excavation and Fill Schedule Quantities Construction Equipment Construction Hours
4 - 6 weeks Approximately 43,500 cubic • Flatbed truck to haul in Monday - Friday Sept-Oct 2009 feet of material from the creek backhoe 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. bed. • Backhoe Fill: Backfill would consist of • Crane both native and imported fill, • Trucks for materials delivery which would consist primarily • of gravel rock. Trucks for off-haul of excavated material • Portable generators • Concrete Roller • Jackhammer
NOTE: Electrical needs for project construction would be provided by portable generators, as noted above. No new electrical connections would be made to existing or new power sources.
SOURCE: ESA, 2009.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-12 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 SECTION 2 Environmental Checklist Form
1. Project Title: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 34274 State Highway 16 Woodland, CA 95695-9371
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Stefan Lorenzato, Environmental Program Manager (530) 662-0265
4. Project Location: Capay Diversion Dam Unincorporated Yolo County
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 34274 State Highway 16 Woodland, CA 95695-9371
6. General Plan Designation: Agriculture
7. Zoning: Agricultural Preserve
8. Description of Project: The District is proposing to modify the dam apron on the Capay Diversion Dam by extending it 38 feet and resurfacing the concrete apron downstream from the toe of the dam and along the entire 450-foot length of the structure. The proposed project also includes installation of a grade control structure approximately 150 feet downstream of the dam that is designed to protect the dam from the potential advance of downstream erosion and the long-term streambed degradation of Cache Creek. The proposed project would not result in an increase in diversion capacity, water delivery, or transmission.
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land use in the vicinity of the project area is agricultural with a few scattered residences. The nearest residence is approximately 1,000 feet from the project site. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Permits may be required from: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District, Yolo County.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-1 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009
2. Environmental Checklist Form
Environmental Impacts
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
1. AESTHETICS—Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway corridor? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect daytime or nighttime views in the area?
Environmental Setting Visual or aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment, visual or aesthetic impacts may occur. This analysis of potential visual effects is based on review of a variety of data, including project maps and drawings, a visual survey of the project area, aerial and ground-level photographs of the project area, and planning documents.
The proposed project would be located at the current location of the Capay Dam which has been in place since 1915 and is not visible from State Route 16, a locally-designated scenic highway. The dam is visible only from private property along Cache Creek in the vicinity of the project area. The closest private residence to the project area is located approximately 1,000 feet from the project site, southeast of the dam. There are no public lands or trails within the vicinity of the project site.
Thresholds of Significance An aesthetics impact on aesthetic resources would be considered significant if it would result in any of the following effects: • Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista; • Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway; • Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings;
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-3 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
• Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project is not located in or near any designated scenic vistas and therefore would not have an impact on a scenic vista. b) No Impact. The proposed project site is located near but is not visible from a local or state scenic highway and therefore would not have an impact on any visual resources within a scenic highway corridor. c) Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would result in short- term impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the project site. Construction activities would require the storage and use of heavy equipment and materials at staging areas and at the construction site. During construction, excavated areas, stockpiled soils, and other materials within the construction and staging areas would contribute negative aesthetic elements in the visual landscape. Construction-related activities would be temporary and would not impact the long-term visual character of the area. The lengthening of the new apron and installation of the new grade control structure would slightly alter the overall appearance of the existing dam site. The apron extension and grade control structure would be constructed with a similar color concrete as the existing dam. The new apron would extend downstream farther than the original facilities and would be visible during low or no flow events, as would the grade control structure. However, the site already contains visible infrastructure, including the dam and existing apron. Extension of the apron and installation of the grade control structure would not constitute a significant change to the existing character of the site. The impact to the existing visual character of the site would be less than significant. d) Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in any new permanent lighting fixtures. Exterior lighting in the construction area could be used if nighttime construction is required. While potentially visible from residences from which the project site is visible, it is not expected that temporary nighttime construction lighting would be a disturbance to residents. Because of this and due to the temporary nature of lighting associated with construction activities, impacts associated with light and glare would be less than significant.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-4 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Agricultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
2. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance, as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use?
Environmental Setting Land surrounding the project site is agricultural with a few scattered residences. While agricultural resources would not necessarily be directly affected by the proposed project, there is a minor possibility that these resources could be temporarily affected by construction activities associated with this project.
Thresholds of significance The proposed project would result in a significant impact on agricultural resources if it would convert economically viable farmland to non-agricultural use, conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or conflict with a Williamson Act contract.
Discussion a-c) No Impact. The proposed project would not include any improvements that would result in a change in existing land uses. The project would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to non-agricultural use and would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural land use or a Williamson Act contract. The proposed project would improve the long-term reliability of Capay Dam, which is a component of the conveyance system that provides agricultural water deliveries within the District service area. There would be no impacts to farmland or agricultural uses associated with the proposed project.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-5 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Air Quality
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
3. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Environmental Setting The Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD) is the local agency charged with administering local, state, and federal air quality management programs for Yolo and Solano Counties. The YSAQMD is located in Northern California in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin.
The major pollutants of concern in the Sacramento Valley are O3 and particulate matter (PM). The project site is in an area currently designated as being in serious non-attainment for the state ozone standard and non-attainment for state PM10 standard (CARB, 2006).
Existing air quality in the project area can generally be inferred from ambient air quality measurements conducted by YSAQMD at its monitoring stations. The station closest to, and most representative of, air quality conditions at the proposed project site is located at Gibson Road, Woodland CA, which is located 12 miles east of the project site and monitors O3, PM10, and PM2.5. The most recent data available from this monitoring station is shown in Table 2-1 and encompasses the years 2005 through 2008. In addition, Table 2-1 compares the pollutants to the state air quality standards when applicable.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-6 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
TABLE 2-1 AIR QUALITY DATA SUMMARY (2005–2008) FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AREA
Monitoring Data by Year Pollutant Standarda 2005 2006 2007 2008
Ozone – Woodland-Gibson Road Highest 1 Hour Average (ppm)b 90 .099 .106 .106 .100 Highest 1-hour average, ppmc Days over State Standard Exceedancesd 2 6 1 4 Highest 8 Hour Average (ppm)b 70 .087 .077 .090 .086 Highest 8-hour average, ppmc Days over National Standard Exceedances 6 14 2 24 Particulate Matter (PM2.5) – Woodland-Gibson Road Highest 24 Hour Average (µg/m3)b 65 35.0 44.0 42.0 41.9 Highest 24-hour average, µg/m3 c Days over National Standard Exceedances/Samplese 28 30 33 39 State Annual Average (µg/m3)b 12 10 10 9 9 Particulate Matter (PM10) – Woodland-Gibson Road Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b 50 60.0 78.0 119.0 183.3 Est. Days over State Standardc 6.1 36.8 18.7 NA Highest 24 Hour Average (μg/m3)b – National Measurement 150 59.0 77 119.0 181.1 Est. Days over National Standardc 0 0 0 NA State Annual Average (μg/m3) b 20 24.2 25.8 25.4 NA
a Generally, state standards are not to be exceeded. b ppm = parts per million; µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. NOTE: Values in bold are in excess of applicable standard. NA = Not Available.
SOURCE: CARB, 2009.
Sensitive Receptors For the purposes of air quality and public health and safety, sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses with population concentrations that would be particularly susceptible to disturbance from dust and air pollutant concentrations, or other disruptions associated with project construction and/or operation. Sensitive receptor land uses generally include schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, residential care centers, parks, and churches. Some sensitive receptors are considered to be more sensitive than others to air pollutants. The reasons for greater than average sensitivity include pre-existing health problems, proximity to emissions sources, or duration of exposure to air pollutants. Schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are considered to be relatively sensitive to poor air quality because children, elderly people, and the infirmed are more susceptible to respiratory distress and other air quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential areas are considered sensitive to poor air quality because people usually stay home for extended periods of time, with associated greater exposure to ambient air quality. Recreational uses are also considered sensitive due to the greater exposure to ambient air quality conditions because vigorous exercise associated with recreation places a high demand on the human respiratory system.
Thresholds of significance Construction and operation impacts are considered significant if the project would result in the violation of any air quality standard established by the local air quality management district.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-7 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
The exposure of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors or substantial pollutants from particulate matter or emission from construction vehicles would also be considered a significant impact.
Discussion a) Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is located in the YSAQMD, in the eastern portion of Yolo County. The project site is in an area currently designated serious non- attainment for the state 1-hour ozone standard, non-attainment for the state 8-hour standard and non-attainment for state PM10 standard. To meet planning requirements related to this standard, the air districts of the Sacramento Region, including the YSAQMD, have adopted a Rate of Progress Plan (Plan) (SMAQMD, 2006). A significant impact would occur if a project conflicted with the plan by not mirroring the population-growth and vehicle- miles-traveled assumptions of the plan. The proposed project would not increase delivery or conveyance capacity for water supplies, and would therefore not have the potential to foster population growth nor stimulate an increase in long-term traffic/vehicle-miles- traveled. As a result, the project would not conflict with or obstruct with implementation of the Plan, and this impact would be less-than-significant. b) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Post-construction, operational activities would generally be the same as pre-construction. The number of workers and the frequency of maintenance required would not increase above existing levels and therefore, would not result in an increase in traffic in the proposed project area. As a result, potential emissions would be not increase as a result of the proposed project. Construction and activities (i.e. grading, excavation, etc.) associated with the proposed project would generate emissions of criteria pollutants, including suspended and inhalable particulate matter and equipment exhaust emissions. Short-term mitigated construction- generated emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 were modeled using the YSAQMD recommended URBEMIS 2007, Version 9.2.4, computer program. Input parameters were based on default model settings (e.g., number and type of equipment, amount of material transport). The modeled maximum daily mitigated construction emissions are provided in Appendix A and summarized in Table 2-2 below. TABLE 2-2 SUMMARY OF MODELED MAXIMUM SHORT-TERM CONSTRUCTION- GENERATED EMISSIONS
YSAQMD Thresholds of Capay Dam Apron Criteria Pollutants Significance Replacement Project
ROG 10 tons/year 0.05 tons/year NOx 10 tons/year 0.46 tons/year PM10 80 lbs/day 6 lbs/day
SOURCE: ESA, 2009; CARB; 2009
With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1, criteria pollutant emissions associated with construction activities will be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1: During construction activities, the District shall require the construction contractor(s) to implement a dust abatement program that includes, but is not limited to, the following YSAQMD-recommended measures:
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-8 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
All new construction projects shall incorporate the standard dust suppression requirements recommended by the YSAQMD, including: • Nontoxic soil stabilizers according to manufacturer’s specifications shall be applied to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more). • Ground cover shall be reestablished in disturbed areas quickly. • Active construction sites shall be watered at least three times daily to avoid visible dust plumes. • Paving, applying water three times daily, or applying (non-toxic) soil stabilizers shall occur on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. • Enclosing, covering, watering daily, or applying non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.) shall occur. • A speed limit of 15 MPH for equipment and vehicles operated on unpaved areas shall be enforced. • All vehicles hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials shall be covered or shall be maintained at least two feet of freeboard. • Streets shall be swept at the end of the day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public paved roads. All new construction projects shall incorporate the standard NOx reduction requirements recommended by the YSAQMD, including: • Construction equipment exhaust emissions shall not exceed District Rule 2-11 Visible Emission limitations. • Construction equipment shall minimize idling time to 10 minutes or less. • The prime contractor shall submit to the District a comprehensive inventory (i.e., make, model, year, emission rating) of all the heavy-duty off-road equipment (50 horsepower or greater) that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours for the construction project. • District personnel, with assistance from the California Air Resources Board (CARB), will conduct initial Visible Emission Evaluations (VEE) of all heavy- duty equipment on the inventory list. • An enforcement plan shall be established to weekly evaluate project-related on-and off-road heavy-duty vehicle engine emission opacities, using standards as defined in California Code of Regulations, Title 13, Sections 2180 - 2194. • An Environmental Coordinator, CARB-certified to perform Visible Emissions Evaluations (VEE) • VEE shall routinely evaluate project related off-road and heavy duty on-road equipment emissions for compliance with this requirement. • Operators of vehicles and equipment found to exceed opacity limits will be notified and the equipment must be repaired within 72 hours.
Construction contracts shall stipulate that at least 20% of the heavy-duty off-road equipment included in the inventory be powered by CARB certified off-road engines, as follows: • 175 hp - 750 hp 1996 and newer engines
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-9 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
• 100 hp - 174 hp 1997 and newer engines • 50 hp- 99 hp 1998 and newer engines
In lieu of or in addition to this requirement, the District may use other measures to reduce particulate matter and nitrogen oxide emissions from project construction through the use of emulsified diesel fuel and or particulate matter traps. These alternative measures, if proposed, shall be developed in consultation with District staff. c) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. As stated above, the proposed project is located within the YSAQMD, which has been designated as serious non-attainment for the state ozone standard and non-attainment for state PM10 standard. Air emissions would be generated during construction of the proposed project, which could increase criteria air pollutants, including PM10 and O3. However, there would be no long-term increase in emissions and construction-related emissions would be temporary. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 as identified above would reduce and minimize construction- related emissions. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria air pollutants, and the project impacts would be less-than-significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 described above.
d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Diesel emissions would result both from diesel-powered construction vehicles and any diesel trucks associated with project operation. Diesel particulate matter (DPM) has been classified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant for the cancer risk associated with long-term (i.e., 70 years) exposure to DPM. Given that construction would occur for a limited amount of time and the limited number of sensitive receptors in the project area, localized exposure to DPM would be minimal. As a result, the cancer risks from the project associated with diesel emissions over a 70-year lifetime are very small. Therefore, the impacts related to DPM would be less-than-significant. Likewise, as noted above, the project would not result in substantial emissions of any criteria air pollutants either during construction or operation with the implementation of Mitigation Measure AIR-1 as identified above. Therefore, the project would not expose sensitive receptors, including residents, churches and schools in the project vicinity, to substantial pollutant concentrations. As a result, impacts to sensitive receptors would be less-than-significant. No specific mitigation measures are required.
e) Less-than-Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, the various diesel-powered vehicles and equipment in use on-site could create minor odors. Given the distance of the nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 1,000 feet away, these odors are not likely to be noticeable beyond the immediate project area and, in addition, would be temporary and short-lived in nature. Furthermore, the proposed project would not include development of any uses that are associated with long-term objectionable odors. Therefore, odor impacts would be less-than-significant.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-10 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Biological Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Environmental Setting
Setting
Data Sources / Methodology Biological resources within the project site were identified by ESA biologists LeChi Huynh and Chariss Tweedy through field reconnaissance conducted in March 2009. A wetland delineation was also conducted concurrently with the field reconnaissance (Appendix B). Prior to the reconnaissance survey, a review of pertinent literature and database queries were conducted for the project site and surrounding area. The reconnaissance survey consisted of a pedestrian survey of the project site in its entirety. The primary sources of data referenced for this study include the following: • “Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be Affected by Projects in the Esparto, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangles” (USFWS, 2009);
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-11 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Rarefind computer program (v3.1.0)(CDFG, 2009) (Appendix C); • California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (v7-09a) (CNPS, 2009) (Appendix D); • Review of color aerial photography for vegetative, topographic, and hydrologic signatures; • Review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], 2009) for information on wetlands and natural water features previously delineated in the study area; • The Yolo County General Plan (Yolo County, 1983); the plan is currently under revision and the Revised Draft 2030 General Plan was released September 10, 2008; • Yolo Natural Heritage Program (Yolo County Joint Powers Agency, 2009), a county-wide Natural Communities Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP); and • Yolo County Oak Woodland Conservation and Enhancement Plan (Yolo County, 2007).
Appendix E includes the special-status species lists for the project region. Table 2-3 lists the acreages of the habitat and land cover types within the study area.
TABLE 2-3 HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA
Type Acres
Agriculture 0.3 Annual Grassland 1.9 Barren 0.3 Canal 0.2 Concrete 0.5 Freshwater Emergent Wetland 0.03 Riparian 2.1 Riverine 3.4 Ruderal 1 Urban 0.6 Valley Oak Savanna and Annual Grassland 0.74 Total 11.1
Regional Ecology The project area is located in Yolo County, within the northern Sacramento Valley on nearly level to very gently sloping stream channels, levees, overflow basins, and alluvial fans. The project area is located within the Yolo-American Basins subsection, where much of the area is on alluvial plain adjacent to the lower Sacramento River. Elevation within this subsection ranges between 10 to 40 feet above mean sea level, although the project site is considerably higher at 200-230 ft above mean sea level (NAVD 88). Much of the section is flooded during winter to early spring. Historically, this region supported emergent wetlands and Needlegrass grasslands. Some
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-12 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
characteristic vegetation series found in this subsection include: bulrush series, cattail series, sedge series, bulrush-cattail series, California sycamore series, Fremont cottonwood series, and mixed willow series. Intensive agricultural and urban development has resulted in large losses and conversion of these habitats. The remaining native vegetative communities exist as isolated remnant patches within urban and agricultural landscapes, or in areas where varied topography has made urban and/or agricultural development difficult. Climate is typically hot and subhumid. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 15 to 18-inches. Mean annual temperature ranges from 59 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit (Miles and Goudey, 1997).
Site Description The project site is within the Canada de Capay Land Grant on the Esparto U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (USGS, 1993). It is an open space area composed of Cache Creek, Valley foothill riparian woodland flanking Cache Creek and Capay Dam. The dam spans the width of Cache Creek and the existing apron at the toe of the dam is about 475 feet long from north to south abutments. The concrete apron extends approximately 16 feet downstream from the toe of the dam. Elevation at the apron is approximately 205-feet above mean sea level (msl). The Capay Dam diverts water into the Winters Canal on the southern bank of the river and into the West Adams Canal on the north bank. Surrounding land uses include row crop agriculture and orchards with associated rural residences are located south of Cache Creek. Valley oak woodland and annual grassland occurs north of Cache Creek; this area is currently being used for cattle grazing.
Plant Communities and Wildlife Habitats Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area, which are defined by species composition and relative abundance. The plant community descriptions and nomenclature used in this section were based on A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988) and the classification provided in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Additional references used include the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification scheme, which has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. Plant communities within the study area were identified using field reconnaissance and described using the above references. The plant communities described below are those found within the project site; they generally correlate with wildlife habitat types described by Mayer and Laudenslayer. Three upland plant communities and habitats were identified within the study area: non-native annual grassland, disturbed/ruderal, and valley foothill riparian. One aquatic plant community and habitat was identified: freshwater emergent wetland (Figure 2-1).
Upland Plant Communities and Habitats
Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland is generally found in open areas in valleys and foothills throughout coastal and interior California. It typically occurs on soils consisting of fine-textured loams or clays
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-13 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
that are somewhat poorly drained. This vegetation type is dominated by non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial grasslands, scrub and woodland as a result of human disturbance. Scattered native wildflowers and grasses, representing remnants of the original vegetation may also be common. Within the study area, non-native annual grassland is present on upland terraces of both banks of Cache Creek. Non-native annual grasses occurring within the study area include wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros), among others. Common nonnative forbs include yellow star thistle (Centauria solstitialis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), among others.
Disturbed/Ruderal Disturbed/ruderal habitat occurs in areas such as along roadsides, trails, parking lots, etc. These communities are subject to ongoing or past disturbances (e.g., vehicle activities, mowing). Ruderal habitat in these disturbed areas supports a diverse weedy flora, primarily composed of non-native invasive species. Within the study area, ruderal vegetation is found adjacent to roads and irrigation canals. Dominant species vary per locale but include introduced common annual weedy forbs such as bur- clover (Medicago polymorpha), red-stem filaree, wild radish (Raphanus sativus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed, milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and others. Non-native grasses are also represented including ripgut brome, Italian wildrye, wild oat, and others.
Valley Foothill Riparian
Valley foothill riparian typically consists of mature riparian forest with a subcanopy tree layer and an understory shrub layer. Dominant species in the canopy are typically cottonwood, California sycamore and valley oak. Subcanopy trees are white alder, box elder, and Oregon ash. Typical understory shrub layer species include wild grape, wild rose, California blackberry, blue elderberry, poison oak, buttonbrush, and willows. Willows often grow in shrubby thickets composed of any of several species of willow (Salix spp.). This plant community is found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, lower foothills, and coastal plains in the Central Valley and the lower foothills of the Cascade, Sierra Nevada and Coast ranges.
Dominant overstory species in the study area include valley oak (Quercus lobata), California buckeye, and box elder (Acer negundo). The subcanopy consists of sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis). The understory consists of native species such as mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) and California rose (Rosa californica), among others. Invasive species, giant reed (Arundo donax) is found on the north bank of Cache Creek. Riparian habitat within the study area is found on the north and south banks of Cache Creek.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-14 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 a l a n C s m d a A t e s WWest Adams Canal
WWinters Canal i n t e r s
C a n a l
Impact Area HABITATS Study Area Urban Annual Grassland Freshwater Emergent Wetland Riverine Canal Ruderal 0 100 Barren Riparian Concrete Feet Agriculture Valley Oak Savanna and Annual Grassland
Capay Dam Restoration Project IS/MND . 208607 SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2007; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 2-1 Habitat Types within the Study Area Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Aquatic Plant Communities and Habitats
Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. Wetlands are ecologically complex habitats that support a variety of both plant and animal life. In a jurisdictional sense, the federal government defines wetlands in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as “areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support (and do support, under normal circumstances) a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3[b] and 40 CFR 230.3). Under normal circumstances, the federal definition of wetlands requires three wetland identification parameters be present: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Examples of wetlands include freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pool complexes that have a hydrologic link to other waters of the U.S. (see definition below for “other waters of the U.S.”). The Corps is the responsible agency for regulating wetlands under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, while the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has overall responsibility for the Act. The CDFG does not normally have direct jurisdiction over wetlands unless they are subject to jurisdiction under Streambed Alteration Agreements or they support state-listed endangered species; however, CDFG has trust responsibility for wildlife and habitats pursuant to California law.
“Other waters of the U.S.” refers to those hydric features that are regulated by the Clean Water Act but are not wetlands (33 CFR 328.4). To be considered jurisdictional, these features must exhibit a defined bed and bank and an ordinary high-water mark. Examples of other waters of the U.S. include rivers, creeks, intermittent and ephemeral channels, ponds, and lakes.
The wetland delineation was conducted within the study area by ESA biologists Chariss Tweedy and LeChi Huynh in March 2009. The delineation used the “Routine Determination Method” as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). The 1987 Manual was used in conjunction with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0) (Arid West Supplement). For areas where the 1987 Manual and the Arid West Supplement differ, the Arid West Supplement was followed. This preliminary delineation is under review for verification by the Corps.
A total of 5.05 acres of potential jurisdictional features occur within the study area (Appendix B). Jurisdictional features include a small area of emergent wetlands (0.03 acres) and 5.02 acres (1,128.81 linear feet) of other waters of the U.S. Other waters of the U.S. within the study area include 1.60 acres (216.31 linear feet) of intermittent drainage and 3.42 acres (912.50 linear feet) of perennial drainage (Cache Creek) (Table 2-4).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-16 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
TABLE 2-4 POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Type of Potentially Average Linear Jurisdictional Feature Width Feet Acres
Wetland PEM1 - Freshwater emergent wetland n/a n/a 0.03 Wetland Subtotal: n/a n/a 0.03 Other Waters of the US Perennial Channel – Cache Creek 224 912.50 3.42 Intermittent Stream 8 216.31 1.60 Other Waters Subtotal: – 1,128.81 5.02 Total area of potentially jurisdictional features 5.05
NOTES: PEM1 = palustrine persistent emergent.
Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater emergent wetland typically occurs in low-lying sites that are permanently flooded or saturated with fresh water and lacking significant current. Freshwater marsh is most extensive where surface flow is slow or stagnant or where the water table is so close to the surface as to saturate the soil from below. This vegetation community characteristically forms a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent monocots one to 15 feet high that reproduce by underground rhizomes.
Within the study area, freshwater emergent wetland occurs on the southern bank of Cache Creek, directly east of the Capay Dam south abutment. The freshwater emergent wetland is dominated by narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), soft rush (Juncus effuses), and iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides). Within the project area, freshwater emergent wetland occurs in association with Cache Creek and adjacent terrestrial habitats such as annual grassland and riparian woodland. Freshwater emergent wetlands provide food, cover, and water for numerous species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, many of which depend on these wetlands throughout their life cycle. However the small scale of the wetland in the project site limits its ability to support a diverse wetland community.
Riverine Cache Creek represents riverine habitat within the project study area. Cache Creek is a perennial river that originates in the mountains above Capay Valley and flows downward to the Yolo Bypass. The width of Cache Creek at Capay Dam is approximately 475 feet wide and within a few hundred feet downstream narrows to about 150 feet wide. The streambed adjacent to the downstream side of Capay dam and its associated apron is highly eroded due to scouring actions during high flow events. The variable water flow is controlled by the District during the irrigation season and uncontrolled the rest of the year. Typically during the irrigation season all flows in Cache Creek are diverted into the canal system and no water is flowing over the dam. River banks immediately
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-17 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
downstream of Capay Dam are also highly eroded because the apron associated with Capay Dam does not sufficiently dissipate the energy of the flow passing over the top of the dam.
Intermittent Drainage There is an intermittent drainage within the study area that flows into Cache Creek upstream of Capay Dam. The drainage meanders through the hillside eventually flowing into Cache Creek on the north side of the river. The drainage is highly incised with an average width of about eight feet. Although this feature falls within the overall study area, it was not delineated as it was inaccessible due to a private fence. It is also not anticipated that this drainage would be disturbed by the project.
Potential Non-jurisdictional Waters Irrigation Canal A total of 0.18 acres (366.87 linear feet) (Table 2-5) of potentially non-jurisdictional features consisting of irrigation canals occur within the study area. The irrigation canals include the Winters Canal located on the southern bank of Cache Creek and the West Adams Canal located on the northern bank. The District diverts water from Cache Creek into these canals for agricultural irrigation purposes via diversion gates. The canals are concrete lined and are occupied by weedy grass species limited to the top of bank. The Winters Canal terminates at a large stock pond located northeast of Winters. The West Adams Canal continues east at which point it branches into two separate canals which flow north and east. The northern branch terminates in an agricultural field and the eastern branch reconnects along a reach of Cache Creek located due west of Woodland. These features may be deemed non-jurisdictional as they are manmade features that convey water solely for irrigation purposes.
TABLE 2-5 POTENTIAL NON-JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Type of Potentially Average Linear Non-Jurisdictional Feature Width Feet Acres
Irrigation Canal West Adams Canal 18.97 309.57 0.15 Winters Canal 24.92 57.30 0.03 Total area of potentially non-jurisdictional features 0.18
General Wildlife Habitats described above may provide food, water, migration and dispersal corridors, nesting, and thermal cover for many invertebrates, reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. Riparian habitats and open water are highly suitable for many wildlife species. Cache Creek and associated riparian woodlands provide habitat for aquatic reptiles, amphibians, and birds. Species that may use this
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-18 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
habitat include the federally-listed giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) and unlisted species such as red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoenieius), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), finches, and raptors such as red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis). Mature valley oak trees surrounding the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat for raptors and agricultural fields south of the project site may provide suitable foraging habitat.
Wildlife species encountered during the field survey include river otter (Lontra canadensis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), redtail hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and cliff swallows (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota). No small rodents or ground burrows were observed during the field reconnaissance.
Wildlife Movement Movements of wildlife generally fall into three basic categories: a) movements along corridors or habitat linkages associated with home range activities such as foraging, territory defense, and breeding; b) dispersal movements—typically one-way movements (e.g., juvenile animals leaving their natal areas or individuals colonizing new areas), and; c) temporal migration movements—these movements are essentially dispersal actions which involve a return to the place of origin (e.g., deer moving from winter grounds to summer ranges and fawning areas).
Cache Creek and associated riparian habitat may provide habitat linkages for species such as the Swainson’s hawk and the bank swallow, both of which are known to occur within five miles of the project site. There are two CNDDB occurrences of bank swallows recorded along Cache Creek northwest of the project site. The banks within the project site do not provide suitable Bank Swallow habitat, but Bank swallows from these known occurrences may forage within the project site.
Two CNDDB occurrences of Swainson’s hawk were recorded north east and south east of the site. Swainson’s hawks are highly mobile with large home ranges (Woodbridge, 1998). Cache Creek within the vicinity of the project area may be part of the known occurrences’ home range or provide a corridor that links foraging habitats.
Personal communication and informal consultation with Eric Hansen regarding Giant Garter Snake (GGS) occurrence within or near the vicinity of the project site was conducted on May 5, 2009. Mr. Hansen concluded that there are no known historical records of GGS within the project area and is a low potential for GGS to occur within the project area. CNDDB record searches reveal that although there are no known GGS occurrences within 5 miles of the project site occurrences have been documented in the northern and eastern parts of Yolo County. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service considers Cache Creek potential habitat and a dispersal corridor for GGS and has taken the stance that until further research reveals otherwise, avoidance measures for GGS will be required for projects affecting Cache Creek. The irrigation canals are located within 200 feet of Cache Creek and therefore may also be considered dispersal habitat.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-19 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act Section 404 The Corps administers Section 404 of the CWA. Section 404 regulates activities in wetlands and “other waters of the United States.” Wetlands are a subset of “waters of the United States” that are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[s]) as:
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: A. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or B. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or C. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of the above waters; 6. The territorial seas; 7. Wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands). Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. 8. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the EPA. Cache Creek is considered a waters of the United States and therefore proposed project activities would be subject to the requirements of a CWA Section 404 permit.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service The USFWS administers the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 USC Section 703-711), the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 USC Section 668), and the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA, 16 USC Section 153 et seq). Projects that would result in adverse effects on any federally listed threatened or endangered species are required to consult with the USFWS to determine measures to avoid, minimize, and or compensate for impacts to these species. Project approval will
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-20 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
require consultation with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As project approval will also require a Section 404 permit from the Corps, Section 7 consultation with the USFWS will be initiated by the Corps through preparation of a Biological Assessment (BA). In turn, USFWS will produce a Biological Opinion (BO) which will provide guidance with regard to potential effects to federally listed species and allow the Corps to complete the Section 404 process.
State
California Department of Fish and Game CDFG administers a number of laws and programs designed to protect fish and wildlife resources. Principal of these is the California Endangered Species Act of 1984 (CESA – Fish and Game Code Section 2050 et seq), which regulates the listing and “take” of endangered and threatened species. An incidental “take” of such a species may be permitted by CDFG through issuance of permits pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 2081.
Prior to enactment of CESA, the designation of “Fully Protected” was used by CDFG to identify species that had been given special protection by the California Legislature by a series of statutes in the California Fish and Game Code. (See §§ 3503.5, 3505, 3511, 3513, 4700, 4800, 5050, 5515). Many fully protected species have also been listed as threatened or endangered species under the more recent endangered species laws and regulations; however, the original statutes have not been repealed, and the legal protection they give the species identified within them remains in place. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time; and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.
CDFG maintains lists for Candidate-Endangered Species and Candidate-Threatened Species. California candidate species are afforded the same level of protection as listed species. California also designates Species of Special Concern (CSC) which are species of limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, or educational value. These species may be added to official lists in the future. Fish and Game Code includes provisions for the protection of the nests of particular types of birds, including birds of prey (Section 3503.5).
CDFG provides comments on Corps permit actions under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. CDFG is also authorized under the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600–1607 to develop mitigation measures and enter into Streambed Alteration Agreements with applicants who propose projects that would obstruct the flow of, or alter the bed, channel, or bank of a river or stream in which there is a fish or wildlife resource, including intermittent and ephemeral streams.
Prior to project approval, a Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained from the CDFG.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-21 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Section 401 and 402 The State’s authority in regulating activities in waters of the U.S. resides primarily with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWRCB, acting through the RWQCB, must certify that a Corps permit action meets state water quality objectives (Section 401, Clean Water Act).
The SWRCB has adopted a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit) per Section 402 of the CWA for storm water discharges associated with any construction activity including clearing, grading, excavation reconstruction, and dredge and fill activities that results in the disturbance of at least one acre of total land area. The general permit requires the site owner to notify the state, to prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), and to monitor the effectiveness of the plan. The plan does not have to be submitted to the RWQCB, but must be on site and available to inspectors. The plan must also address post-construction control of pollutants in storm water. Dischargers who fail to obtain coverage under this General Permit for storm water discharges to surface waters would be required to seek an individual permit or be in violation of the CWA and the California Water Code.
The project will proceed under the general construction permit and pursuant to a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan. Additionally, prior to project approval, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification must be obtained from the RWQCB.
Sensitive Natural Community A sensitive natural community is a biological community that is regionally rare, provides important habitat opportunities for wildlife, is structurally complex, or is in other ways of special concern to local, state, or federal agencies. CEQA identifies the elimination or substantial degradation of such communities as a significant impact. CDFG tracks sensitive natural communities in the CNDDB.
No sensitive natural communities will be affected by this project.
Local
Yolo County General Plan The current Yolo County General Plan , adopted in 1983, addresses growing development pressure from the Sacramento and Bay Area, especially along the Interstate 80 corridor that links the two areas. Yolo County’s vision is to remain an area of active and productive farmland and open space, while accommodating the needs for recreational, tourism, and residential development. The County is currently updating its general plan with the DEIR expected to be released for public review in April of 2009. The Draft updated general plan retains the emphasis on preserving the agricultural and rural character of Yolo County. Final action on the General Plan update is scheduled to occur in September 2009. For the purpose of this analysis the existing 1983 General Plan will be used.
The Yolo County General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element focuses on balanced management of the County’s natural and cultural resources through conservation of open spaces,
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-22 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
biological resources, mineral, cultural resources, water resources, air quality, and energy resources. Additionally, the Conservation and Open Space Element addresses climate change and provides an ongoing commitment to conserve energy and reduce the emission of greenhouse gases.
The Cache Creek Area Plan (CCAP) is an adopted part of the General Plan’s Conservation and Open Space Element. The focus of the CCAP is groundwater protection, agricultural preservation, restoration of Cache Creek, and limitation and regulation of mining. The Off-Channel Mining Plan (OCMP) and Cache Creek Resources Management Plan (CCRMP) together comprise the Cache Creek Area Plan. The Cache Creek Improvement Program (CCIP) was developed in 1996 by the Yolo County Community Development Agency and adopted as a component part of the CCRMP. The CCIP provides the structure and authority for a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), defines the procedures and methodologies for stream monitoring and maintenance activities, and identifies initial high priority projects for stream stabilization.
The Yolo County General Plan has adopted the following Conservation and Open Space policies to protect natural resources within the County’s plan area. Below are Goals and Policies that are applicable to natural resources for the proposed project.
Goal CO-2 Biological Resources. Protect and enhance biological resources through the conservation, maintenance, and restoration of key habitat areas and corresponding connections that represent the diverse geography, topography, biological communities, and ecological integrity of the landscape.
Policies CO-2.1 through CO-2.36 are specific policies designed to support Goal CO-2. Below are policies that are relevant to the proposed project.
CO-2.1 Consider and maintain the ecological function of landscapes, connecting features, watersheds, and wildlife movement corridors.
CO-2.3 Preserve and enhance those biological communities that contribute to the County’s rich biodiversity including blue oak and mixed oak woodlands, native grassland prairies, wetlands, riparian corridors, aquatic habitat, agricultural lands, heritage valley oak trees, remnant valley oak groves, and roadside tree rows.
CO-2.4 Coordinate with other regional efforts to sustain or recover special-status species populations by preserving and enhancing habitats for special-status species.
CO-2.5 Protect, restore and enhance habitat for sensitive fish species, so long as it does not result in the large-scale conversion of existing agricultural resources.
CO-2.8 Encourage all public land management agencies to protect, restore, and enhance the fish habitat within their jurisdiction.
CO-2.9 Protect riparian corridors to maintain and balance wildlife values.
CO-2.20 Encourage the use of wildlife-friendly Best Management Practices to minimize unintentional killing of wildlife, such as restricting
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-23 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
mowing during nesting season for ground-nesting birds or draining of flooded fields before fledging of wetland species.
CO-2.24 Promote floodplain management techniques that increase the area of naturally inundated floodplains and the frequency of inundated floodplain habitat, restore some natural flooding processes, river meanders, and widen riparian vegetation, where feasible.
CO-2.26 Coordinate with local watershed groups including the Cache Creek Conservancy, Lower Putah Creek Coordinating Committee, Cache Creek Stakeholders Group, Sacramento River Area Conservation Forum, and the Yolo Basin Foundation, to enhance biodiversity.
CO-2.27 Evaluate the need for additional water to support future riparian enhancement efforts, including the benefits of conjunctive management of groundwater and surface water resources.
CO-2.28 Balance the needs of aquatic and riparian ecosystem enhancement efforts with flood management objectives.
CO-2.31 Protect and enhance streams, channels, seasonal and permanent marshland, wetlands, sloughs, riparian habitat and vernal pools in land planning and community design.
CO-2.32 Protect wetland ecosystems by minimizing erosion and pollution from grading, especially during grading and construction projects.
CO-2.35 Recognize, protect and enhance the habitat value and role of wildlife migration corridors for the Sacramento River, Putah Creek, Willow Slough, the Capay Hills, the Dunningham Hills and Cache Creek.
Yolo County Oak Woodland Conservation and Enhancement Plan Yolo County adopted the Oak Woodland Conservation and Enhancement Plan in January 2007. This plan calls for the voluntary conservation of oak woodlands and contains a number of goals that support natural resource stewardship and preservation of native oak habitats at a regional scale. The General Plan also requires that oaks be preserved and encourages retention and expansion of oak woodlands.
The project is responsive to these policies and will provide specific measures to protect oak trees in the project study area.
Special-Status Species
Definitions of Special-Status Species Special-status species are those plants and animals that, because of their recognized rarity or vulnerability to various causes of habitat loss or population decline, are recognized by federal, state,
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-24 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
or other agencies. Some of these species receive specific protection that is defined by federal or state endangered species legislation. Others have been designated as “sensitive” on the basis of adopted policies and expertise of state resource agencies or organizations with acknowledged expertise, or policies adopted by local governmental agencies such as counties, cities, and special districts to meet local conservation objectives. These species are referred to collectively as “special status species” in this study following a convention that has developed in practice but has no official sanction. For the purposes of this assessment, the term “special-status” includes the following:
• Federally listed or proposed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.11-17.12). They are the only species that are specifically regulated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on tribal lands. • Candidates for listing under the Federal Endangered Species Act (61 FR 7596-7613) • State listed or proposed under the California Endangered Species Act (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] 670.5) • Species listed by the USFWS as a species of concern and rare or by CDFG as a species of special concern • Fully protected animals, as defined by the State of California (CDFG Code Section 3511, 4700, and 5050) • Species that meet the definition of threatened, endangered, or rare under CEQA (CEQA Guidelines Section 15380) • Plants listed as rare or endangered under the California Native Plant Protection Act (CDFG Code Section 1900 et seq.)
Potentially Affected Listed and Proposed Species A list of special-status plant and animal species that have the potential to occur within the vicinity of the study area was compiled based on data in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFG, 2009), California Native Plant Society (CNPS) literature (CNPS, 2009), and the USFWS List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be Affected by Projects in the Esparto Quad (USFWS, 2009). Conclusions regarding habitat suitability and species occurrence are based on a reconnaissance-level area assessment conducted by ESA biologists, as well as existing literature and databases described previously.
A list of special-status plants and animals with the potential to occur within the project site and the project’s potential to impact each species listed is in Table 2-6. ESA identified seven species with a low potential, one species with a medium potential (Mountain Plover), and two species (Swainson’s hawk and Valley elderberry longhorn beetle) with a high potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The “Potential for Occurrence” category is defined as follows:
• Unlikely: The project site and/or immediate area do not support suitable habitat for a particular species. Project site is outside of the species known range. • Low Potential: Project site and/or immediate area only provide limited habitat for a particular species. In addition, the known range for a particular species may be outside of the immediate project area. • Medium Potential: The project site and/or immediate area provide suitable habitat for a particular species, and habitat for the species may be impacted.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-25 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
• High Potential: The project site and/or immediate area provide ideal habitat conditions for a particular species and/or known populations occur in immediate area and within the potential area of impact.
Life history and distribution of species with medium to high potential to occur within the vicinity of the project area are described in detail below.
TABLE 2-6 LIST OF POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Federal/ Potential for Species to Occur in the Species State/CNPS Status General Habitat Project Area
Birds Falco mexicanus --/CSC/-- Breeds on cliffs, bluffs and Unlikely. Project area lacks suitable Prairie falcon outcrops near large, open areas. physical features essential for breeding. However, the nearest CNDDB occurrence is approximately 2 miles west of the project site. Buteo swainsoni --/CT/-- Forages in open plains, High. Project site is surrounded by Swainson's hawk grasslands, and prairies; typically mature Valley oaks that potentially nests in trees or large shrubs. provide suitable nesting habitat. Agriculture and open grasslands adjacent to project site may provide suitable foraging habitat. However, the nearest CNDDB occurrences are 4 miles northeast and southeast of the project site. Riparia riparia FT/--/-- Nests in banks of rivers, creeks, Low. Cache Creek may provide Bank swallow lakes, and seashores 3 or more suitable foraging habitat, however, the feet in height; nests in excavated banks of Cache Creek are not dirt tunnels near the top of steep sufficiently steep to provide nesting banks. habitat. The nearest CNDDB occurrence is more than 2 miles northwest of the project site, along Cache Creek. Strix occidentalis FT/--/-- Old-growth, dense, multi-layered Unlikely. Project area lacks suitable caurina forests. In California, occurs from habitat for this species. There are no Northern spotted owl Marin Co. and north, with isolated CNDDB occurrences for this species populations in Santa Cruz and within 5 miles of the project site. Santa Lucia mountains. Feeds on small mammals, small birds, bats, and large anthropods. Yearlong, nocturnal activity. Charadrius montanus FSC/CSC/-- In California, winters in open short Medium. Grasslands and agricultural Mountain plover grasslands and plowed agricultural fields within and surrounding the fields in the Central Valley and in project area potentially provide foothill valleys west of San Joaquin suitable habitat for this species during Valley, and in Imperial Valley. the winter. However, the nearest Winters below 1000 m (3200 ft). CNDDB occurrence is more than 4 miles from the project site. Mammals
None
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-26 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
TABLE 2-6 LIST OF POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Federal/ Potential for Species to Occur in the Species State/CNPS Status General Habitat Project Area
Amphibians Ambystoma FT/CSC/-- Annual grassland and grassy Low. Annual grassland within riparian californiense understory of valley-foothill woodland and freshwater emergent California tiger hardwood habitats in central and wetland within the project site may salamander northern California. Needs provide limited suitable habitat for this underground refuges and vernal species. However, the nearest CNDDB pools or other seasonal water occurrence is 3 miles northwest of the sources such as long lasting pools. project site, outside of the Cache Creek corridor. Rana aurora draytonii FT/CSC/-- Breeds in slow moving streams, Low. A small area of freshwater California red-legged ponds, and marshes with emergent wetland immediately south frog emergent vegetation; forages in of the southern abutment of Capay nearby uplands within about 200 Dam may provide limited suitable feet. habitat for this species. However, there are no CNDDB occurrences for this species within 5 miles of the project site. Reptiles Thamnophis gigas FT/ST/-- Generally inhabits marshes, Low. Cache Creek is considered giant garter snake sloughs, ponds, slow-moving potential habitat and dispersal habitat streams, ditches, and rice fields by USFWS. Canals connected to that have water from early spring Cache Creek are lined with concrete till mid-fall. Emergent vegetation and have very little vegetation, (cattails and bulrushes), open therefore, would not provide suitable areas for sunning and high ground breeding habitat but may provide for hibernation and cover. dispersal habitat for GGS. The small area of freshwater emergent wetland near the southern abutment of Capay Dam may provide limited habitat for this species. There are no CNDDB occurrences of GGS within 5 miles of the project site. Fish Hypomesus FT/ST/-- Open surface waters in the Unlikely. There are no known CNDDB transpacificus Sacramento/San Joaquin Delta. occurrences of delta smelt within 5 Delta smelt Seasonally in Suisun Bay, miles of the project site. Additionally, Carquinez Strait and San Pablo Cache Creek does not have dense Bay. Found in Delta estuaries with aquatic vegetation to provide suitable dense aquatic vegetation and low habitat for the delta smelt. occurrence of predators. May be affected by downstream sedimentation. Oncorhynchus mykiss FT/--/-- This ESU enters the Sacramento Unlikely. Historically salmon spawned Steelhead - Central and San Joaquin Rivers and their in Cache Creek until the 1940’s, but Valley ESU tributaries from July to May; there are few records since then. spawning from December to April. There are no CNDDB records of this Young move to rearing areas in species within 5 miles of the project and through the Sacramento and site. San Joaquin Rivers, Delta, and San Pablo and San Francisco Bays.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-27 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
TABLE 2-6 LIST OF POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Federal/ Potential for Species to Occur in the Species State/CNPS Status General Habitat Project Area
Oncorhynchus FT/ST/-- This ESU enters the Sacramento Unlikely. Historically salmon spawned tshawytscha and San Joaquin Rivers and in Cache Creek until the 1940’s, but Spring-Run Chinook tributaries March to July; spawning there are few records since then. Salmon from late August to early October. There are no CNDDB records of this Young move to rearing areas in species within 5 miles of the project and through the Sacramento and site. San Joaquin Rivers, Delta, and San Pablo and San Francisco Bays. Oncorhynchus FE/SE/-- This ESU enters the Sacramento Unlikely. Historically salmon spawned tshawytscha River December to May; spawning in Cache Creek until the 1940’s, but Winter-Run Chinook peaks May and June. Upstream there are few records since then. Salmon movement occurs more quickly There are no CNDDB records of this than in spring run population. species within 5 miles of the project Young move to rearing areas in site. and through the Sacramento River, Delta, and San Pablo and San Francisco Invertebrates Andrena --/--/-- Oligolectic on vernal pool flowers, Unlikely. There is no suitable habitat blennospermatis especially Blennosperma. Bees within the project site to support this Blennosperma vernal nest in the uplands around vernal species. pool adrenid bee pools. Branchinecta lynchi FT/--/-- Lifecycle restricted to vernal pools. Unlikely. There is no suitable habitat vernal pool fairy shrimp within the project site to support this species. Desmocerus FT/--/-- Breeds and forages exclusively on High. Elderberry shrubs are present californicus dimorphus elderberry shrubs (Sambucus within riparian habitats in and valley elderberry mexicana) typically associated surrounding the project site. No exit longhorn beetle with riparian forests, riparian holes were observed during the field woodlands, elderberry savannas, reconnaissance. The nearest and other Central Valley habitats. occurrence of VELB is more than 4 Occurs only in the Central Valley miles from the project site. of California. Lepidurus packardi FE/--/-- Lifecycle restricted to vernal pools. Unlikely. There is no suitable habitat vernal pool tadpole within the project site to support this shrimp species. Syncaris pacifica FE/SE/-- Endemic to quiet waters of Unlikely. There is no suitable habitat California freshwater freshwater streams in Marin, within the project site to support this shrimp Sonoma, and Napa Counties. species. Habitat must be <1% gradient, <115 m elevation. Cannot tolerate saline or brackish waters. Plants California macrophylla --/--/1B.1 Generally found in Valley Low. Suitable habitat such as Valley round-leaved filaree grasslands and foothill woodlands, grassland and foothill woodlands exist 0-3937 feet in elevation. Blooms within or in the vicinity of the project Mar-May. site. However, no CNDDB occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the project site. This species was not encountered during the field reconnaissance.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-28 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
TABLE 2-6 LIST OF POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Federal/ Potential for Species to Occur in the Species State/CNPS Status General Habitat Project Area
Erigeron greenei --/--/1B.2 Perennial herb occurring on Unlikely. No suitable habitat or soil (=angustatus) serpentinite in chaparral. 80-290 conditions exist within project site. Narrow-leaved daisy m elevation. Blooms May-Sep. Species was not encountered during the field reconnaissance and no CNDDB occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the project site. Fritillaria pluriflora --/--/1B.2 Bulbiferous herb occurring in Low. Suitable habitat such as Valley Adobe-lily chaparral, cismontane woodland, grassland exists within or in the vicinity and valley and foothill grassland, of the project site. However, no often on adobe or serpentine CNDDB occurrences were recorded substrate. Blooms Feb-Apr. 65- within 5 miles of the project site. This 705 meters elevation. species was not encountered during the field reconnaissance. Project site does not have adobe or serpentine soils that are most suitable for this species. Hesperolinon breweri --/--/1B.2 Annual usually occurring in Unlikely. No suitable habitat or soil Brewer’s western flax serpentine soils in chaparral and conditions exist within project site. cismontane woodland. Blooms Species was not encountered during May-Jul. 30-900 m elevation. the field reconnaissance and no CNDDB occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the project site. Layia septentrionalis --/--/1B.2 Scattered colonies in fields and Unlikely. Project site lacks serpentine Colusa layia grassy slopes in sandy or soil and appropriate elevation. No serpentine soil. 100-1095m. CNDDB occurrences were recorded Blooms April-May. within 5 miles of the project site. This species was not encountered during the field reconnaissance. Lepidium latipes var. --/--/1B.2 Generally found in valley and Low. Suitable habitat such as Valley heckardii foothill grasslands. Prefers wet grassland and freshwater emergent Heckard’s pepper- places including vernal pools. wetland may provide suitable habitat grass Blooms Mar-May. 2-200 m for this species. However, no CNDDB elevation. occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the project site. This species was not encountered during the field reconnaissance. Navarretia --/--/1B.1 Annual herb occurring in Low. Suitable habitat such as Valley leucocephala ssp. cismontane woodland, lower grassland exists within or in the vicinity bakeri montane coniferous forest, of the project site and provide limited Baker’s navarretia meadows and seeps, Valley and habitat for this species. However, no foothill grassland, and vernal CNDDB occurrences were recorded pools. Blooms May-Jul. 15-1740 within 5 miles of the project site. This meters elevation. species was not encountered during the field reconnaissance.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-29 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
TABLE 2-6 LIST OF POTENTIALLY OCCURRING SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Federal/ Potential for Species to Occur in the Species State/CNPS Status General Habitat Project Area
Source: USFWS 2009, CDFG 2009, CNPS 2009, and ESA 2009
STATUS CODES
Federal FE = Endangered FT = Threatened FPE = Proposed Endangered FPT = Proposed Threatened FC = Candidate
State SE = Endangered ST = Threatened SR = Rare SFP = Fully Protected CSC = (CA) Department of Fish and Game Special Concern species
California Native Plant Society List 1B = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere List 2 = Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere List 3 = Plants about which we need more information--a review list List 4 = Plants of limited distribution--a watch list
.1 = Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat)
.2 = Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)
.3 = Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
Swainson’s Hawk Swainson’s hawks are medium-sized hawks that are opportunistic predators, feeding on rodents, rabbits, bats, large arthropods, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and, rarely, fish (Woodbridge, 1998; Zeiner et al., 1988-1990). In the Central Valley, the majority of their diet is composed of California voles (CDFG, 2000). Swainson’s hawks begin arriving in California in late February and depart for their wintering grounds in early September (Woodbridge, 1998). Nests are usually placed in a tree, bush, or on a utility pole and are comprised of a platform of sticks, bark, and fresh leaves. Eggs are laid from late March to late August, peaking late May through July (Zeiner et al., 1988-1990).
Swainson’s hawks reside in a wide variety of open habitats, from prairie and shrub steppe to deserts and intensive agricultural matrices (Woodbridge, 1998). Nests are usually constructed in habitats with scattered trees or along riparian corridors adjacent to agricultural fields or pastures (Zeiner et al., 1988-1990).
Historically, Swainson’s hawks were found throughout the lowlands of California, absent only from the Sierra Nevada, north Coast Ranges and Klamath Mountains, and portions of the southern California deserts. Currently, they are only found in portions of the Central Valley and Great Basin regions; where suitable habitat is still present (CDFG, 2000). The highest density currently is located in the Central Valley, between Sacramento and Modesto, and in the northern San Joaquin Valley (Woodbridge, 1988).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-30 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Swainson’s hawk was listed by CDFG as Threatened in 1983 and is a Federal Species of Concern. Threats include the loss and conversion of grassland habitat and agricultural lands, habitat deterioration in South American wintering grounds and human disturbance at nesting sites (CDFG, 2000).
Mountain Plover The mountain plover is a dull-colored shorebird that inhabits open, dry areas. It is a federal and California species of concern. The mountain plover winters in northern California from September through March below 1000 m (3200 ft). They are typically found in short grasslands and plowed fields of the Central Valley from Sutter and Yuba counties southward. The mountain plover is also found in foothill valleys west of San Joaquin Valley, Imperial Valley, plowed fields of Los Angeles and western San Bernardino counties, and along the central Colorado River valley. They occur in open plains with low, herbaceous or scattered shrub vegetation and usually avoid high and dense cover (CDFG, 2008).
Mountain plovers use open grasslands, plowed fields with little vegetation, and open sagebrush to search for large insects, especially grasshoppers. They prefer to roost in depressions such as ungulate hoof prints and plow furrows. The mountain plover does not nest in California; it nests in high-elevation grassland, often blue grama and buffalo grass patches. They breed from late April through June and peak in late May. Female mountain plovers lay an average clutch of 3 eggs (range = 1-4). When abundant food is available, the male mountain plover may incubate and brood young while the female lays another clutch, often tended by another male. Predators of the mountain plover include ground squirrels, kit foxes, coyotes, badgers, skunks, and snakes; adults are caught by raptors (CDFG, 2008).
Mountain plover populations have been declining for many years and a proposal to list the species as "endangered" was rejected by the USFWS in 2003, due to new information that the species was more common than was believed (CDFG, 2008).
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Suitable habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) is typically defined as live elderberry (Sambucus spp.) stems measuring at least one inch in diameter at ground level. They seldom occur above 3,000 feet in elevation. They are generally found along waterways and in floodplains that support remnant stands of riparian vegetation. The VELB is completely dependent on its host plant, elderberry, which is a common component of the riparian forests and adjacent upland habitats of California’s Central Valley and foothills (USFWS, 1999). Elderberry shrubs/trees with VELB populations occur in a variety of habitats and plant communities, but most often are found in riparian or savanna areas.
Records for this species are restricted to small, scatted populations along the Sacramento, American, San Joaquin, Kings, Kaweah, and Tule Rivers and their tributaries. However, the species has the potential to occupy shrubs below 3,000 feet in elevation within the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills. For this reason, elderberry shrubs of sufficient size (measuring at least one inch in diameter at ground level) are considered suitable habitat for this species.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-31 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Thresholds of Significance
The project would result in a significant impact on the biological resources within the project site if it would:
• Have a substantial adverse effect—either directly or through habitat modifications—on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFG or USFWS; • Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; • Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; • Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites; • Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; or • Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Special-status species lists were derived from CNDDB, CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants, and from the USFWS List of Endangered and Threatened Species that May Occur or be Affected by Projects in the Esparto USGS 7 ½ Minute Quad and surrounding eight quads (Appendix E). The potential for these species to occur in the project area have been evaluated in Table 2-6. The following sub-sections provide a discussion of potential effects to special-status plant and animal species.
Special-Status Plants There is low potential for the following special-status plant species to occur within the project site’s Valley grassland habitats: round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla), adobe-lily (Fritillaria pluriflora), Heckard’s pepper-grass (Lepidium latipes var. heckardii), and Baker’s navarretia (Navarretia leucocephala ssp. bakeri). No special- status plant species were found within the project site during the field reconnaissance which was conducted in March, during the blooming period of the majority of the aforementioned special-status plant species. An additional survey may be required between February and October to cover the blooming periods for all special-status plant species.
Construction activities would primarily take place within the area of the existing dam and associated apron, with anticipated small areas of direct impact to riparian woodland and annual grassland habitats resulting from access to and construction of the proposed grade control structure. Access routes for construction trucks and equipment will occur on existing paved or gravel roads and laydown areas for storage of construction equipment will occur on previously disturbed or barren areas within the project site. The proposed project will
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-32 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
potentially impact habitats that support special-status and rare plants within the project site. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 would reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
Special-Status Wildlife The project site does not have cliffs, bluffs, and outcrops associated with open areas; therefore, no suitable habitat exists for prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus). Bank swallows (Riparia riparia) require river banks that are steep enough to allow excavation of dirt tunnels for nesting. Banks in the project area are not adequately steep and do not have dirt tunnels to provide suitable habitat for bank swallows. However, bank swallows may use areas within the project area to forage. Northern spotted owls (Strix occidentalis caurina) require dense, multi-layered forests, which is not present within the project site.
There are no vernal pools within or in proximity to the project site, therefore the site does not provide suitable habitat for special-status species such as the Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee (Adrena blennospermatis), vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi), vernal pool tadpole shrimp (Lepidurus packardi), and California freshwater shrimp (Syncaris pacifica).
There are no known CNDDB occurrences of delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) within five miles of the project site. Additionally, Cache Creek does not have dense aquatic vegetation within the project site vicinity to provide suitable habitat for the delta smelt.
Historically, Steelhead salmon (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawned in Cache Creek until the 1940’s. Salmon populations are believed to be extirpated in Cache Creek within the vicinity of the project site and there are no current CNDDB records of salmon species within five miles of the project site. Upstream migration for salmonids is blocked at the Cache Creek Settling Basin.
The cropland habitat south of the project site provides foraging habitat for raptors such as Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni). Mature Valley oaks in proximity to the project site may provide suitable nesting habitat. Open short grasslands and plowed agricultural fields surrounding the project site may provide suitable habitat for the mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) during the winter. The annual grassland and grassy understory of valley oak and riparian habitat and the freshwater emergent wetland on the project site may provide suitable upland and aquatic habitat for the California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Use of staging areas and temporary disturbance during construction of the dam could directly impact suitable upland habitat for Swainson’s hawk as well as nesting activities. This is a potentially significant impact.
During the field reconnaissance, elderberry shrubs (Sambucus mexicana) were found scattered within Valley riparian woodland habitat north and south of Cache Creek. Additionally, elderberry shrubs also exist along gravel roads located north and south of the project site. These shrubs potentially provide suitable habitat for the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB), which breeds and forages exclusively on elderberry shrubs. Construction work within riparian areas along Cache Creek and use of hauling routes and staging areas associated with the proposed project may directly and/or indirectly impact elderberry shrubs and VELB. This is a potentially significant impact.
Cache Creek and a small area of freshwater emergent wetland may provide marginal aquatic habitat for giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). Adjacent suitable upland habitat for use by garter snakes occurs within the annual grassland and riparian areas. The Winters Canal and the West Adams Canal are both lined and void of emergent vegetation and would not
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-33 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
provide suitable breeding habitat for giant garter snakes, however, it may provide a dispersal corridor for GGS. Additionally, construction activities will impact small areas of freshwater emergent wetland, which would potentially impact giant garter snakes and/or their habitat. This is a potentially significant impact.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-2a through Mitigation Measure BIO-2e would reduce potential impacts to these species to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 Special-Status Plants: To ensure that impacts to special-status plant species shall be avoided or reduced the following measures shall be implemented: • Prior to initiating any field phase of the proposed project, pre-construction surveys for special-status plant species will be performed. A qualified botanist shall conduct pre-construction surveys for special-status plant species between February and October using CDFG guidelines for rare plant surveys (CDFG, 2000) as updated, within suitable habitat in the project area. ESA has conducted one survey in March, 2009. An additional survey for special-status plant species that have the potential to occur within the project site shall be conducted during the period of May through September 15th. If special-status plant species are found during these surveys, the applicant will propose avoidance, impact minimization, and/or mitigation measures to CDFG for their approval. These measures shall include, but are not restricted, to the following: 1. Route construction activity away from sensitive plants to the degree feasible in keeping with project objectives. 2. Relocate plants to suitable habitat outside of the project area, whether within applicant-owned land or off-site. 3. Monitor affected populations or relocated populations to document potential project-related impacts. 4. Restore or enhance occupied habitat on-site or at another location; and/or 5. Protect occupied habitat for the species on-site or at another regional location. Mitigation Measure BIO-2a Swainson’s hawk: The project site is surrounded by mature valley oaks that would potentially provide suitable nesting habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Additionally, annual grasslands and agricultural lands adjacent to the site potentially provide foraging habitat. To ensure that impacts to the Swainson’s hawk and its habitat shall be avoided or reduced, the following measures shall be implemented: • Prior to project implementation, the District shall conduct preconstruction surveys between March 15 and September 15 of all areas within 0.5 mile of the project site for Swainson’s hawk and their nests and within 1,000 feet of the project site for other tree-nesting raptors. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nesting raptors are recorded within
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-34 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
their respective buffers, the applicant will consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regarding suitable measures to avoid impacting breeding effort. Measures may include, but are not limited to: • Maintaining a 500-foot buffer around each active raptor nest; no construction activities shall be permitted within this buffer except as described below in this mitigation measure. This buffer may be reduced in consultation with CDFG. • Depending on conditions specific to each nest, and the relative location and rate of construction activities, it may be feasible for construction to occur as planned within the buffer without impacting the breeding effort. In consultation with CDFG the nest(s) that may be affected by construction activities shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during construction. The monitor will have all-stop authority. If in the professional opinion of the monitor project activities are negatively affecting the nesting behavior of the bird, the monitor shall stop all construction activity within the designated buffer. Construction activities shall not resume until either the monitor has determined that the young have fledged the nest or as otherwise approved by CDFG. Mitigation Measure BIO-2b Mountain Plover: To ensure that impacts to the mountain plover and its habitat shall be avoided or reduced, the following measures shall be implemented: • Construction shall commence after September 15th. In the event that construction must begin prior to September 15th, the other provisions of this mitigation measure shall apply. • Prior to project implementation, Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD) shall conduct preconstruction surveys for ground-nesting mountain plovers between March 15 and September 15 in suitable nesting habitat within the project site. Surveys shall be conducted by a qualified biologist. If nesting mountain plovers are observed, the applicant shall consult with CDFG regarding implementation of suitable measures to avoid impacting breeding effort. Measures may include, but are not limited to: 1. Maintaining a 500-foot buffer around each active nest; no construction activities shall be permitted within this buffer except as described below in this mitigation measure. This buffer may be reduced in consultation with CDFG. 2. Depending on conditions specific to each nest, and the relative location and rate of construction activities, it may be feasible for construction to occur as planned within the buffer without impacting the breeding effort. In this case (to be determined in consultation with CDFG), the nest(s) shall be monitored by a qualified biologist during construction within the buffer. The monitor will have all-stop authority. If in the professional opinion of the monitor project activities are negatively affecting the nesting behavior of the bird, the monitor shall stop all
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-35 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
construction activity within the designated buffer. Construction activities shall not resume until either the monitor has determined that the young have fledged the nest or as otherwise approved by CDFG. Mitigation Measure BIO-2c California tiger salamander: To ensure that impacts to the California tiger salamander and its habitat are avoided or reduced, the following measures shall be implemented: • Not less than two weeks prior to the onset of ground-disturbing activities, a qualified biologist shall survey all habitat suitable for California tiger salamander (CTS) within the project site that may be directly affected by project activities. The survey will be conducted according to the methods outlined in the Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander (USFWS, 2003). • Prior to construction, a solid barrier such as silt fencing shall be installed to exclude CTS from entering the project site. • Daily visual clearance surveys shall also be conducted during initial ground-disturbing activities. If a CTS is identified where habitat disturbance is proposed, work shall be halted and a USFWS-approved biologist shall be contacted to determine appropriate actions, unless already stipulated by the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). If the USFWS and CDFG approve moving salamanders, the qualified biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move the species from the work site before work activities resume. Only USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in the capturing, handling, and translocation of CTS. Any CTS relocated by the project shall be moved to nearby appropriate habitat, as determined by the qualified biologist and approved by USFWS and CDFG. Results of the preconstruction surveys shall be reported to USFWS. • If required, the applicant shall mitigate for the permanent loss of CTS habitat at a ratio approved by the USFWS and the CDFG. Mitigation may be achieved by purchasing appropriate mitigation credits at a USFWS- approved bank or preserve. Mitigation Measure BIO-2d Valley elderberry longhorn beetle: To ensure that impacts to the valley elderberry longhorn beetle and its habitat shall be avoided or reduced the District is in the process of enrolling in a Safe Harbor agreement (California Audubon permit) that specifies actions that will be taken to preserve and enhance VELB and these actions would apply to the project. In the event that the District does not complete enrollment in the Safe Harbor agreement the following measures shall be implemented: • Elderberry shrubs will be avoided where possible. The project proponent will ensure that elderberry shrubs within 100 feet of the proposed project shall conform to the following guidelines for avoidance of impacts and take as defined under the Endangered Species Act for the VELB. These
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-36 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
guidelines comply with habitat creation and mitigation measures described in the USFWS Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999) and the Programmatic Formal Consultation Permitting Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Within the Jurisdiction of the Sacramento Field Office (USFWS, 1996). 1. For all shrubs that can be avoided by construction activities, a 100-foot buffer surrounding the plant shall be maintained at all times. The buffer shall be fenced with temporary fencing and flagging. Signs shall be placed along the fencing every 50 feet that state the following: “This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.” The above sign shall be readable from a distance of 20 feet and maintained through the duration of construction. Work crews shall be briefed on the status of the beetle, the need to protect its host plant (elderberries), requirements to avoid damaging elderberry shrubs, and possible penalties for not complying with identified avoidance and minimization measures. In addition, construction workers should be made aware of the habitat needs of VELB and the location of protection areas on the site (USFWS, 1999). 2. For indirectly affected shrubs, a 20-foot buffer shall be fenced with temporary fencing and flagging and maintained throughout construction. Signs shall be placed along the fencing as described above, and work crews will be briefed as described above. The project proponent shall restore any damage occurring within 100 feet of elderberry shrubs that are not removed by the project during construction. Erosion control will be provided and the area will be revegetated with appropriate native plants. No insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers, or other chemical shall be used within 100 feet of any elderberry shrub with one or more stems measuring 1inch or greater in diameter at ground level. A written description of planned restoration, protection, and maintenance of buffer areas post-construction shall be provided. 3. For any directly affected shrubs, the project proponent shall provide compensatory mitigation by either: 1) purchasing credits for all required compensation from the USFWS-approved Conservation Bank, 2) transplanting the shrubs onto the Conservation Bank property and purchasing credits for any remaining mitigation requirements using mitigation ratios described in USFWS Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999), or 3) transplanting the shrubs onto the Conservation Bank property and planting additional seedlings for any remaining mitigation requirements using mitigation ratios described in USFWS Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999). Each credit
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-37 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
purchased from the Conservation Bank will provide compensatory mitigation for five elderberry stems and five associated native plant species. If the shrubs are relocated to the Conservation Bank property, all Conservation Guidelines described by USFWS (1999) for elderberry transplants shall be implemented, and the project proponent’s contractor shall coordinate with the Conservation Bank to replant the shrubs. Mitigation Measure BIO-2e Giant garter snake: In order to ensure that impacts to giant garter snake and its habitat shall be avoided or reduced, measures in accordance with the USFWS Programmatic Formal Consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 Permitted Projects with Relatively Small Effects on the Giant Garter Snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter and Yolo Counties, California (USFWS, 1997) shall be implemented. These measures include the following: • No less than 24-hours prior to the commencement of construction activities, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted to survey for giant garter snakes by a USFWS-approved biologist. The biologist will provide the USFWS with a written report that adequately documents the monitoring efforts within 24-hours of commencement of construction activities. The project area shall be re-inspected by the monitoring biologist whenever a lapse in construction activity of two weeks or greater has occurred. • A Worker Environmental Awareness Training Program for construction personnel shall be conducted by the USFWS approved biologist for all construction workers, including contractors, prior to the commencement of construction activities. The program shall provide workers with information on their responsibilities with regard to the snake, an overview of the life-history of this species, information on take prohibitions, protections afforded this animal under the Act, and an explanation of the relevant terms and conditions of this biological opinion. Written documentation of the training must be submitted to the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office within 30 days of the completion of training. As needed, training shall be conducted in Spanish for Spanish language speakers. • An on-call biologist shall be available for construction personnel to contact in the event that GGS is encountered on-site. • Construction activity within giant garter snake habitat (e.g. aquatic, upland, and rice habitat) shall be conducted between May 1 and October 1. This is the active period for the snake and direct mortality is lessened as snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger. If it appears that construction activity may go beyond October 1, the District shall contact the USFWS as soon as possible, but not later than September 15th of the year in question, to determine if additional measures are necessary to minimize take. The District must consult with USFWS to determine measures to avoid impacts to giant garter snake. A USFWS-approved biologist shall inspect construction-related
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-38 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
activities for unauthorized take. The biologist shall be available for monitoring throughout all phases of construction that may result in adverse effects to the giant garter snake. • Between April 15 and October 1 any surface water that requires dewatering that is considered habitat must remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15 and prior to excavating or filing the dewatered habitat, except that the area may remain dry for less than 15 days if the dry period extends past October 1. • Movement of heavy equipment to and form the project site shall be restricted to established roadways to minimize habitat disturbance. • Temporary impacts shall be restored to preproject conditions. Areas subject to temporary impacts shall be limited to one season (the calendar year period between May 1 and October 1) and be restored within two seasons. Permanent impacts to giant garter snake habitat shall be replaced at a 3:1 ratio which must include both upland and aquatic habitat components. A portion of the mitigation for permanent loss of wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1 as required per Mitigation Measure BIO-4 may fulfill a portion of the 3:1 mitigation obligation for permanent impacts to giant garter snake habitat. This mitigation may be fulfilled through in-kind, onsite or off-site, out-of-kind mitigation as approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Riparian habitat located along the banks of Cache Creek would be directly impacted by construction of the grade control structure and replacement and extension of the apron on Capay Dam. Additionally, a small area of freshwater emergent wetland will be buried by the apron extension.. The YCFCWCD is required to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the DFG per Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616 for this project. An impact to the regulated features is potentially significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would reduce the impact to riparian habitat and freshwater emergent wetland to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 Riparian Habitats: In order to protect and preserve on-site riparian habitats and associated special status species, the following measures shall be implemented: 1. To protect migratory birds, no woody riparian vegetation shall be removed beginning March 15th and ending September 1st, as required under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. 2. The permanent removal of riparian vegetation shall be compensated for at a 1:1 ratio. Compensation shall take the form of riparian preservation or creation in accordance with and as approved by the Corps and CDFG and their mitigation requirements, as required under project permits. Preservation and creation may occur onsite through a conservation agreement or offsite through purchasing credits at a Corps approved mitigation bank. c) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Development of the proposed project would likely affect areas designated as waters of the U.S. The potential jurisdictional features within the study area that may be affected by the project are awaiting verification by the Corps. Any discharge of fill into verified features would require a Section 404 Department of the Army
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-39 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Permit. In addition, the RWQCB regulates these features under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act; the YCFCWCD would need a Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to discharging fill in these features. Cache Creek is considered waters of the U.S. and falls under the jurisdictional purview of the Corps per Section 404 of the CWA. Cache Creek will be directly impacted by construction of the grade control and replacement and extension of the apron of Capay Dam. Additionally, a potentially jurisdictional freshwater emergent wetland located directly east of the southern abutment of Capay Dam will be impacted by construction of the apron extension.
A formal delineation of potential wetlands and other waters of the U.S. within the project study area was prepared by ESA and submitted to the Corps for verification. The Corps could add or remove wetlands and/or waters of the U.S. during the verification process. State and federal regulations require that the project applicant avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands and waters and develop appropriate protection for wetlands. Wetlands that cannot be avoided must be compensated to result in “no net loss” of wetlands to ensure that the project would maintain the current functions and values of onsite wetland habitats. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-4 and Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would reduce the impact to federally protected Waters of the U.S. to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4 Wetlands: In order to protect and preserve on-site wetland and riverine habitats, the following measures shall be implemented: • The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD) has prepared a wetland delineation for verification by the Corps. Following the verification of the wetland delineation, the YCFCWCD shall prepare and submit a Section 404 permit application to the Corps. • The YCFCWCD shall comply with the no net loss of wetland habitat and no significant impacts to potential jurisdictional features policy. The YCFCWCD shall compensate for the unavoidable loss of wetlands at a ratio no less than 1:1. Compensation shall take the form of wetland preservation or creation in accordance with Corps and CDFG mitigation requirements, as required under project permits. Preservation and creation may occur onsite through a conservation agreement or offsite through purchasing credits at a Corps approved site or mitigation bank. Mitigation Measure BIO-5 Water Quality: In order to provide effective erosion and sediment control to protect Cache Creek and other Waters of the U.S., the following measures shall be implemented: • The YCFCWCD shall require the applicant to develop a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to prevent the pollution of surface water and groundwater within the project vicinity. Preparation and implementation of a SWPPP is required by law and shall require approval by the RWQCB and/or Yolo County. • The SWPPP shall identify Best Management Practices (BMPs) for erosion control (such as silt fences, staked straw bales/wattles, silt/sediment basins
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-40 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
and traps, check dams, geofabric, sandbag dikes, and temporary revegetation or other ground cover) to be employed for disturbed areas, stockpiled soil, and along any culverts and drainage ditches on the site and in downstream off-site areas that may be affected by construction activities. Requirements for the placement and monitoring of the BMPs shall become part of the contractor’s specifications. Performance and adequacy of the measures shall be determined visually by a qualified SWPPP inspector and as is required in the project SWPPP. • Bare soils within the construction site will be adequately covered as soon as possible after disturbance to prevent erosion and dust concerns. No disturbed surfaces or stockpile areas will be left without erosion control measures in place during the period of October 1 through April 30. The application, schedule, and maintenance of the erosion control measures shall be the responsibility of the contractor and requirements to establish effective erosion control measures shall be included in the construction contractor’s project specifications. • If discharges of sediment or hazardous substances to drainage ways are observed, construction shall be halted until the source of contamination is identified and remediated. Visual indications of such contamination include an oily sheen or coating on water, and noticeable turbidity (lack of clarity) in the water. d) Less than Significant. The proposed project would not substantially interfere with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project site is not located within an established native resident or migratory wildlife corridor or wildlife nursery site. Construction of the grade control structure and replacement and extension of the apron of Capay Dam may temporarily impact giant garter snakes movement pattern but would not substantially interfere with their movement. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-2a and Mitigation Measure BIO-2e would reduce the impact to less-than-significant.
e) Less than Significant. The proposed project is located within the planning area of the Yolo County General Plan. The proposed project is consistent with provisions of the current general plan with the implementation of the Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through Mitigation Measure BIO-5. Mature oak trees in the vicinity of the project site are protected by the Yolo County Oak Woodland Conservation and Enhancement Plan (Yolo County, 2007). The proposed project may impact mature oak trees located in the vicinity of the project site through usage of access routes and movement of heavy equipment. Additionally, mature oak trees may be impacted through improper storage or chemical spills. To protect mature oak trees in the vicinity of the project site, Mitigation Measure BIO- 6 shall be implemented.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6: In order to protect mature oak trees in the vicinity of the project site, the following mitigation measures shall be implemented: • Where feasible, tree protection zones should include a minimum 1-foot- wide buffer zone outside the dripline for native oaks. The locations of these resources will be clearly identified on the construction drawings and
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-41 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
marked in the field. Fencing or other barriers will remain in place until all construction and restoration work that involves heavy equipment is complete. • Construction vehicles, equipment, or materials will not be parked or stored within the fenced area. • No dumping of oils or chemicals shall be permitted within the dripline of any retained tree. • No signs, ropes, cables, or other items will be attached to the protected trees. • Grading, filling, trenching, paving, irrigation, and landscaping within the driplines of oak trees shall be prohibited unless the project proponent has consulted with the Yolo County Parks and Natural Resources Management Division and a certified arborist. If necessary, hand-digging must be done in the vicinity of major trees to prevent root cutting and mangling by heavy equipment. Major roots 3” or greater encountered within the tree’s dripline during excavation should not be cut and any exposed roots must be kept moist and covered with earth as soon as possible. Severed roots 1 to 2” in diameter shall be cut cleanly, trimmed, and covered as soon as possible. Support roots inside the dripline must be protected. f) No Impact. The project site is not located within the boundaries of any adopted NCCP or HCP. The project site is located within the planning area of the draft Yolo Natural Heritage Program NCCP/HCP. At this time, development of the NCCP/HCP is in- progress and has not been adopted by the County and is therefore not applicable to the proposed project. Therefore, there would be no impact
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-42 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Cultural Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES— Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Environmental Setting
Prehistoric Context A three-part cultural chronological sequence, the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) was developed by archaeologists to explain local and regional cultural change in prehistoric central California from approximately 4,500 years ago to the time of European contact (Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga, 1939; Beardsley, 1948, 1954). In 1969, several researchers addressed the substantive taxonomic problems that had developed with the CCTS.
The Windmiller Pattern was the earliest comprehensive view of the region for the terminal-Paleo- Indian Period to Lower Archaic period (~6,000 B.C. to ~3,000 B.C.) (Beardsley, 1954; Heizer & Fenenga, 1939; Ragir, 1972). This cultural horizon reflected a people well adapted to riverine and marshland environments. The Windmiller economy was diffuse in breadth, a common trait among peoples during this time. People made use of a wide range of resources so as to reduce risk in times of resource shortfall, such as those caused by climatic shifts. The artifactual evidence of the Windmiller tradition suggests a wide range of specialized technology suited to the diffuse nature of their diet. These artifacts included large projectile points (spear or dart tips), baked-clay net sinkers, bone fish hooks, and spears. Mortars and milling slabs were predominant during this time period, as well as charmstones and abalone shell and olive snail ornaments and beads (Beardsley 1948; Heizer, 1949; Heizer and Fenenga 1939; Ragir, 1972).
The subsequent Berkeley Pattern or Cosumnes culture (~2,000 B.C. to A.D. 300), comparable to the emerging Archaic Period in California prehistory (3,000 B.C. to A.D. 1000), reflected a change in socioeconomic complexity and settlement patterns. Many of the settlements of this period were denser and more sedentary, yet continued to exploit a diverse resource base—from woodland to grassland and marshland, to bayshore resources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area (Bickel, 1978; King, 1974). Moreover, the Archaic Period was characterized by increasing
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-43 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
sociopolitical complexity and the radiation of peoples into new ecological niches (Chartkoff & Chartkoff, 1984).
Out of Cosumnes Tradition came the Hotchkiss Tradition (or “Late Horizon”) by the Emergent Period (about 500 A.D.). The peoples of the Hotchkiss Tradition likely flourished in the Stockton and Delta region until European contact.
Ethnographic Setting The project area was once inhabited by the Patwin Indians, who held an extensive region within north-central California. Patwin territory included the lower portion of the west side of the Sacramento Valley west of the Sacramento River from about the location of the town of Princeton in the north to Benicia in the south (Kroeber 1925). The Patwin were bounded to the north, northeast, and east by other Penutian-speaking peoples (the Nomlaki, Wintu, and Maidu, respectively), and to the west by the Pomo and other coastal groups. Within this large territory, the Patwin have traditionally been divided into River, Hill and Southern Patwin groups, although in actuality a more complex set of linguistic and cultural differences existed than is indicated by these three geographic divisions. (Whistler 1977; McCarthy 1985)
As with most of the hunting-gathering groups of California, the "tribelet" represented the basic social and political unit. Typically, a tribelet chief would reside in a major village where ceremonial events were also typically held. The project area, located just south of Cache Creek and just east of the mouth of Capay Valley, was considered territory held by the Hill Patwin triblets. The Hill Patwin lived in villages occupying the intermontane valleys and clustered along Cache and Putah Creeks. As would be expected, subsistence for the inhabitants in this area would have relied heavily on riparian and wetland resources provided by the prominent water courses. Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl were important sources of protein in the diet of these groups (Johnson 1978). The Patwin populations suffered near extinction with the emigration of Euro-American settlers into the area through exposure to disease and the process of displacement. However, today the Patwin culture survives through descendants who still reside in Capay Valley as part of the Rumsey Band of Wintun near Cache Creek.
Historic Setting
The earliest Euro-American presence in Yolo County was the expedition of Gabriel Moraga in 1808. Moraga led a Spanish expedition up the Sacramento River as far as Sutter County. By the late 1820s, English, American, and French fur trappers, attracted by the valley’s abundance of animal life, had begun operations throughout the region. The Hudson Bay Company cached their furs along smaller streams, one of which would become known as Cache Creek. In 1846 the Rancho Canada de Capay was granted to Francisco Berryessa and his two brothers, Santiago and Demisio. At more than 4,000 acres it was the largest landgrant located wholly within the area that would become Yolo County (Kyle, 2002).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-44 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
The discovery of gold in 1848 at Coloma resulted in the influx of thousands of fortune seekers into California and the Sacramento area. Sacramento became a trading center with supplies from San Francisco and the Central Valley sold to miners. Livestock production and grain farming became the economic mainstays of the project area. In 1858, land speculators Arnold and Gillig purchased 13,760 acres of the Berryessa grant and began to subdivide the land into parcels of 200 to 3800 acres. Capay, previously known as Munchville and Langville, was first laid out as Langville in 1874. Langville's name was changed to Capay City and then to Capay by 1889. The coming of the Southern Pacific Railroad encouraged land division and increased irrigation throughout the area. By 1888, Esperanza (later renamed Esparto) was laid out and railroad track was laid up to Rumsey at the north end of the Capay Valley. By 1900 the population of the Capay Valley was recorded at 1,381. (Capay Valley Vision, 2009).
An 1879 deed book for Yolo County indicates that the land for the Capay Dam site was sold for $1000 by John and Rebecca Gillig of Virginia City, Nevada to the Cottonwood Ditch Company. The Cotton Ditch Company had been formed in 1870 for the purpose of channeling water from Cache Creek into the Cottonwood Ditch (running from just west of Capay to Madison) for agricultural irrigation. By late 1879, a headgate and temporary dam was in place. In 1914, the Yolo County Consolidated Water Company began construction of a reinforced concrete diversion dam (Capay Dam) crossing Cache Creek. The dam was intended to improve water storage capacity for flood control and irrigation purposes. Completed in 1915, the dam serves 150 miles of irrigation canals and diverts water into two principle canals; the Winters Canal and the West Adams Canal (see discussion of the Adams Canal, below). The dam is approximately 500 feet wide and ten feet high. In 1993, wooden flashboards were removed from the dam and a 5-foot high inflatable bladder was installed along the entire length dam’s overflow section. Emergency repairs to the dam were completed in 2003. A section of the concrete apron failed in 2003 and was subsequently repaired with grouted riprap.
The Adams Canal was originally an earthen water diversion feature built in 1857. It was built in sections from 1857 to 1870 by David Quincy Adams on Rancho Canada de Capay. The Adams Canal is associated with early water diversion practices and agricultural development in Yolo County, and particularly in the Rancho Canada de Capay, and may be one of the first irrigation ditches in Yolo County. The Adams Canal was extended to the Capay Dam when the dam was completed in 1915. Modifications to the canal’s original feature include enlargement, placement of cement foundations for iron gates, and possible dredging, which likely occurred in the 1940s.
Site Survey
A records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on February 20, 2009 (File No. #08-0972). Records were accessed by reviewing the Esparto 7.5-minute quadrangle base maps. Additional research was conducted using the files and literature at ESA. The records search included a 0.50 mile radius around the study area in order to (1) determine whether known cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to the study area; (2) assess the likelihood of unrecorded cultural
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-45 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
resources based on historical references and the distribution of environmental settings of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources.
Included in the review were the 1945 USGS Capay Quadrangle, California Inventory of Historical Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976), California Historical Landmarks (1990), California Points of Historical Interest (1992), and the Historic Properties Directory Listing (2007). The Historic Properties Directory Listing includes listings of the National Register and the California Register of Historical Resources, and the most recent listing of the California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest (December 4, 2007). Research was also conducted at the Yolo County Archives and the Esparto Regional Branch of the Yolo County Library.
Results of the cultural resources records search indicate that a small portion of the project area had been previously surveyed. Within the Area of Potential Effect (APE), the Capay Dam was surveyed and evaluated in 1986 by Les-Thomas Associates. Three other cultural resources studies have been conducted adjacent to, but outside of, the project APE. The project area was included in a countywide inventory of historic oak groves in 1986. In 1990, M.J. Moratto completed a cultural resources assessment for the PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion project east of the project area, near the community of Capay. In 2005, St. John and Wooten completed a historical resources evaluation for improvements on State Route 16, located south of the project area.
During these surveys, one cultural resource within the APE (the 1915 Capay Dam) was recorded, and three cultural resources outside of but within 0.50 mile of the APE were recorded: a portion of the Adams Canal (P-57-000185), a grove of valley oak trees (P-57-000132H), and remnants of the Duncan Farmstead (P-57-000511).
ESA staff conducted intensive pedestrian field surveys of the project area on March 19 and April 29, 2009. Structures located in the project area were photographed and evaluated for their historic significance. No archaeological resources were located in the project area (ESA, 2009). A detailed Cultural Resources Inventory Report can be found in confidential Appendix F.
Native American Consultation
The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on February 4, 2009 to request a database search for sacred lands or other cultural properties of significance within or adjacent to the study area. A response was received on February 17, 2009. The sacred lands survey did not identify the presence of cultural resources in the study area. The NAHC provided a list of seven Native American contacts that might have further knowledge of the study area with respect to cultural resources. Each person or organization identified by the NAHC was contacted by letter on February 19, 2009. On April 20th, ESA received a letter from the Rumsey Rancheria of Wintun Indians, stating that they were unaware of any known cultural resources on the site. The Rumsey Rancheria also stated that they always recommend tribal monitors be present for any ground moving activities along creeks or rivers. On May 7, 2009, ESA made follow up phone calls and emails to the remaining contacts provided by the NAHC. To date, no additional comments have been received.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-46 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Regulatory Setting
Federal
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 requires federal agencies, or those they fund or permit, to consider the effects of their actions on the properties that may be eligible for listing or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
It is generally the federal agency’s responsibility to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before granting permits, funding, or other authorization of the undertaking. The Section 106 review process normally involves a four-step procedure described in detail in the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800):
• identify and evaluate historic properties in consultation with the SHPO and interested parties; • assess the effects of the undertaking on properties that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; • consult with the SHPO, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and • proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement.
Archaeological and architectural resources (buildings and structures) are protected through the NHPA of 1966 (16 USC 470f) and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies, to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and the SHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Section 101(d)(6)(A) of the NHPA allows properties of traditional religious and cultural importance to a tribe to be determined eligible for inclusion in the NRHP. Under the NHPA, a find is significant if it meets the NRHP listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4, as stated below:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:
A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-47 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1995). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 allows access to sites of religious importance to Native Americans. On federal land, the Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) would apply. The ARPA assigns penalties for vandalism and the unauthorized collection of archaeological resources on federal land and provides for federal agencies to issue permits for scientific excavation by qualified archaeologists. The NAGPRA assigns ownership of Native American graves found on federal land to their direct descendants or to a culturally affiliated tribe or organization and provides for repatriation of human remains and funerary items to identified Native American descendants.
State
California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.
To be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, a prehistoric or historical property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; • Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-48 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historical resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.
Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. • California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward. • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register. • Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include: • Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (Those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or a local jurisdiction register). • Individual historical resources. • Historical resources contributing to historic districts. • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone.
Local
Yolo County General Plan The Yolo County General Plan addresses goals and objectives for cultural resources preservation within its Open Space and Recreation Element and its Historic Preservation Element (Yolo County, 1983). The following includes goals and objectives relevant to the proposed project.
OG-6. Goal
Preserve cultural resources
OO-8. Objectives
Protection of identified areas of unique historical or cultural values within the County and preservation of those sites for educational, scientific, and aesthetic purposes.
HP 1. Goal.
Yolo County shall support the preservation and enhancement of historic and prehistoric resources within the County when fiscally able.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-49 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
HP 2. Objectives.
2.2 To preserve Yolo County's prehistoric resources by identifying and preserving Native American sites and other significant archaeological sites and by encouraging development of demonstration sites.
Thresholds of Significance CEQA defines a significant effect on the environment as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in physical conditions within the area affected by the Project. A cultural resources impact would be considered significant if it would result in the following, which are adapted from the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G:
• A substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource that is either listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historic Resources, or a local register of historic resources; • A substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource; • Disturbance or destruction of a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature; • Disturbance of any human remains, including those interred outside formal cemeteries.
Discussion a) Less than Significant. Despite recent alterations to Capay Dam, it retains sufficient physical integrity to convey its historic associations with the broader patterns of agriculture within Yolo County. As such, the Capay Dam remains potentially eligible for listing in the National and California Registers. The proposed project would remove the existing riprap at the foot of the apron and replace the existing apron, preventing the possible future destruction of the dam. The proposed project would also reduce the potential for destruction and loss of the resource (Capay Dam). As the implementation of the proposed project would result in protective measures for the resource, impacts would be less than significant. The segment of the Adams Canal located within the north end of the APE appear potentially eligible for listing in the National and California Registers. The proposed project, however, would have no effect on this resource because no construction will be preformed on the canals. b) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Based on the records search and site survey, no recorded archaeological resources were identified within the APE. The area is highly disturbed and eroded; there is a low potential for buried sites to be located in the APE, however, this possibility cannot be entirely discounted. Federal regulations (36 CFR Part 800.13(b) include provisions for the discovery of historic properties during the implementation of an undertaking and state that the agency official shall make reasonable efforts to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse effects to such properties. In the event of an accidental discovery of archaeological resources, implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce the potential impact to less than significant. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: If any prehistoric or historic-period subsurface cultural resources, such as chipped or ground stone, large quantities of shell, historic
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-50 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
debris, building foundations, or human bone, are discovered during ground- disturbing activities, all work within 100 feet of the resource will be halted and the project proponent will consult with a qualified archaeologist and tribal monitor to assess the significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant, the project proponent and the archaeologist will meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. The project proponent (as applicable) will make the final determination. All significant cultural materials recovered will be, as necessary and at the discretion of the consulting archaeologist, subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and documentation according to current professional standards.
In considering any suggested mitigation proposed by the consulting archaeologist in order to mitigate impacts to historical resources or unique archaeological resources, the project proponent will determine whether avoidance is necessary and feasible in light of factors such as the nature of the find, project design, costs, and other considerations. If avoidance is infeasible, other appropriate measures (e.g., data recovery) will be instituted. Work may proceed on other parts of the project area while mitigation for historical resources or unique archaeological resources is being carried out.
c) Less than Significant. Rock formations that are considered of paleontological sensitivity are those rock units that have yielded significant vertebrate or invertebrate fossil remains. These include, but are not limited to, sedimentary rock units that contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within its geographic extent. The project area is underlain by deep artificial fill and Holocene floodplain deposits. These types of sediments would not likely yield significant paleontological remains because they are surface deposits and are not fossil-bearing rock units; therefore, no impacts to these types of resources are expected. d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. No evidence exists to indicate that burials occurred within the project area. To ensure a less-than-significant impact in the event of an accidental discovery of human remains, Mitigation Measure CUL-3 shall be implemented. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Halt Work if Human Skeletal Remains are Identified During Construction. If human skeletal remains are uncovered during project construction, the project proponent will immediately halt work, contact the Yolo County coroner to evaluate the remains, and follow the procedures and protocols set forth in Section 15064.5 (e)(1) of the CEQA Guidelines. If the County coroner determines that the remains are Native American, the project proponent will contact the NAHC, in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, subdivision (c), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 (as amended by AB 2641). Per Public Resources Code 5097.98, the landowner shall ensure that the immediate vicinity, according to generally accepted cultural or archaeological standards or practices, where the Native American human remains are located, is not damaged or disturbed by further development activity until the landowner has discussed and conferred, as prescribed in this section (PRC 5097.98), with the most likely descendents regarding their recommendations, if applicable, taking into account the possibility of multiple human remains.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-51 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Geology, Soils, and Seismicity
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
6. GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY— Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Environmental Setting
Geology and Seismicity The Capay Dam is located in the Capay Valley, which lies within the Great Valley Geomorphic Province, which consists of the Sacramento Valley to the north and the San Joaquin Valley to the South. There are two known active faults in Yolo County – the Hunting Creek Fault and the Dunnigan Hills Fault (Yolo County, 2008). The Dunnigan Hills Fault, located approximately 6 miles northeast of Capay, has been active in the last 10,000 years, and is considered potentially active. The Hunting Creek Fault is located approximately 15 miles northwest of Capay and lies within a sparsely populated area of the County. This fault is subject to surface fault rupture and has the potential to generate an earthquake of approximately 6.9 on the Richter Scale (Yolo County, 2004).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-52 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, as defined by the State of California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS) (CGS, 2009), and no active or potentially active faults exist on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. However, the County is subject to potential seismic activity and therefore there is a risk of damage to structures and property. The area is designated by the Uniform Building Code as a Seismic Risk Zone 3, indicating that the potential for earthquake damage due to strong shaking and slope failure does exist.
Soil Resources Soil resources on the project site consist of the Soboba Series, Corning Series and Yolo Series, in addition to the loamy alluvial land and riverwash soils. The Soboba Series is characterized by deep, excessively drained souls with very slow runoff with slopes ranging from 0 to 30 percent (Soboba. 1975). The Corning Series is characterized by very deep, well or moderately well-drained soils with slopes of 0 to 30 percent (NRCS, 2001). The Yolo series is characterized by well-drained soils, slow to medium runoff and moderate permeability (NRCS, 2000). The potential erodibility of soil in the project area is considered slight, since the topography is generally flat, with low annual precipitation (10 to 40 inches annually) and low wind velocity (NRCS, 1972).
Soil subsidence is the vertical downward displacement of the ground surface, usually a result of groundwater and/or other natural resource withdrawal. Subsidence hazard overall is low in the project area because Cache Creek helps provide groundwater recharge (Yolo County, 2009).
Shrink/swell potential is the relative change in volume to be expected with changes in moisture content, that is, the extent to which the soil shrinks as it dries out or swells when it gets wet. Extent of shrinking and swelling is influenced by the amount and kind of clay in the soil. Shrinking and swelling of soils causes damage to building foundations and other structures. Shrink swell potential on the project site is considered to be low given the drainage characteristics and the amount of clay content in existing project soils.
Liquefaction When subjected to energy associated with the shaking intensity of a large earthquake, certain soils, when saturated, may lose their solid structure and act as liquids. Ground subject to liquefaction may sink or pull apart. Soils comprised of sand and sandy loams, in area with high groundwater tables or rainfall, are subject to liquefaction during intense seismic shaking events. Liquefaction potential is low in the project area given the depth to groundwater and the hard bedrock material underlying the project site.
Landslides Landslides are commonly triggered by unusually high rainfall and the resulting soil saturation, by earthquakes, or a combination of these conditions. The general term “landslide” may include a wide range of slope failures, including but not limited to rock falls, deep failure of slopes, earthflows, and shallow debris flows. Some landslides occur as a result of human activities, such as timber harvest, undermining a slope, and improper drainage water management. Outside of the project area, steep slopes underlain by Cretaceous rocks along Cache Creek are susceptible
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-53 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
to landsliding and numerous large and small landslides have been mapped in this area. Most of the areas subject to landsliding are in agricultural use or are otherwise undeveloped (Yolo County, 2005). The project site does not include slopes prone to landslides.
Regulatory Setting
California Division of Safety of Dams The California Water Code entrusts the regulatory Dam Safety Program to the Department of Water Resources Division of Safety of Dams (DSOD). Dams under DSOD jurisdiction include artificial barriers, together with appurtenant works, which are 25 feet or more in height or have an impounding capacity of 50 acre-feet or more. Any artificial barrier not in excess of 6 feet in height, regardless of storage capacity, or that has a storage capacity not in excess of 15 acre-feet, regardless of height, is not considered jurisdictional (DSOD, 2006). Capay Dam is not jurisdictional and is not regulated by DSOD.
Local Oversight The Yolo County Planning and Public Works Department is charged with the enforcement of the Uniform Building Code, the National Electric Code, the Uniform Plumbing Code, the Uniform Mechanical Code and other applicable codes as adopted by the Board of Supervisors and the laws of the State of California, to ensure the safety of life and property from seismic and geologic hazards.
Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if it allows a project to be built that will either introduce geologic or seismic hazards or will allow the construction of the project on such a site without protection against those hazards.
Discussion a,c) Less than Significant Impact. The proposed modifications to the existing Capay Dam apron and installation of the grade control structure would improve the stability of the dam by limiting the extent of existing streambed degradation and local scour at the end of the apron and by preventing the rotation of the dam. If left uncontrolled, streambed degradation and scour at the end of the apron has the potential to undermine the foundation of the dam structure and result in dam failure. Implementation of the proposed project would not increase risk of or potential losses associated with faulting, ground shaking, liquefaction or landslides. In addition, all of the proposed dam improvements, including the grade control structure, would be designed based on the results of detailed geotechnical engineering studies prepared by Stantec Consulting Inc., and would be required to comply with standard engineering practices for dam design and applicable law. Because the site is not located on an active or potentially active fault, the potential for surface fault rupture, strong seismic ground shaking, and seismic-related ground failure including liquefaction would be less-than-significant.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation The proposed project would involve excavation of approximately 1,611 cubic yards of material to facilitate the extension
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-54 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
of the dam apron and grade control structure. Approximately 2,900 cubic yards of material would be required for fill to accommodate the apron extension. The fill used will consist of both native and imported material. Construction activities would require removal of vegetation and would result in the exposure of bare soil that, if not properly stabilized during construction, would be subject to soil loss and erosion by wind and stormwater runoff. Impacts related to soil erosion would be less than significant with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO -5 described above.
d) No Impact. The soils on the project site exhibit a low shrink-swell potential. In addition, no structures for human occupancy would be constructed as part of the project and would not result in the creation of substantial risks to property or life.
e) No Impact. There are no on-site septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. No additional wastewater systems are necessary to support the proposed project. Therefore, no impacts would occur and no mitigation is required.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-55 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Environmental Setting Materials and waste may be considered hazardous if they are poisonous (toxicity), can be ignited by open flame (ignitability), corrode other materials (corrosivity), or react violently, explode or generate vapors when mixed with water (reactivity). The term “hazardous material” is defined in the State of California, Health and Safety Code, Chapter 6.95, Section 25501(o) as any material that, because of quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics, poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or to the environment. In some cases, past industrial or commercial uses can result in spills or leaks of hazardous materials and petroleum to the ground, resulting in soil and groundwater contamination. Federal and state laws require that soils having concentrations of contaminants such as lead, gasoline, or industrial solvents that are higher than certain acceptable levels must be handled and disposed as hazardous waste during
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-56 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
excavation, transportation, and disposal. The California Code of Regulations, Title 22, Section 66261.20-24 contains technical descriptions of characteristics that would cause a soil to be classified as a hazardous waste. The use of hazardous materials and disposal of hazardous wastes are subject to numerous laws and regulations at all levels of government.
Existing Environment Land use surrounding the Project area consists primarily of agricultural production activities. In areas supporting agricultural land uses, hazardous materials that have been historically and are presently used include agricultural fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, and fuels. Surface water and sediment flowing from up-gradient sources contain elevated concentrations of boron and mercury. Elevated boron is a result of naturally occurring mineral spring sources, whereas mercury presence results from historic upstream mercury mining near Clear Lake and natural minerals. During periods of lower stream flow in Cache Creek, boron-containing minerals precipitate along the banks of the creek (DWR, 2008).
A records search was performed for the project area to determine the history of hazardous materials spills or contamination at the project site. The records search included the CVRWQCB list of Spill and Leak Sites (SLIC) and The California Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List). No evidence was found of past or present hazardous materials contamination in the project vicinity.
Thresholds of Significance For the purpose of this document, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would:
• Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials; • Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment; • Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school; • Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment; • For a project located within two miles of an airport, the project would result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area; • Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan; or • Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-57 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Discussion a) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Operation of Capay Dam does not include the use, storage, or generation of hazardous materials requiring a hazardous materials use permit, and the proposed project would not require the use, storage, or generation of hazardous wastes.
During project construction, diesel fuel and minor amounts of hazardous materials such as paints, fuels, solvents, and other materials could be transported to and from and used at the project site. The transport and use of these materials would be temporary, occurring only during construction of the proposed project. The transport, use and disposal of these materials could pose a significant risk to the public and/or the environment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to construction, the District shall require the selected contractor(s) to prepare a hazardous materials management plan that will be implemented to ensure that all contractors transport, store, handle and dispose of construction-related hazardous materials in a manner consistent with the relevant regulations and guidelines. At minimum, these include those measures recommended and enforced by Caltrans, CVRWQCB, the County and any local Fire Department/Districts, and the Yolo County Department of Environmental Health. The District shall ensure, through the enforcement of contractual obligations, that all contractors immediately control the source of any leak and immediately contain any spill utilizing appropriate spill containment and countermeasures identified within the plan. If required by the County or local fire department, Yolo County Department of Environmental Health, or any other regulatory agency, containment media shall be collected and disposed of at an off-site facility approved to accept such media.
With the incorporation of the above mitigation, potential impacts to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials are less-than-significant. No additional mitigation is required.
b) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The operation of the proposed project could create an additional significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As with all construction activities, the potential exists for accidents to occur, which could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment. With the incorporation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, identified above, potential impacts are considered to be less-than-significant.
c) No Impact. There are no existing or proposed schools within one-quarter mile of the project area. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the use or emission of hazardous materials within one-quarter mile of a school.
d) No Impact. The proposed project is not located on a site which is known to be included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and therefore will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment related to such conditions. There would be no impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-58 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
e,f) No Impact. The nearest airport to the project site is the Watts-Woodland Airport, and is located approximately 11 miles west of the proposed project site. There are no other airports or airstrips located in the project vicinity. Construction of improvements at this site would not interfere with flight operations at a public airport or private airstrip. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to air safety hazards.
g) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities related to the proposed project would intermittently and temporarily generate short-term increases in vehicle trips by construction workers and construction vehicles on area roadways. Construction truck traffic would temporarily reduce roadway capacities due to the slower travel speeds and larger turning radii of haul trucks. However, construction activities would be conducted within established off-street work areas and not within the right-of-way of public roadways. No temporary road closures or detours would be required during project construction. Construction of the proposed project would not physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and this impact would be less than significant.
Please refer to the Transportation and Circulation section for a discussion of traffic- related impacts associated with the proposed project.
h) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project site is located in an area classified by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) as a wildland area that may contain moderate forest fire risks and hazards (CDF, 2007). The majority of the construction area would be within Cache Creek and the bank area near the dam and the grade control structure. Area adjacent to the creek and locations of the staging areas are primarily gravel and barren areas. There is riparian vegetation and some trees along the banks. The use of construction equipment and temporary onsite storage of diesel fuel could pose a wildland fire risk in this area. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: The construction contractor(s) for the proposed project would be required to comply with the following legal requirements of the California Public Resource Code (PRC) to minimize the risk of wildland fires during construction activities:
• Earthmoving and portable equipment with internal combustion engines would be equipped with a spark arrestor to reduce the potential for igniting a wildland fire (PRC Section 4442).
• Appropriate fire suppression equipment would be maintained during the highest fire danger period—from April 1 to December 1 (PRC Section 4428).
• On days when a burning permit is required, flammable materials would be removed to a distance of 10 feet from any equipment that could produce a spark, fire, or flame, and the construction contractor would maintain the appropriate fire suppression equipment (PRC Section 4427).
• On days when a burning permit is required, portable tools powered by gasoline-fueled internal combustion engines would not be used within 25 feet of any flammable materials (PRC Section 4431).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-59 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Hydrology and Water Quality
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY— Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or by other means, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of a site or area through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or, by other means, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other authoritative flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Environmental Setting
Cache Creek Cache Creek approaches Capay Dam from the west in a sweeping arc with its outer bank to the right of the dam (Figure 1-2). The river bed is deeper on the outer (right) bank and the inner bank is a large gravel bar. It is normal in rivers to have the outer bank deeper and a point bar form on the
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-60 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
inner bank. That form is caused by secondary currents in the river that occur as the flow makes the bend in the river. The consequence is that much heavier laden sediment flow passes over the left half of the dam. Sediment has accumulated against the upstream side of the dam except at the two ends where sluice operation has flushed the sediment past the dam. Sediment deposition has probably reached an equilibrium (sediment inflow to the dam equals sediment outflow past the dam) considering that the dam has been in continuous operation since 1914. What little sediment might accumulated during irrigation season is regularly moved past the dam during storm events. The dam was never designed as a water storage feature and channel grade above the dam was intended to be at equilibrium with the dam crest. When the dam was built the downstream bed elevation was much higher, allowing the narrow apron to serve as the energy dissipator. With evolution of the downstream channel the apron is no longer sufficient but bed load still moves over the dam. Other than erosion of the concrete, which is severe in places, the sediment is not an issue to the dam’s operation or function. In fact, continued sediment passage over the dam is vital to avoiding clear water scour of the river bed downstream of the dam (Stantec, 2007).
Cache Creek downstream of the dam (Figure 1-3) exhibits three predominant features; 1) exposed bedrock across about the two-thirds of the right section of the dam, 2) a trough that is eroded into the bedrock along the toe of the apron, and 3) the incised channel of the river on the left side of the river. The exposed bedrock, which the dam is founded upon, is highly erodible (Stantec, 2007). High energy flows sweep off the apron, which has resulted in significant erosion of bedrock downstream of the dam. Modeling of Cache Creek flows over the existing dam have identified that the existing critical design discharge is approximately 16,000 cfs, at which point maximum scouring will occur to the bed of Cache Creek. Discharges greater than 16,000 cfs will submerge the dam resulting in flow over the dam without a hydraulic jump. Discharges of less than 16,000 cfs will have hydraulic jump lengths that result in flow hitting the existing concrete apron. Lateral currents parallel to the toe of the dam have scoured into the bedrock and created a trough along the toe of the apron, and have exposed and possibly undermined the cutoff wall. The river bed has also degraded downstream of the dam. There also has been in-stream sand and gravel extraction in Cache Creek downstream of the dam which has contributed to streambed degradation (Stantec, 2007).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) has operated stream gaging stations on Cache Creek and the following three gages provide stream flow data that is useful in describing the hydrologic record at Capay Dam (Table 2-7).
TABLE 2-7 USGS GAGING STATIONS ALONG CACHE CREEK IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Drainage Area in Period of Site Name Square Miles Record
Cache Creek Above Rumsey 955 1960 - 1986 Cache Creek near Capay 1,044 1942 - 1976 Cache Creek at Yolo 1,139 1903 – 2007
SOURCE: Stantec, 2007
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-61 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
The closest gage near the project site is near Capay, a short distance upstream from Capay Dam. The record for this station is 34 years. The gage above Rumsey has a 20-year record. Ten of those years (1977 through 1986) were a period when the USGS did not operate a gage near Capay and therefore the record from the gage above Rumsey provides some additional information on streamflow at Capay Dam. The longest record of the three stations (103 years) is at Yolo but that gage is considerably downstream and flows are reduced at that point due to streamflow depletions and discharge attenuation from Capay Dam. Data and statistics on streamflow are presented using those stream gaging stations. Average annual runoff at Cache Creek is as shown in Table 2-8.
TABLE 2-8 AVERAGE ANNUAL RUNOFF TO CACHE CREEK AT USGS GAGING STATIONS IN THE PROJECT VICINITY
Site Name Average Annual Runoff Average Annual Runoff in in Acre-Feet Acre-Feet/Sq Mile
Cache Creek Above Rumsey 541,200 567 Cache Creek near Capay 556,900 533 Cache Creek at Yolo 378,900 333 Source: Stantec, 2007
Fifty percent of the time the discharge of Cache Creek above Rumsey exceeds 351 cfs, and 10 percent of the time it exceeds 1,370 cfs. Downstream near Capay the flows are generally somewhat less. The 50 percent exceedence value is 310 cfs and for 10 percent the value is 1,250 cfs. Those flow duration statistics are useful in understanding the magnitudes of flows that are typically experienced at Capay Dam. The 0.1 percent exceedence probability for mean daily flow is about 15,000 cfs. Rarely does flow at the dam exceed 10,000 cfs.
Flood Peak Discharges Peak discharges at Capay Dam have exceeded 50,000 cfs and the peak annual discharge exceeds 10,000 cfs about 7 out of 10 years. Capay Dam has experienced large floods and the occurrence of larger floods can be expected (Stantec, 2007). At a minimum, Capay Dam should be able to pass the 100-year flood of 58,000 cfs. According to a technical study for the Yolo County Community Development Agency, floods in the Cache Creek watershed are primarily caused by high intensity rainfall in winter and spring (Yolo County Development Agency, 1995). Because Cache Creek is relatively steep, peak discharges usually pass the dam in less than 24 hours. However, flood recession discharges of 10,000 to 15,000 cfs can last for several days following a large flood event.
Channel Characteristics The peak discharge of Cache Creek varies widely from year to year. The channel adjusts its shape and slope due to the energy of the high flow events and the channel has incised into the surficial geologic units. The sediment in the streambed is mainly gravel with some cobble and sand. During high discharges below Capay Dam, the river flushes the bed sediments downstream and the high
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-62 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
energy flow scours the channel especially into the more erodible bedrock units. In some places, including below Capay Dam, the bedrock is exposed. During extended periods of low flow, the streambed can recover somewhat with sediment deposition and revegetation. This pattern of erosion and deposition is typical of steep, ephemeral systems with periodic large floods. The slope of Cache Creek near Capay Dam is about 10 feet per mile, which is relatively steep for a river. The streambed sediment is generally coarse with average particle size of 1 to 2 inches. Cobbles up to about 100 mm (4 inches) and larger can be found (Stantec, 2007).
Groundwater Yolo County is underlain with a substantial amount of fresh groundwater. It is estimated that approximately 3,200,000 acre-feet of water is in storage between 20 and 420 feet below the ground surface. Roughly 50 percent of the groundwater in the County underlies areas within the District‘s service area (YCFCWCD, 2000). Groundwater recharge within the district occurs from percolation of rainfall, applied irrigation water, water flowing in District delivery canals, and water flowing in Cache Creek. Relative annual contributions of each recharge source is presented in Table 2-9.
TABLE 2-9 SOURCES AND RELATIVE AMOUNTS OF ANNUAL GROUNDWATER RECHARGE
Source Amount
Acre-Feet Percent
Cache Creek 0.10 8 Rainfall 0.50 40 Applied Irrigation Water 0.50 40 Canal Seepage 0.15 12 Total Average Recharge 1.25 100
SOURCE: YCFCWCD, 2000
Water Quality The Central Valley RWQCB currently designates Cache Creek as an Impaired Water Body due to mercury. The mercury present in the Cache Creek watershed results from historic mercury-mining in the upper watershed near Clear Lake and from naturally occurring deposits. Elevated mercury concentrations have been observed in invertebrates and fish species sampled from Cache Creek (USACE, 2003). The Central Valley RWQCB has listed Cache Creek on the EPA list of priority water bodies that do not meet beneficial uses. The Central Valley RWQCB has developed Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) limits for mercury (Central Valley RWQCB, 2005).
Thresholds of Significance For the purpose of this document, an impact is considered significant if the Proposed Project would result in any of the following:
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-63 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
• Violate any water quality standard or waste discharge requirement • Otherwise substantially degree water quality; or • Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
Discussion a) Less than Significant with Mitigation. Construction of the dam apron improvements and the downstream grade control structure could result in increased sediment delivery to Cache Creek during construction. Approximately 1,611 cubic yards of material would be excavated and either stockpiled nearby or transported off-site. Approximately 2,900 cubic yards of fill would be placed under the new apron. Some portion of the native excavated material may be used for fill for construction of both the apron extension and the grade control structure. Excavated areas and soil stockpiles could be subject to rainfall and wind erosion and could cause temporary discharges of sediment and contaminants to Cache Creek. Dewatering activities could also result in discharges of sediment downstream if not managed properly. If it were to occur, soil erosion and sedimentation of Cache Creek could cause a significant impact on water quality. Mitigation Measure BIO- 5 requires the development of a SWPPP to prevent the potential sedimentation of Cache Creek and pollution of surface water and groundwater within the project vicinity. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would provide effective erosion and sediment control to protect Cache Creek and reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
b) Less than Significant Impact. As described above in Table 2-9, groundwater infiltration along Cache Creek represents approximately 8 percent of the entire groundwater recharge for Yolo County, with the bulk of the recharge coming from rainfall and applied irrigation water (80 percent combined). Neither construction nor operation of the proposed project would require the use of groundwater supplies. The apron extension and grade control structure represents a relatively small change in the amount of impervious surface area on the project site when compared with groundwater recharge conditions in the County. Groundwater recharge and supplies would not be notably affected. This impact would be less than significant.
c-d) Less than Significant with Mitigation. The presence of Capay Dam has significantly altered the natural drainage and hydrogeologic conditions in Cache Creek and resulted in erosion to the riverbed of Cache Creek in the vicinity of the dam. The dam improvements and grade control structure would serve to dissipate the high energy flows that sweep off the apron and would reduce the amount of future erosion to the bedrock on the downstream side of the dam. The improvements would not alter the existing drainage or flood control capabilities of the dam and as a result would not increase the amount of run-off downstream.
Construction of the proposed dam improvements including the apron extension and grade control structure would take place within Cache Creek at the base of the existing dam structure. All construction will be completed between the end of the 2009 irrigation season and in advance of the 2009 wet season in September through October 2009). It is expected, however, that minimal flow of a few cubic feet per second from stream accretions would be present. The anticipated construction schedule would last approximately 4 to 6 weeks. It is not expected that extension of the dam apron and
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-64 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
installation of the grade control structure would have any long-term effects on flow or drainage patterns that would result in increased erosion or sedimentation of Cache Creek. Therefore, this would be a less-than-significant impact.
e) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. There are no municipal stormwater drainage systems at the project site or in the project area. Construction of the proposed dam improvements and downstream grade control structure would not increase the capacity of the dam, the quantity of flow downstream or deliveries to the Winters and West Adams Canal. As discussed above under the Biological Resources discussion, there is the potential for minor increased erosion and sedimentation during construction of the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would provide effective erosion and sediment control to protect Cache Creek and reduce this impact to a less-than- significant level.
f) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. As discussed above under the Biological Resources discussion, there is the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation during construction of the proposed project. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-5 would provide effective erosion and sediment control to protect Cache Creek and reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level.
g) No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any housing; therefore, there would be no flood hazard risk to housing. There would be no impact.
h-i) Less than Significant. The proposed project would improve the stability of the dam and ultimately improve flood protection for downstream residents and agricultural users thereby reducing the risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. The proposed dam improvements would not increase the diversion capacity of the dam and would not impede or redirect flood flows beyond existing conditions. This is considered a less than significant impact.
j) No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of structures that would potentially expose people to a significant risk of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. This is considered a less than significant impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-65 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Land Use and Land Use Planning
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
9. LAND USE AND LAND USE PLANNING— Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan?
Environmental Setting Yolo County General Plan
The current Yolo County General Plan was adopted in 1983. The County is currently updating its general plan with the DEIR and was released for public review on April 28, 2009. Final action on the General Plan update is scheduled to occur in September 2009. With respect to the project site, the draft General Plan retains the requirements that are in the current General Plan. For the purpose of this analysis the existing 1983 General Plan will be used. Land Use designations within the vicinity of the project site include Agricultural General - Foothills and Open Space.
Capay Valley Area General Plan
Yolo County prepared a planning document, the Capay Valley Area Plan which was adopted as part of the Yolo County General Plan in 1983. The Capay Valley Area Plan emphasizes measures to preserve agricultural land and limit growth. Specifically, the intent of the plan is to “concentrate new development in the communities of Capay and Guinda and protect and preserve those areas outside these recognized areas.”
Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this analysis, an impact would be considered significant if the project would physically divide an established community; conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project; or conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan (HCP) or natural community conservation plan (NCCP).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-66 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project consists of improvements to the existing Capay Dam and installation of a downstream grade control structure. These improvements would not be located within an established neighborhood or community nor would they constitute a barrier to travel within the project area. As a result, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and there would be no impact.
b) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in any land use changes, growth patterns, or new activities. Pre-construction maintenance activities and water deliveries would resume once construction of the proposed project is complete. In addition, the District is exempt under Government Code section 53091 from local zoning ordinances for projects related to construction of facilities for the production, generation, storage, treatment, or transmission of water. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to conflicts with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project.
c) No Impact. The project area is within the boundaries of the proposed Yolo County HCP/NCCP. The HCP/NCCP is currently under development and as such has not yet been adopted. Therefore, there is no HCP or NCCP currently in-place in the project area and there would be no impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-67 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Mineral Resources
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
10. MINERAL RESOURCES—Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
Environmental Setting The primary mineral resource presently being extracted in Yolo County is aggregate consisting of large concentrations of high-grade gravel, sand and clay. These deposits are roughly 100-125 feet thick (Yolo County 1996, 2002). Most of the aggregate occurs along Cache Creek, beginning at the upstream end of Capay Valley at County Road 85, approximately 2 miles east of the project site, and extending downstream near Interstate 5. Mineral resource extraction does not occur on the project site.
Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this analysis, an impact is considered significant if the project would result in the loss of availability of a locally or regionally important mineral resource.
Discussion a-b) Less than Significant Impact. The nearest mining activities are located approximately 2 miles downstream of the project site. Construction of the proposed dam improvements and the grade control structure would not impede or interfere with the continuation of existing mineral extraction operations. As a result, the proposed project would not significantly affect locally important mineral resources. This would be a less-than- significant impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-68 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Noise
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
11. NOISE—Would the project: a) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Result in exposure of persons to, or generation of, excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) Result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) Result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area, or, where such a plan has not been adopted, in an area within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project located in the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Environmental Setting Sound is mechanical energy transmitted by pressure waves through a medium such as air, while noise is defined as unwanted sound. Sound pressure level is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing, and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the threshold of pain. The typical human ear is not equally sensitive to all frequencies of the audible sound spectrum. As a consequence, when assessing potential noise impacts, sound is measured using an electronic filter that de-emphasizes the frequencies below 1,000 Hertz1 (Hz) and above 5,000 Hz in a manner corresponding to the human ear’s decreased sensitivity to low and extremely high frequencies instead of the frequency mid-range. This method of frequency weighting is referred to as A-weighting and is expressed in units of A-weighted decibels (dBA).2
Effects of Noise on People The effects of noise on people can be placed into three categories: • subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction; • interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and • physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.
1 Hertz is a unit of frequency equivalent to one cycle per second 2 All noise levels reported herein reflect A-weighted decibels unless otherwise stated.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-69 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants generally experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation exists in the individual thresholds of annoyance, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so called “ambient noise” level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur: • In carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1 dBA cannot be perceived; • outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference when the change in noise is perceived but does not cause a human response; • A change in level of at least 5 dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and • A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness, and can cause adverse response.
The human ear perceives sound in a non-linear fashion; hence the decibel scale was developed. Because the decibel scale is non-linear, two noise sources do not combine in a simple additive fashion, rather logarithmically. For example, if two identical noise sources produce noise levels of 50 dBA, the combined sound level would be 53 dBA, not 100 dBA.
Noise Attenuation Stationary “point” sources of noise, including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles, attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 dBA to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, depending upon environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions and noise barriers, either vegetative or manufactured, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles (a “line” source), would typically attenuate at a lower rate, approximately 3 to 4.5 dBA per doubling distance from the source (also dependent upon environmental conditions) (Caltrans, 1998). Noise from large construction sites would have characteristics of both “point” and “line” sources, so attenuation would generally range between 4.5 and 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance.
Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion through a solid medium in which the motion’s amplitude can be described in terms of displacement, velocity, or acceleration. There are several different methods that are used to quantify vibration. The peak particle velocity (PPV) is defined as the maximum instantaneous peak of the vibration signal. The PPV is most frequently used to describe vibration impacts to buildings. The root mean square (RMS) amplitude is most frequently used to describe the affect of vibration on the human body. The RMS amplitude is defined as the average
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-70 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
of the squared amplitude of the signal. Decibel notation (Vdb) is commonly used to measure RMS. The decibel notation acts to compress the range of numbers required to describe vibration (FTA, 1995). Typically, ground-borne vibration generated by man-made activities attenuates rapidly with distance from the source of the vibration.
Existing Ambient Noise Environment The primary contributors to the proposed project area’s noise environment include vehicle traffic on State Route 16 and equipment noise associated with routine agricultural activities. The area is characterized as rural and agricultural in nature and significant outdoor noise sources are limited. Generally, intermittent short-term noises do not significantly contribute to longer-term noise averages.
Sensitive Receptors Human response to noise varies considerably from one individual to another. Effects of noise at various levels can include interference with sleep, concentration, and communication; physiological and psychological stress; and hearing loss. Given these effects, some land uses are considered more sensitive to ambient noise levels than others. In general, residences, schools, hotels, hospitals, and nursing homes are considered to be the most sensitive to noise. Commercial and industrial uses are considered the least noise-sensitive. Sensitive receptor land uses in the project vicinity include a single residence approximately 1,500 feet from the proposed construction area.
Thresholds of Significance For purposes of this analysis, a project will have a significant effect on the noise environment if it would result in:
• Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies;
• Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels;
• A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project;
• A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the Project;
• For a project located within two miles of an airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels;
Discussion Temporary noise impacts associated with construction are the primary concern in evaluating noise impacts for the proposed project. During normal operation, noise from maintenance vehicles that occasionally access the project area would not differ from existing conditions and is not considered significant.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-71 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Temporary impacts during construction are considered significant if they would substantially interfere with affected land uses. Substantial interference could result from a combination of factors including: the generation of noise levels substantially greater than existing ambient noise levels; construction efforts lasting over long periods of time; or construction activities that would affect noise-sensitive uses during the nighttime. For assessment of temporary construction noise impacts, “substantially greater” means more than 3 dBA (hourly Leq, DNL, or CNEL)3 resulting in noise levels above 60 dB, which are considered “normally acceptable” for unshielded residential development. Noise levels from 60 to 70 dB fall within the “conditionally unacceptable” range, and those in the 70 to 75 dB range are considered “normally unacceptable.”
a ,d) Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation. Post-construction, operational activities would generally be the same as pre-construction. No new pumps or other mechanical equipment are included in the proposed project. Noise generated from District staff associated with occasional vehicle travel to conduct routine maintenance activities including repairing, maintaining and or replacing facilities similar to existing conditions.
Construction activity would be located outside of 1,000 feet of a single sensitive receptor, the existing single-family residential home. Noise from construction activity generally attenuates (decreases) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Conservatively assuming an attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, construction noise would be 89 dBA at 50 feet, 83 dBA at 100 feet, 77 dBA at 200 feet, and so on. As shown in Table 2-10 and Table 2-11, construction noise levels at the existing sensitive receptor would intermittently reach levels in excess of 60 dBA. These predicted noise levels fall within the “conditionally unacceptable” range for temporary construction impacts and are considered significant. The implementation of Mitigation Measure NOISE -1 and NOISE -2 would reduce this impact to less than significant.
TABLE 2-10 TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS
a Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)
Ground Clearing 84 Excavation 89 Foundations 78 Erection 85 Finishing 89
a Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase.
SOURCE: Bolt, Baranek, and Newman, Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances, 1971.
3 Leq is the equivalent or energy-averaged sound level. Ldn is the Day/Night Average Sound Level. It is similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting. CNEL is the Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as the 24-hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 - 10 p.m.) weighted by a factor of three and nighttime hours weighted by a factor of 10 prior to averaging
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-72 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
TABLE 2-11 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS GENERATED BY CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Noise Level Construction Equipment (dBA, Leq at 50 feet)
Dump Truck 88 Portable Air Compressor 81 Concrete Mixer (Truck) 85 Scraper 88 Jack Hammer 88 Dozer 87 Paver 89 Generator 78 Front Loader 79 Scraper 88 Grader 85 Backhoe 85
SOURCE: Cunniff (1977); U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1971)
Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Construction contractors shall implement the following measures to reduce daytime noise impacts due to construction:
• Equipment and trucks used for project construction shall utilize the best available noise control techniques (e.g., improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures and acoustically-attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasible);
• Construction equipment noise shall be minimized during project construction by muffling and shielding intakes and exhaust on construction equipment (per the manufacturer’s specifications) and by shrouding or shielding impact tools; and
• Construction contractors shall locate fixed construction equipment (such as compressors and generators) and construction staging areas as far as feasible from nearby sensitive receptors.
b) Less-than-Significant. As shown in Table 2-12, use of heavy equipment (e.g., a large bulldozer) generates vibration levels of 0.031 PPV or 81 RMS at a distance of 50 feet. Sensitive receptors would be located approximately 1,000 feet from the construction area. The majority of construction activity would be at a distance 1,000 feet or greater from the nearest sensitive receptor and would be less than significant. Vibration levels at these receptors would not exceed the potential building damage threshold of 0.5 PPV. Ground-borne vibration attenuates quickly with distance and the RMS level from heavy equipment would be approximately 79 RMS at 60 feet.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-73 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
TABLE 2-12 VIBRATION VELOCITIES FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
PPV at 50 ft RMS at 50 ft Equipment (inches/second)a (Vdb)b
Large bulldozer 0.031 81 Caisson drilling 0.031 81 Loaded trucks 0.027 80
a Fragile buildings can be exposed to ground-borne vibration levels of 0.5 PPV without experiencing structural damage. b The human annoyance response level is 80 RMS.
SOURCE: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, April 1995.
c) No Impact. Post-construction, operational activities would generally be the same as pre- construction. No new pumps or other mechanical equipment are included in the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in additional noise sources above existing conditions, therefore there would be no impact
e-f) No Impact. The proposed project does not involve the development of noise-sensitive land uses within the vicinity of an airstrip or propose any changes to existing land uses. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not expose people to excessive aircraft noise. There would be no impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-74 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Population and Housing
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
12. POPULATION AND HOUSING— Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing units, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Environmental Setting
Population Social statistics for the Esparto-Capay Valley region are compiled in the U.S. Census under the listing as Census Tract 115, Yolo County, California. In the 1990 census the total population of this tract was reported to be 3,673. In the 2000 census the figure had increased to 4,552, a gain of about 23 percent (U.S. Census Bureau, 2000).
Housing The unincorporated town of Esparto is the largest community in the project vicinity. The town has recently been increasing in population as new housing subdivisions have been built. According to SACOG estimates, the Esparto region is expected to continue to grow at an annual rate of about 1.6 percent from 2000 to 2020, adding some 1,440 residents for a total increase of about 37 percent. The median household income for the Esparto region in 1999 was calculated at $41,901 (SACOG, 2000).
Thresholds of Significance According to Section 15131 of the CEQA Guidelines, the economic or social effects of a project shall not be treated as a significant effect on the environment. However, a chain of cause and effect may be traced from the proposed decision on a project through anticipated economic or social changes resulting from the project to physical changes caused in turn by the economic and/or social changes.
For the purposes of this analysis, an indirect impact is considered significant if the project would induce substantial growth that is inconsistent with the approved land use plan for the area or displace existing housing.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-75 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Discussion a) No Impact. Construction of the proposed dam improvements and grade control structure would not increase delivery or conveyance capacity for water supplies, and would therefore not have the potential to foster population growth. No new employees would be needed as a result of the proposed project since post-construction operation and maintenance activities would be the same as pre-construction conditions. The construction period would last for approximately 4 – 6 weeks and would not require long-term relocation of construction workers. Therefore, the proposed project would have no effect on current and/or planned population growth patterns within Yolo County and would not affect the population goals as outlined in the General Plan. There would be no impact.
b-c) No Impact. Construction of the proposed dam improvements and grade control structure would not result in the displacement of existing housing or displacement of people. There would be no impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-76 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Public Services
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
13. PUBLIC SERVICES— Would the project: a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or the need for, new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any public services such as fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other services? Environmental Setting
Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services Fire protection for Capay Valley is provided by two County fire districts and CDF. The Capay Valley Fire District is located within 12 miles of Capay and consists of one fire station, approximately 17 volunteer firefighters and one staff fire chief. The Rumsey Rancheria Fire Department (RRFD) has six firefighters, three engineers, one captain and three battalion chiefs. Final staffing will have 9 firefighters, 6 engineers, 6 captains and 3 battalion chiefs. RRFD is located within 6 miles of the project site. CDF maintains a seasonal forest station in the Capay Valley located at Brooks within 10 miles of the project site. The resources used by the station in terms of manpower and equipment are unlimited and dependent upon the size and severity of a fire (Yolo County, 2008).
Police Protection The Yolo County Sheriff’s Department (Department) provides law enforcement services for Yolo County. The Department patrols the County, administers the County Jail and work program, provides animal control services, and provides coroner services. The Department has 95 full-time sworn employees including Sheriff, Undersheriff, Captain, Lieutenant, Sergeant, Deputy, Chief Deputy Coroner and Deputy Coroner, as well as 181 full-time non-sworn employees and 27 non-sworn part-time employees (Yolo County Sheriff, 2009).
Schools The Esparto Unified School District, located 4 miles east in the City of Esparto, is the nearest school district to the project area. The school district includes four public schools, all located in Esparto: Esparto Elementary School (17120 Omega Street), Esparto Middle School (26675 Plainfield Street), Esparto High School (17121 Yolo Avenue), and Madison High School (17923 Stephens Street).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-77 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Thresholds of Significance For the purposes of this environmental document, an impact would be considered significant if the proposed project results in the need for new or altered services related to fire protection, police protection, school facilities, roadway maintenance, or other governmental services.
Discussion a) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in population or visitors to Capay Dam or Cache Creek. Therefore, there would be no increased demand on public services or need for governmental facilities, including fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or other services. There would be no impacts related to the provision of or need for these facilities.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-78 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Recreation
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
14. RECREATION—Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facilities would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Environmental Setting There are currently no existing recreation facilities located at the project site. The existing dam is located on District-owned property and public access is not permitted in this area. The closest recreational area to the project site is the Esparto Community Park, which is located approximately 5.5 miles east of the project area along State Route 16 in Esparto. The park includes picnic tables, barbecues, turf area, and a playground (Yolo County, 2009).
Thresholds of Significance The proposed project would result in significant impacts if it would have an adverse physical impact on or increase the use of the existing recreational facilities in the project area such that new facilities would need to be constructed.
Discussion a-b) No Impact. The project site is closed to the public and provides no recreational potential. The project would result in the extension of the existing dam apron and construction of a downstream grade control structure and would not result in the expansion, degradation of increased use of any existing nearby recreational facilities. There would be no impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-79 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Transportation and Traffic
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
15. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC— Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location, that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., conflict with policies promoting bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)?
Environmental Setting
Roadways State Route 16 is the primary public roadway in the project vicinity. State Route 16 is a state highway that connects to State Route 20 in Colusa County and runs north-south through Yolo County along Cache Creek and continues through Woodland where it connects with Interstate 5. A major intersection that provides access to the project site is located at Road 85B. Average annual daily traffic volume on State Route 16 in the vicinity of the project area is approximately 10,200 vehicles (Caltrans, 2004).
Transit Service Public transit service on roads in the project study area is provided by Yolo County Transportation District (YCTD), which includes bus service along State Route 16, including a stop in Capay, as well as to the incorporated cities within Yolo County (Yolo County, 2009). The bus route along State Route 16 connects the Capay Valley area to Woodland. There are no transit stops that serve the project site.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-80 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
Thresholds of Significance This section addresses potential project impacts to transportation resources. The impact criteria are based on guidance provided by CEQA regarding what constitutes a significant environmental effect (CEQA Guidelines, §15065, §15126, and Appendix G).
Direct impacts of construction of the project components would not be long-term, on-going effects. Occasional post-construction maintenance activities would briefly affect only local segments and the frequency and duration of such trips would be consistent with pre-project activities. Effects on traffic flow generated by construction vehicles would be limited to the period of time needed to complete construction of the proposed project. Therefore, this analysis focuses on evaluating potential impacts related to project construction traffic.
For this Initial Study, the project would be considered to have a significant impact if it would cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, generate parking demand that would exceed current availability, result in traffic safety/operational problems, or if it would interfere with existing or planned public transit.
Discussion a-b) Less-than-Significant. Construction activities associated with the proposed improvements would be conducted within established off-street work areas and would not involve construction within the right-of-way of any public roadways. Staging areas would be within the off-street work areas (see Figure 1-2). No temporary road closures or detours would be required during project construction.
Construction traffic associated with vehicle trips by construction workers and construction vehicles would result in short-term traffic volume increases on roadways near the project site and on access routes for 4 to 6 weeks. Construction workers would generally travel to and from the project site before and after their work shift. (Construction activities are scheduled to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.).
The exact number of construction-related vehicles traveling to and from the work area would vary on a daily basis depending on the planned activity and materials needs. The maximum number of construction vehicles (delivery and haul trucks and construction worker vehicles) traveling to and from the site would be approximately 20 round trips per day during the construction period. The largest component of construction-generated truck trips would be related to the import and export of fill material.
The addition of construction vehicle traffic to the existing roadway volumes could result in increased vehicle congestion and delay. Construction truck traffic would temporarily affect roadway conditions due to the slower travel speeds and larger turning radii of trucks. Construction traffic impacts would be most noticeable in the immediate vicinity of the project site.
Construction-generated traffic would be temporary and would not result in any long-term degradation in level of service (LOS) on any local roadways. The proposed project would not contribute any new permanent or long-term vehicle trips to any public roadways. This impact would be less than significant.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-81 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
c) No Impact. The proposed project would not involve aircraft, nor would the project structures intrude into aircraft flight paths or air traffic spaces. The proposed project would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
d) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The project would not permanently change the existing or planned transportation network in the vicinity of the project site and would not include the implementation of any new design features that could increase the potential for traffic safety hazards
Because construction trucks carrying construction equipment and materials, excavated soil and fill material would share the area roadways with other vehicles, the potential exists for an increase in traffic safety hazards during construction of the proposed project. Implementation of the traffic control plan described in Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1 would reduce traffic-related safety hazards to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure TRAFFIC-1: The District will require the contractor(s) to prepare a Traffic Control Plan in accordance with professional engineering standards prior to construction. The Traffic Control Plan could include the following requirements: • Emergency services access to local land uses shall be maintained at all times for the duration of construction activities. Local emergency service providers shall be informed of proposed construction activities and identified haul routes. • Access for local land uses including residential driveways, commercial properties, and agricultural lands during construction activities shall be maintained. • Roadside safety protocols shall be complied with, so as to reduce the risk of accident. • A telephone resource shall be arranged to address public questions and complaints during project construction. e) Less than Significant Impact. Construction activities associated with project improvements would be conducted within the established off-street work areas and not within public roadways outside of the work areas. No temporary road closures or detours would be required during project construction. While there would be short-term, intermittent increases in vehicle trips in the project area, construction traffic would not prevent emergency vehicles from accessing the project site or adjacent land uses, although it could potentially create a minor slowdown in the response time of an emergency vehicle. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
f) No Impact. Parking of construction workers vehicles and construction trucks, and storage of equipment and materials would occur in designated off-street areas near the existing dam. No existing off-street public parking facilities or on-street parking areas would be affected. When the project is completed, operations and maintenance activities are expected to be similar to existing conditions and would not result in an increased demand for parking. Therefore, there would be no impact parking capacity in the project area.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-82 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
g) No Impact. Construction activities would not disrupt transit service in the project area and would have no impact on adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-83 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Utilities and Service Systems
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS—Would the project: a) Conflict with wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities, or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Require new or expanded water supply resources or entitlements? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that would serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Environmental Setting The project site is located in Yolo County and spans Cache Creek, just west of the town of Esparto. There are no major utility corridors on the project site. The site is not served by a municipal water or wastewater supply.
Thresholds of Significance For purposes of this environmental document, an impact is considered significant if the proposed project would result in a significant increase in water demand, increase in wastewater treatment, the generation of solid waste, or the generation of storm water that would exceed the capacity of the storm water system.
Discussion a-b, e) No Impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of any new water or wastewater treatment facilities, nor would any component of the proposed project result in the need for new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, there would be no impacts related to the construction or expansion of any such facilities.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-84 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 2. Environmental Checklist Form
c) No Impact. The proposed project would not require construction of a storm drainage system or expansion of an existing stormwater drainage facility. Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) No Impact. The proposed project would not result in an increase in employees or visitors at the project site, the installation of landscaping, or other factors that would increase water demand. Therefore, there would be no impact.
f - g) No Impact. Some construction debris could be generated by construction activities (i.e., exported excavated material, removed apron sections, riprap) but would not exceed landfill capacities. The proposed dam improvements and grade control structure would have no effect on existing project operations and would not result in an increase in waste production during routine operation and maintenance activities. Therefore, impacts related to landfill capacity or compliance with solid waste disposal statutes and regulations would be less than significant.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-85 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact No Impact
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE— Would the project: a) Have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Have impacts that would be individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) c) Have environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Discussion a) Less-than-Significant with Mitigation. As discussed in the Air Quality, Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology and Water Quality, Noise, and Transportation and Traffic sections of this Initial Study, the proposed project would result in potentially significant temporary impacts as a result of construction of the dam improvements and the grade control structure. However, adoption and implementation of mitigation measures described in this Initial Study would reduce these individual impacts to less than significant levels.
b) Less than Significant With Mitigation. No past, current, or probable future projects were identified in the project vicinity that, when added with project-related impacts, would result in cumulatively considerable impacts. No cumulatively considerable impacts would occur with development of the project. As discussed in the analyses provided in this Initial Study, mitigation measures are proposed to reduce all potentially significant impacts to less-than- significant levels. The incremental effects of the proposed project are not cumulatively considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects.
c) No project-related environmental effects were identified that would cause substantial adverse effects, after mitigation was proposed, on human beings. As discussed the project has the potential to create temporary significant impacts related to air quality, noise, and hazardous materials during construction. However, with implementation of required mitigation measures, these impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant levels.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-86 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 SECTION 3 Supporting Information and Sources
Andrews, W.F. 1970. Soil Survey of Yolo County, California. United States Department of Agriculture and University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Bean, Lowell John, and Dorothea Theodoratus, Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 289–305. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1978. Beardsley, R.K., 1948, “Culture sequences in central California archaeology,” American Antiquity 14(1): 1-29. Beardsley, R.K., 1954, Temporal and areal relationships in central California archaeology. Parts I and II. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, Nos. 24 & 25, Berkeley, California. Bickel, P. McW., 1978, “Changing sea levels along the California coast: anthropological implications,” Journal of California Archaeology 5(1): 6-20. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2000. Proposed Risk Reduction Plan for Diesel-Fueled Engines and Vehicles, October 2000. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2001. ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects and Control, http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm. Updated December 2005. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective, April 2005. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006a. Summaries of Air Quality Data, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005; http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/cgi-bin/db2www/polltrendsb.d2w/start California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006b. Ambient Air Quality Standards, available at http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqs/aaqs2.pdf. March 2, 2009. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2006c. Area Designations Maps, http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Updated February 2006. California Code of Regulations, Title 19, Section 2400 et seq. http://ccr.oal.ca.gov California Department of Conservation (CDOC). 2002. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Farmland Conversion Report 1998 – 2000. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson’s Hawks (Buteo swainsoni) in the Central Valley of California. November 8, 1994. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000a. Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural Communities. Revised May 8, 2000.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-1 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2000b. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the California’s Central Valley. Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. Sacramento, CA. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2005. The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California 2000-2004. California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2008. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System: Life History Account for the Mountain Plover (Charadrius montanus). Updated August 2008. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2009. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Rarefind 3.1.0 computer program. California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. Sacramento, CA. Data dated April 4, 2009. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Inventory of Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 1976. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-09a 1-13-09). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. Accessed online August 20, 2008: http://www.cnps.org/inventory. (Caltrans,2005) Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment Yolo-16 Safety Improvements Project YCFCWCD, 2007 California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG). 1997. California Division of Mines and Geology, Guidelines for Evaluating the Hazard of Surface fault Rupture, CDMG Note 49, 1997a. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2006. DTSC’s Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available online at http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm California Office of Historic Preservation, Historic Properties Directory Listing by City (through January 2009). State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, 2009. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). 1998. The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan). Fourth Edition. September 1. 1998. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2005. List of Spill and Leak Sites (SL) and Department of Defense (DOD) and Department of Energy (DOE) cleanup cases in the central portion of the Central Valley Region, 1st Quarter 2005. Available online at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/available_documents/index.html Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2007. List of Leaking Underground Storage Tank Cases in the Central Valley Region, Current as of January, 2007. Available online at http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/available_documents/index.html Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2005 (December 14). Cache Creek, Bear Creek, Sulphur Creek, and Harley Gulch TMDL.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-2 ESA / 208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 3. Supporting Information and Sources
Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. Environmental Science Associates (ESA). 2007. Davis-Woodland Water Supply Project EIR, Certified October 2007. Fagan, B.M., 1995, Ancient North America: The archaeology of a continent. Thames and Hudson, New York. Federal Interagency Committee On Noise (FICON). 1992. Federal Agency Review of Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, August 1992. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, May 2006. Fredrickson, D.A., Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53, 1974. Fredrickson, D.A., Central California Archaeology: The Concepts of Pattern and Aspect. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp. 75–79. Contributions to the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley, 1994. GlobeXplorer. 2006. Color aerial photograph. Available online at: http://www.globexplorer.com Hackel, O., 1966, Summary of the geology of the Great Valley, Geology of Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 190: 508. Heizer, R. F., and F. Fenenga, 1939, “Archaeological horizons in central California,” American Anthropologist 41: 378-399. Heizer, R.F., 1949, “The archaeology of central California I: The Early Horizon,” University of California Anthropological Records, Vol. 12(1):1-84. Hoover, Mildred et al., 1966, Historic Spots in California, revised by William N. Abeloe, :Stanford University Press, Stanford, California. HT Harvey & Assc. 2005. Administrative Draft Yolo County Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan. Prepared for Yolo County Joint Powers Authority. Jennings, M. R., and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and reptile species of special concern in California. Final Report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA. 225 pp. Jennings, C. W. 1994. Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas. California Division of Mines and Geologic Data Map No. 6, 1:750,000. Johnson, P.J. 1978. Patwin. Pages 350-360 in R.F. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Jones & Stokes. 2005. Yolo County General Plan Update (January). Prepared for Yolo County. King, T. F., 1974, “The evolution of status ascription around San Francisco Bay” in Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, Bellena Press Anthropological Papers: 2: 35-54. Kroeber, A. L., 1925, Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletins, No. 78., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-3 ESA / 208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Lillard, J.B., Heizer, R.F., and Fenenga, F., 1939, “An introduction to the archaeology of central California” Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin, No. 2: Sacramento, California. Mayer, Kenneth E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Accessed online June 15, 2007: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/wildlife_habitats.html. Miles, S.R. and C.B. Goudey. 1997. Ecological Subregions of California: Section and Subsection Descriptions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Publication R5-EM-TP-005. San Francisco, CA. McCarthy, H. 1985. Linguistics and its Implications for California Ethnogeography and Culture History. Pages 20–35 in Ethnography and Prehistory of the North Coast Ranges, California, Publication Number 8, Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis, CA. McIntre and Lewis, Official Map of the County of Sonoma, California, 1908. McKern, W.C. 1922. Functional Families of the Patwin. American Archaeology and Ethnology 13 (7): 235-258. McLendon, Sally, and Robert L. Oswalt, Pomo: Introduction. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 274–288. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1978. Moratto, M. J., 1984, California Archaeology. Smithsonian Press: San Diego, CA. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 1972. Soil Survey for Yolo County, California. Prepared for the NRCS [Natural Resources Conservation Service; previously the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)], June 1972 Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. NCSS Web Soil Survey. Accessed on March 9, 2007; available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ Ragir, S., 1972, “The Early Horizon in central California prehistory.” University of California Archaeological Research Facility Contributions, No. 15: Berkeley, California. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2004. Regional Blueprint Project 2002 Data. Published December 2004. Sacramento Area Council of Governments, 2006. Population Projections through 2025. http://www.sacog.org/demographics/projections/files/split/SacogProjectionsAdopted12.16. 04forJurisdictions02005-2025.xls SAQMD, 2006 Sacramento Regional Nonattainment Area 8-Hour Ozone Rate of Progress Plan: Website: http://ysaqmd.omsoft.com/documents/8HrOzoneROPFinalReport.pdf Sawyer, J. O., Keeler-Wolf, T., 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California. Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA. Stantec Consulting, 2007. Capay Dam Inspection and Assessment. Prepared for Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Stebbins, Robert C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. 3rd Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), 2003. Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report for the Lower Cache Creek, Yolo County, CA, City of Woodland and Vicinity, for Potential Flood Damage Reduction Project
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-4 ESA / 208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 3. Supporting Information and Sources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West. ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. Sacramento, CA. July 9, 1999. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2003. Interim Guidance on Site Assessment and Field Surveys for Determining Presence or a Negative Finding of the California Tiger Salamander. Sacramento, CA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2008. Species Account for the California Tiger Salamander (Ambystoma californiense). Updated February 21, 2008. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be Affected by Projects in the Esparto, California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangles. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Website. Available: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed March 18, 2008. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. Esparto Quadrangle, California-Yolo County, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic. Whistler, K.A. 1977. Wintun Prehistory: An Interpretation Based on Reconstruction of Plant and Animal Nomenclature. Pages 157-174 in Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkely Lingusitics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA. Woodbridge, B. 1998. Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html Yolo County. 1983. Yolo County General Plan. Adopted: July, 1983. Dates of Revision: 1989 (Exhibit “D”). 2002. 2003. Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, 1992. Yolo County Water Plan Update. Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD). 2000. Yolo County Water Plan. Prepared by Borcalli & Associates. Yolo County, 2004, October 26, 2004 Second Joint Meeting with the Planning Commission to Consider the General Plan Update Process Staff Report Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD). 2004. Groundwater Monitoring Program, Data Management System, and Update of Groundwater Conditions in the Yolo County Area. Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD). 2005. Water Management Plan.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-5 ESA / 208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Yolo County. 2009. Yolo County 2030 Countywide General Plan (Draft General Plan). Yolo County, CA. Released September 10, 2008. Yolo County Joint Powers Agency. 2009. Yolo County Natural Heritage Program (Yolo County NCCP/HCP). Yolo County, CA. Currently in development. Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Air Quality Handbook. Guidelines for Determining Air Quality Thresholds of Significance and Mitigation Measures for Proposed Development Projects that Generate Emissions from Motor Vehicles. 1996 (revised 2002) Yolo-Solano Air Quality Management District (YSAQMD). Yolo-Solano AQMD List of Current Rules. Rules 2.14 (Architectural Coatings, Revised November 2001), 2.28 (Cutback and Emulsified Asphalt, Adopted May 1994), 2.32 (Stationary Internal Combustion Engines, Revised October 2001), and 3.3 (Portable Equipment, Revised August 1997). Website, http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ys/cur.htm, updated May 14. 2008. Accessed January 9. 2009. Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, and K.E. Mayer. 1988-1990. California’s Wildlife. Vols I, II, and III. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-6 ESA / 208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009 SECTION 4 List of Preparers
The Capay Dam Restoration Project Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impacts was prepared by the Lead Agency, The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, and their environmental consultant, Environmental Science Associates.
Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
Stefan Lorenzato, Environmental Program Manager
Environmental Science Associates
Leslie Moulton Project Director Gina Hamilton Project Manager Paul Garcia Deputy Project Manager Todd Gordon Water Resources Kathy Anderson Cultural Resources Stephanie Parsons Biological Resources Program Manager LeChi Huynh Biological Resources Chariss Tweedy Biological Resources Donald Ambroziak Technical Advisor: Air Quality Tom Wyatt Graphic Artist David Beecroft GIS Specialist Logan Sakai Word Processing/Production
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-7 ESA/208607 Draft IS/MND May 2009
Appendix A Construction Emissions Technical Data Sheets
Page: 1 4/8/2009 12:31:54 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Detail Report for Summer Construction Unmitigated Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\dsa\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Capay Dam 208607.urb924 Project Name: Capay Dam 208607 Project Location: Yolo-Solano AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES (Summer Pounds Per Day, Unmitigated)
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 Total PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 Total CO2
Time Slice 9/1/2009-10/1/2009 4.23 39.62 19.56 0.02 4.06 1.92 5.98 0.86 1.77 2.62 3,901.52 Active Days: 23 Mass Grading 09/01/2009- 4.23 39.62 19.56 0.02 4.06 1.92 5.98 0.86 1.77 2.62 3,901.52 10/01/2009 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 4.00 0.84 0.00 0.84 0.00
Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 3.18 26.46 12.98 0.00 0.00 1.33 1.33 0.00 1.23 1.23 2,247.32
Mass Grading On Road Diesel 1.01 13.10 5.34 0.01 0.05 0.58 0.64 0.02 0.54 0.55 1,551.94
Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 102.26
Phase Assumptions Phase: Mass Grading 9/1/2009 - 10/1/2009 - Dam Repair Total Acres Disturbed: 0.79 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed: 0.2 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail: Default 20 lbs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel (VMT): 385.48 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Graders (174 hp) operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers (357 hp) operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes (108 hp) operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks (189 hp) operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Page: 1 4/8/2009 12:32:11 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Annual Emissions (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\dsa\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Capay Dam 208607.urb924 Project Name: Capay Dam 208607 Project Location: Yolo-Solano AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (tons/year unmitigated) 0.05 0.46 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.02 0.03 44.87 Page: 1 4/8/2009 12:31:24 PM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Summary Report for Summer Emissions (Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\Documents and Settings\dsa\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\Capay Dam 208607.urb924 Project Name: Capay Dam 208607 Project Location: Yolo-Solano AQMD On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007
CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES
ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2009 TOTALS (lbs/day unmitigated) 4.23 39.62 19.56 0.02 4.06 1.92 5.98 0.86 1.77 2.62 3,901.52
Appendix B Wetland Delineation
CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT PROJECT Wetland Delineation
Prepared for May 2009 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT PROJECT Wetland Delineation
Prepared for May 2009 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
2600 Capitol Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
208607
TABLE OF CONTENTS Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project Wetland Delineation Report
Page
1. Summary 1-1 2. Introduction 2-1 2.1 Study Area 2-1 2.2 Purpose of Assessment 2-2 3. Methodology 3-1 3.1 Definitions 3-1 3.2 Pre-field Review 3-3 3.3 Field Investigation 3-3 3.4 Mapping and Acreage Calculations 3-5 4. Results 4-1 4.1 Soils 4-1 4.2 Field Investigation 4-3 5. References 5-1
Appendices A. Data Forms A-1 B. Plant Species B-1 C. Site Photos C-1
List of Figures 1-1 Regional Location 1-2 2-1 Site Location 2-3 2-2 Esparto USGS Topographic Quadrangle 2-4 2-3 Site Topography 2-5 3-1 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 3-4 4-1 Soils in the Vicinity of the Project Site 4-2 4-2 Wetland Delineation 4-7
List of Tables 4-1 Potential Jurisdictional Features within the Study Area 4-6 4-2 Potential Non-Jurisdictional Features within the Study Area 4-10
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project i ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009
SECTION 1.0 Summary
On behalf of the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District, in March 2009, Environmental Science Associates (ESA) conducted a wetland delineation for property associated with the Capay Dam Restoration Project in Yolo County, California. This wetland delineation report describes those features within the study area that may be considered waters of the United States (U.S.), and are therefore subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
The contact information for the Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District is:
Mr. Stefan Lorenzato 34274 State Highway 16 Woodland, CA 95695-9371 530-662-0265, phone
The Proposed Project is located on Cache Creek in northwestern Yolo County, California and sits just outside the unincorporated town of Capay (Figure 1-1). The dam spans the width of Cache Creek and the apron is approximately 475 feet long from the abatements on the north and south sides.
Directions to the site:
• From Sacramento, take Interstate(I)-5 northbound • Take CA-16 west bound • Right on Road 82B • Follow the road to the end This report documents wetland and channel boundary delineation and the best professional judgment of ESA investigators. All conclusions presented should be considered preliminary and subject to change pending official review and verification in writing by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). A total of approximately 5.05 acres of potential jurisdictional features occur within the study area consisting of approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands and 5.02 acres of other waters of the U.S. (1,128.81 linear feet). A total of approximately 0.18 acres of potential non-jurisdictional features occur within the study area consisting of approximately 0.18 acre of irrigation canals (366.87 linear feet).
This wetland delineation has been conducted in accordance with the 1987 “Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual” and the “Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0).”
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-1 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 YOLO 16 COUNTY
C
a
c
h e C r e
e
k
505
SSTUDYTUDY AAREAREA
EEspartosparto
LLakea k e 02 BBerryessae r r y e s s a WintersWinters Miles
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: ESRI, 2007; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1-1 Regional Location SECTION 2.0 Introduction
2.1 Study Area Regional Ecology The project area is located in Yolo County, within the northern Sacramento Valley on nearly level to very gently sloping stream channels, levees, overflow basins, and alluvial fans. The project area is located within the Yolo-American Basins subsection, where much of the area is on alluvial plain adjacent to the lower Sacramento River. Elevation within this subsection ranges between 10 to 40 feet above mean sea level. Much of the section is flooded during winter to early spring. Historically, this region supported emergent wetlands and Needlegrass grasslands. Some characteristic vegetation series found in this subsection include: bulrush series, cattail series, sedge series, bulrush-cattail series, California sycamore series, Fremont cottonwood series, and mixed willow series. Intensive agricultural and urban development has resulted in large losses and conversion of these habitats. The remaining native vegetative communities exist as isolated remnant patches within urban and agricultural landscapes, or in areas where varied topography has made urban and/or agricultural development difficult.
Site Description The project site is an open space area composed of Cache Creek, valley foothill riparian woodland flanking Cache Creek, and Capay Dam (an irrigation diversion dam) (Figure 2-1). The Capay Dam diverts water into the Winters Canal on the southern bank of the river and into the West Adams Canal on the north bank. The dam spans the width of Cache Creek and the existing apron at the toe of the dam is about 475 feet long from the abatements on the north and south sides. The concrete apron extends approximately 16 feet downstream from the toe of the dam.
It is within the Canada de Capay Land Grant on the Esparto U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (USGS, 1993) (Figure 2-2). Elevation at the spill way is 205- feet above mean sea level (msl) (Figure 2-3). Project site topography varies from terraced floodplains to the south of Cache Creek to rolling terrain further north of the creek. As shown in Figure 2-3, the banks of Cache Creek are fairly steep, especially on the north bank. Within the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) of Cache Creek, there are areas of rock immediately downstream of Capay Dam and sandbars further downstream of the Dam that are periodically exposed and may look like islands on aerial photos (Figure 2-3). 2.2 Purpose of Assessment
The purpose of this investigation is to describe and delineate all waters of the U.S. within the study area that may be subject to Section 404 of the CWA. If necessary, information from this report
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-1 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
may be used in preparing permit applications for future actions proposed in the study area. This report will be reviewed by the Corps to verify their jurisdiction over wetlands and other waters of the U.S.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-2 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 e k r e C h e a c C
SSTUDYTUDY AAREAREA
02
Miles
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: NAIP, 2008; Stantec, 2008; and ESA, 2009 Figure 2-1 Site Location SSTUDYTUDY AAREAREA
Esparto
16
0 2000
Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: USGS, 1993; Stantec, 2008; and ESA, 2009 Figure 2-2 Esparto USGS Topographic Quadrangle 5 22 0 15 22 2 0 05 21 2 0 20
2 1 0
205
205
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 21
10 5 2 21 20 5 2 25
Contours Study Area
0 100
Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2007; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 2-3 Site Topography
SECTION 3 Methodology
3.1 Definitions
The federal government defines “Waters of the United States” in 33 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 328.3 as:
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: a. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or b. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or c. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of the above waters; 6. The territorial seas; 7. Wetlands adjacent to the above waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands). Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. 8. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the CWA, the final authority regarding CWA jurisdiction remains with the EPA.
The term “wetlands” means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Under normal circumstances, the definition of wetlands requires three wetland identification parameters be present:
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-1 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation. Examples of wetlands may include freshwater marsh, seasonal wetlands, and vernal pool complexes that are adjacent to perennial waters of the U.S.
“Other waters of the U.S.” refers to those hydric features that are regulated by the CWA but are not wetlands (33 CFR 328.4). To be considered jurisdictional, these features must exhibit a defined bed and bank and an ordinary high water mark. The term “ordinary high water mark” refers to that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Examples of other waters of the U.S. may include rivers, creeks, ponds, and lakes.
In January 2001, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County vs. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (SWANCC) that altered the Corps’ regulatory authority over wetlands that are isolated from navigable waters1.
On June 5, 2007 the EPA and the Corps released guidance on the definitions of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. in response to Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States. According to this guidance the Corps and the EPA will take jurisdiction over the following waters: 1. Traditional navigable waters, which is defined as all waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters; including adjacent wetlands that do not have a continuous surface connection to traditional navigable waters; 3. Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months); 4. Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries as defined above; that have a continuous surface connection to such tributaries (e.g. they are not separated by uplands, a berm, dike, or similar feature). The EPA and the Corps decide jurisdiction over the following waters, based on a fact-specific analysis to determine if there is a significant nexus, as defined below, to a traditional navigable water: 1. Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; 2. Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent; 3. Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary.
1 Since the SWANCC decision, waters covered solely by this definition by virtue of their use as habitat by migratory birds are no longer considered “waters of the United States.” The Supreme Court’s opinion did not specifically address what other connections with interstate commerce might support the assertion of CWA jurisdiction over “nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters” under this definition, and the Corp is recommending case by case consideration. A factor that may be relevant to this consideration includes, but is not limited to, the following: Jurisdiction of isolated, intrastate, and nonnavigable waters may be possible if their use, degradation, or destruction could affect other “waters of the United States,” thus establishing a significant nexus between the water in question and other “waters of the United States” (Corps, undated memorandum).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-2 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 3.0 Methodology
The EPA and the Corps generally do not assert jurisdiction over the following features: 1. Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); 2. Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. The EPA and the Corps have defined the significant nexus standard as follows: 1. A significant nexus analysis assesses the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters; 2. Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors including: a. Volume, duration, and frequency of flow, including consideration of certain physical characteristics of the tributary, b. Proximity to the traditional navigable water, c. Size of the watershed, d. Average annual rainfall, e. Average annual winter snow pack, f. Potential of tributaries to carry pollutants and flood waters to traditional navigable waters, g. Provision of aquatic habitat that supports a traditional navigable water, h. Potential of wetlands to trap and filter pollutants or store flood waters, and i. Maintenance of water quality in traditional navigable waters. 3.2 Pre-field Review
Prior to conducting the field investigation, the following sources were consulted:
• Review of Esparto, CA USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map;
• Review of color aerial photography for vegetative, topographic, and hydrologic signatures;
• Review of Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey data (NRCS, 2008a) for information about soils and geomorphology;
• Review of the National Hydric Soils List (NRCS, 2008b) and the Hydric Soils List for Yolo County (NRCS, 2008c) to determine if any soils mapped within the study area are considered hydric at the level of soil series; and
• Review of the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [FWS], 2009) for information on wetlands and natural water features previously delineated in the study area (Figure 3-1). 3.3 Field Investigation The wetland delineation was conducted within the study area by ESA biologists Chariss Tweedy and LeChi Huynh in March 2009. The delineation used the “Routine Determination Method” as described in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987), hereafter called the “1987 Manual.” The 1987 Manual was used in conjunction
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-3 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Study Area NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY 0 100 Riverine
Feet Palustrine, Wooded Vegetation, Perennial and Intermittent Creeks
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: California Resource Agency, 2003; GlobeXplorer, 2008; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 3-1 National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) 3.0 Methodology
with the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), hereafter called the “Arid West Supplement.” For areas where the 1987 Manual and the Arid West Supplement differ, the Arid West Supplement was followed.
Three positive wetland parameters must normally be present for an area to be wetland: a dominance of wetland vegetation, presence of hydric soils, and presence of wetland hydrology. Presence or absence of positive indicators for wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology was assessed per the 1987 Manual and Arid West Supplement guidelines. Two data points were taken to characterize the vegetation of the different habitat types. Data points were recorded on Arid West wetland delineation forms (Appendix A).
At each data point, a visual assessment of the dominant plant species within a 6-foot radius was made. Dominant species were assessed using the recommended “50/20” rule per the Arid West Supplement. Plants were identified to species using the Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hickman, 1993). The National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Reed, 1988) was used to determine the wetland indicator status of all plants. Soils at each data point were characterized by texture; color was described using Munsell soil color charts (Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, 1990).
Presence of wetland hydrology was determined at each data point by presence of one or more of the following primary and/or secondary indicators, per guidance of the Arid West Supplement. These indicators include: visual observation of inundation, observation of soil saturation within 12 inches of the surface, oxidized root channels, biotic crust, sediment deposits, flow or drift accumulations at channel margins, channel flow marks in beds, scouring, surface cracking, water staining, and topography (“wetland drainage patterns”). Evidence of wetland hydrologic characteristics in channels consisted of primary visual observations, focusing on drainage patterns, drift lines, sediment deposits, and watermarks within the channel.
3.3.1 Methodology for Drainages Drainages with obvious bed and banks were characterized by noting vegetation, geomorphology (e.g., incision) and hydrologic characteristics, and by measuring representative channel bank cross- sections to obtain average bankfull width (i.e., ordinary high water mark). 3.4 Mapping and Acreage Calculations All features, including data collection points, wetland boundaries, and channel courses were recorded using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit (Trimble GeoXT) with real-time differential correction and an instrument-rated mapping accuracy of +/- 3 meters, or were delineated on aerial photography using Geographic Information System (GIS) software (ArcGIS 9.1). Wetland boundaries were demarcated in the field using GPS by walking the margin of the wetland. Channels were delineated using GIS software, aerial photography, and topographic data.
In the office, GPS data were downloaded and mapped using GIS software on an overlay of both topography and geo-referenced aerial photography. GPS-determined wetland boundaries and data points were visually confirmed. Channel width was recorded in the field. Linear length of each channel was obtained by ArcGIS, and multiplied by the channel’s average width to obtain acreage. Acreage of wetland polygons was determined by ArcGIS.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-5 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009
SECTION 4 Results
4.1 Soils
The Yolo County, California Soil Survey (NRCS, 2008a) shows five soil units occurring within the vicinity of the project area (Figure 4-1). The two soil types occurring within the project area are listed as hydric, or contain inclusions that are hydric, per the national hydric soils list for Yolo County, California (NRCS, 2008b). A brief description of each soil series is provided below.
Soboba Series (Sn) soil is typically a deep, excessively drained soil occurring on alluvial fans and floodplains. They are found at elevations 25 to 3,700-feet and on slopes ranging from 0 to 30 percent. A typical profile includes stony loam sand to 11-inches, subtended by stratified very gravelly and cobbly sand, sand, and loamy sand. This soil is found in the south eastern portion of the project site. This series is considered hydric.
Yolo Series (Ya) soil is typically a deep, well drained soil occurring on nearly level to moderately sloping alluvial fans. They are found at elevations of near sea level to 2,400-feet. A typical profile includes a thick grayish brown, neutral silt loam A horizon and brown and pale brown mildly alkaline silt loam C horizons. This series is considered hydric.
Corning Series (CtD2) soil is typically a very deep, well or moderately well drained soil occurring on high terraces with mound, intermound microrelief. They are found at elevations 75 to 1,300- feet and on slopes 0 to 30 percent. A typical profile is about 60-inches deep and includes many sub horizons. This soil is found on the hillside to the north of the project site. This series is not considered hydric.
Riverwash is a general classification for recent alluvial deposits in stream channels. It is often found where there are gravel bars or seasonally exposed streambeds of coarse and unsorted material, and where the locations of the bars moves about from year to year after spring floods. Vegetation is usually absent or annual, or if perennial, may be destroyed the next year. The material found within Riverwash areas may be a mix of size classes: sand, silt, gravel, cobbles, etc.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-1 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 CCtD2tD2
YaYa
CCtD2tD2
RRhh
SnSn
W
Study Area SOILS CtD2 – Corning Gravelly Loam, 2 to 15% slopes, Eroded Ya – Yolo Silty Loam Sn – Soboba Gravelly Sandy Loam 0 100 Rh – Riverwash Feet W – Water
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: SSURGO, 2008; GlobeXplorer, 2008; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 4-1 Soils in the Vicinity of the Project Site 4.0 Results
4.2 Field Investigation
4.2.1 Study Area Setting
The project site is an open space area composed of Cache Creek, valley foothill riparian/ woodland flanking Cache Creek, and Capay Dam (an irrigation diversion dam) (Figure 2-1). The dam spans the width of Cache Creek and the existing apron at the toe of the dam is about 475 feet long from the abatements on the north and south sides. The concrete apron extends approximately 16 feet downstream from the toe of the dam. The Capay Dam diverts water into the Winters Canal on the southern bank of the river and into the West Adams Canal on the north bank. The project site is surrounded by agriculture such as cattle grazing and orchards.
It is within the Canada de Capay Land Grant on the Esparto U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (USGS, 1993) (Figure 2-2). Elevation at the spill way is 205- feet above mean sea level (msl) (Figure 2-3). Project site topography varies from terraced floodplains adjacent to the Cache Creek to rolling terrain further north of the creek.
Regionally, the project is located near the northern end of the Capay Valley within the Yolo Alluvian Fans subsection of the Great Valley Section. Typical elevations within this ecological subsection range from 20-feet above sea level up to 200-feet. Climate is typically hot and subhumid. Mean annual precipitation is approximately 15 to 18-inches. Data from the Western Regional Climate Center for Woodland, California shows that 2008 received an average amount of precipitation (16.34- inches) (Western Regional Climate Center, 2009). Precipitation data was not available for 2009. Mean annual temperature ranges from 59 to 60 degrees Fahrenheit. (Miles and Goudey, 1997)
4.2.2 Study Area Plant Communities and Habitats Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area. Both species composition and relative abundance define them. The plant community descriptions and nomenclature used in this section were based on A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California (Mayer and Laudenslayer, 1988) and the classification provided in A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf, 1995). Plant communities within the study area were identified using field reconnaissance. The California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification scheme has been developed to support the CWHR System, a wildlife information system and predictive model for California's regularly occurring birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. The plant communities described below generally correlate with wildlife habitat types and are those found within the project site.
Plant communities are assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area, which are defined by species composition and relative abundance. Upland plant communities and habitats within the study area include non-native annual grassland, disturbed/ruderal, and valley foothill riparian. Plant communities and habitats associated with aquatic settings include freshwater emergent wetland.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-3 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Upland Plant Communities and Habitats Non-Native Annual Grassland Non-native annual grassland is generally found in open areas in valleys and foothills throughout coastal and interior California. It typically occurs on soils consisting of fine-textured loams or clays that are somewhat poorly drained. This vegetation type is dominated by non-native annual grasses and weedy annual and perennial forbs, primarily of Mediterranean origin, that have replaced native perennial grasslands, scrub and woodland as a result of human disturbance. Scattered native wildflowers and grasses, representing remnants of the original vegetation may also be common.
Within the study area, non-native annual grassland is present on upland terraces of both banks of Cache Creek. Non-native annual grasses occurring include wild oats (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and rattail fescue (Vulpia myuros), among others. Common nonnative forbs include yellow star thistle (Centauria solstitialis), milk thistle (Silybum marianum), white sweetclover (Melilotus alba), and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), among others.
Disturbed/Ruderal Disturbed/ruderal habitat occurs in areas such as along roadsides, trails, parking lots, etc. These communities are subjected to ongoing or past disturbances (e.g., vehicle activities, mowing). Ruderal habitat in these disturbed areas supports a diverse weedy flora, primarily composed of non-native invasive species. Within the study area, ruderal vegetation is found adjacent to roads and irrigation canals.
Dominant species vary per locale but include introduced common annual weedy forbs such as bur- clover (Medicago polymorpha), red-stem filaree, wild radish (Raphanus sativus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed, milk thistle (Silybum marianum), and others. Non-native grasses are also represented including ripgut brome, Italian wildrye, wild oat, and others.
Valley Foothill Riparian Valley foothill riparian typically consists of mature riparian forest with a subcanopy tree layer and an understory shrub layer. Dominant species in the canopy are typically cottonwood, California sycamore and valley oak. Subcanopy trees are white alder, box elder, and Oregon ash. Typical understory shrub layer species include wild grape, wild rose, California blackberry, blue elderberry, poison oak, buttonbrush, and willows. Willows often grow in shrubby thickets composed of any of several species of willow (Salix spp.). This plant community is found in valleys bordered by sloping alluvial fans, lower foothills, and coastal plains in the Central Valley and the lower foothills of the Cascade, Sierra Nevada and Coast ranges.
Dominant overstory species in the study area include valley oak (Quercus lobata), California buckeye, and box elder (Acer negundo). The subcanopy consists of sandbar willow (Salix exigua) and arroyo willow (S. lasiolepis). The understory consists of native species such as mugwort (Artemisia douglasiana) and California rose (Rosa californica), among others. Invasive species, giant reed (Arundo donax) is found on the north bank of Cache Creek. Riparian habitat within the study area is found on the north and south banks of Cache Creek.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-4 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 4.0 Results
Aquatic Plant Communities and Habitats Freshwater Emergent Wetland Freshwater emergent wetland typically occurs in low-lying sites that are permanently flooded or saturated with fresh water and lacking significant current. Freshwater marsh is most extensive where surface flow is slow or stagnant or where the water table is so close to the surface as to saturate the soil from below. This vegetation community characteristically forms a dense vegetative cover dominated by perennial, emergent monocots one to 15 feet high that reproduce by underground rhizomes.
Within the study area, freshwater emergent wetland occurs on the southern bank of Cache Creek, directly east of the Capay Dam south abutment. The freshwater emergent wetland is dominated by narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), soft rush (Juncus effuses), and iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides). Within the project area, freshwater emergent wetland occurs in association with Cache Creek and adjacent terrestrial habitats such as non-native annual grassland and valley foothill riparian. Freshwater emergent wetlands provide food, cover, and water for numerous species of birds, mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, many of which depend on these wetlands through their life cycle.
Riverine Cache Creek represents the riverine habitat within the project study area. Cache Creek is a perennial river that originates in the mountains above Capay Valley and empties into the Yolo Bypass. Cache Creek has an occasional hydraulic connection to the Sacramento River in high flow events. The width of Cache Creek is approximately 475 feet wide. The streambed adjacent to the downstream side of Capay Dam and its associated apron is highly eroded due to scouring actions during high flow events. Water flow is variable and is controlled by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD). River banks immediately downstream of Capay Dam are also highly eroded because the apron associated with Capay Dam does not sufficiently dissipate the energy of the flow as it passes over the top of the dam. There is a large rock formation located immediately downstream of Capay Dam that has not been eroded and appears as “Rock” on Figure 4-2. The elevation of this rock formation was at least five feet higher than the water level at the time of the site visit. This causes the water at the southern end of the spillway to flow north and around the rock feature before flowing downstream.
Irrigation Canal There are two irrigation canals within the project area: the Winters Canal located on the southern bank of Cache Creek and the West Adams Canal located on the northern bank. YCFCWCD diverts water from Cache Creek into these canals for agricultural irrigation purposes. The canals are concrete lined and are void of vegetation. The Winters Canal terminates at a large stock pond located northeast of Winters. The West Adams Canal continues east at which point it branches into two separate canals which flow north and east. The northern branch terminates in an agricultural field and the eastern branch reconnects along a reach of Cache Creek located due west of Woodland. These features may be deemed non-jurisdictional as they are manmade features that convey water solely for irrigation purposes.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-5 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Intermittent Stream There is an intermittent stream that flows into Cache Creek upstream of Capay Dam. The drainage meanders through the hillside eventually flowing into Cache Creek on the north side of the river. The drainage is highly incised with an average width of about eight feet. Although this feature falls within the overall study area, it was not delineated as it was inaccessible due to a private fence.
4.2.3 Site Hydrology Overview Cache Creek flows through the study area from southwest to northeast. The river is at its widest point (about 485 feet) at the Capay Dam. Downstream from the dam, the width of the river varies and narrows to about 89 feet. Measurements were taken in several locations and the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) was averaged at 224-feet. Cache Creek originates in the mountains at the northern end of the Capay Valley and empties into the Yolo Bypass. The intermittent drainage upstream of Capay Dam also provides hydrological input into the study area during the rainy season. 4.2.4 Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S.
A total of 5.05 acres of potential jurisdictional features occur within the study area. Jurisdictional features include 0.03 acres of wetlands and 5.02 acres (1,128.81 linear feet) of other waters of the U.S. Wetlands within the study area include 0.03 acre of freshwater emergent wetland. Other waters of the U.S. within the study area include 1.60 acres (216.31 linear feet) of intermittent stream and 3.42 acres (912.50 linear feet) of perennial drainage (Cache Creek).
The locations and extent of potentially jurisdictional features are depicted in Figure 4-2. Wetland determination data forms are provided as Appendix A. A list of plants observed during the survey can be found in Appendix B. Representative site photographs of wetland and upland communities are provided as Appendix C. A summary of potentially jurisdictional features and their extent (including average width and linear feet for drainages) within the project site is presented in Table 4-1.
TABLE 4-1 POTENTIAL JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Type of Potentially Average Linear Jurisdictional Feature Width Feet Acres
Wetland PEM1 - Freshwater emergent wetland n/a n/a 0.03 Wetland Subtotal: n/a n/a 0.03 Other Waters of the US Perennial Channel – Cache Creek 224 912.50 3.42 Intermittent Stream 8 216.31 1.60 Other Waters Subtotal: – 1,128.81 5.02 Total area of potentially jurisdictional features 5.05
NOTES: PEM1 = palustrine persistent emergent.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-6 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 m
a e r t l S a n k t a e n C r e e s t m C t a e i A d h m t a c r e s CCache Creek t e W I n
888.89’ 8 .8 9 ’
1100.07’
0
0
. 0
7
’
4484.60’
8
4
.
6
0
’
DDP-1P-1 DP-2DP-2
WWinters Canal i n t e r s
C a n a l
Rock Data Points Square Feet Acres Linear Feet OHWM Rip-Rap Freshwater Emergent Study Area Potentially Non-Jurisdictional Irrigation Canal Wetlands: 1,366.85 0.03 – – Other Waters of the U.S. Other Waters of the U.S. 149,020.03 3.42 912.50 224 Intermittent Stream 1,732.85 1.6 216.31 8 Potentially Non-Jurisdictional Irrigation Canal 8,012.00 0.18 95.22 15 0 100 TOTAL 161498.58 5.23 1,224.03 247 Feet Delineators/Surveyors: Chariss Tweedy and LeChi Huynh; March 12, 2009 1 Inch = 100 Feet Date of Initial Map Preparation: April, 2009
Capay Dam Restoration Project Wetland Delineation . 208607 SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2007; and ESA, 2009 Figure 4-2 Wetland Delineation
4.0 Results
Jurisdictional Wetlands
The wetland delineation survey conducted by ESA biologists identified two wetland features within the study area. All wetlands in the study area are hydrologically connected to other waters of the U.S. through direct adjacency or drainage patterns resulting in hydrological linkages between wetlands and stream channel.
Freshwater Emergent Wetland One freshwater emergent wetland (0.03 acre) was identified in the project area. This wetland, occurring adjacent to a low gradient stretch of Cache Creek, was primarily dominated by narrow- leaved cattail, a perennial obligate hydrophytic species. Freshwater emergent wetlands are classified as palustrine persistent emergent wetland using the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin et. al, 1979). Other Waters of the United States Intermittent Stream Intermittent channels have flowing water only periodically during the year, generally coinciding with the rainy season in the project region. Runoff from rainfall is the primary source of water for stream flow, although groundwater may contribute. One intermittent channel was identified in the study area (1.60 acres; 216.31 linear feet).
Perennial Channel Perennial channels have flowing water year round. One perennial channel, Cache Creek, was identified in the study area (3.42 acres; 912.50 linear feet) 4.2.5 Potential Non-Jurisdictional Waters
A total of 0.18 acres of potentially non-jurisdictional features occur within the study area (Table 4-2). Non-jurisdictional features include 0.18 acres of irrigation canals (366.87 linear feet).
Potential Non-Jurisdictional Waters Irrigation Canal There are two irrigation canals within the project area: the Winters Canal located on the southern bank of Cache Creek and the West Adams Canal located on the northern bank. The Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District diverts water from Cache Creek into these canals for agricultural irrigation purposes. The canals are concrete lined and are void of vegetation. These canals do not have a hydrologic connection to any other water course and therefore are potentially non-jurisdictional.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-9 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
TABLE 4-2 POTENTIAL NON-JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
Type of Potentially Average Linear Non-Jurisdictional Feature Width Feet Acres
Irrigation Canal West Adams Canal 18.97 309.57 0.15 Winters Canal 24.92 57.30 0.03 Total area of potentially non-jurisdictional features 0.18
4.2.6 Conclusions
A total of approximately 5.05 acres of potential jurisdictional features occur within the study area consisting of approximately 0.03 acre of wetlands and 5.02 acres of other waters of the U.S. (1,128.81 linear feet). A total of approximately 0.18 acres of potential non-jurisdictional features occur within the study area consisting of approximately 0.18 acre of irrigation canals (366.87 linear feet). The estimated acreages and linear lengths of the individual features are shown in Tables 4-1 and 4-2.
This report documents the wetland boundary delineation and best professional judgment of ESA investigators. All conclusions presented should be considered preliminary and subject to change pending official review and verification in writing by the Corps.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-10 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 SECTION 5 References
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/1998/classwet/classwet.htm (Version 04DEC98).
Environmental Laboratory, Department of the Army. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual (Technical Report Y-87-1). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Waterways Experimental Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Hickman, J. C. (Editor). 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of California Press: Berkeley, California.
Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, Macbeth Division. 1990. Munsell Soil Color Charts. Baltimore, Maryland.
Mayer, Kenneth E., and W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr. 1988. A Guide to Wildlife Habitats of California. State of California Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA. Accessed online April 2009: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/whdab/html/wildlife_habitats.html
Miles, S,R. and C.B. Goudey. 1997. Ecological Subregions of California: Section and Subsection Descriptions. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region Publication R5-EM-TP- 005. San Francisco, CA.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2008a. Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed March 18, 2009.
NRCS. 2008b. National Hydric Soils List for California, Yolo County. Available: ftp://ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/NSSC/Hydric_Soils/Lists/ca.xls. Accessed March 18, 2009.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California Region 0. (Biological Report 88 [26.10]). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Collins, Colorado.
Sawyer, J. O., Keeler-Wolf, T., 1995. A manual of California vegetation. California. Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2006. Interim Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West. ed. J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, and C.V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 5-1 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2009. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Website. Available: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/. Accessed March 18, 2008.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1993. Esparto Quadrangle, California-Yolo County, 7.5 Minute Series Topographic.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2009. Period of Record General Climate Summary for Woodland 1 WNW, California, 1906 –2008. Available: http://wrcc.dri.edu/. Accessed March 13, 2009.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 5-2 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Appendix A Data Forms
Appendix B Plant Species
APPENDIX B Plant Species Observed During Surveys for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
TABLE B-1 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED DURING SURVEY OF STUDY AREA
Wetland Indicator Scientific Name Common Name Family Status*
Aesculus californica California buckeye Hippocastanaceae UPL Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Common fiddleneck Boraginaceae UPL Artemisia douglasiana Mugwort Asteraceae FACW Arundo donax Giant reed Poaceae FACW Avena barbata Slender wild oat Poaceae UPL Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome Poaceae NL Centaurea solstitialis Yellow star-thistle Asteraceae NL Dichelostemma capitatum Blue dicks Liliaceae UPL Distichlis spicata Saltgrass Poaceae FACW* Epilobium angustifolium Fireweed Onagraceae FACU* Equisetum laevigatum Smooth scouring rush Equisetaceae FACW Eriodictyon californicum Yerba santa Hydrophyllaceae UPL Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree Geraniaceae UPL Galium aparine Goose grass Rubiaceae FACU Geranium molle Crane’s bill geranium Geraniaceae UPL Hirschfeldia incana Mediterranean hoary mustard Brassicaceae UPL Juglans hindsii Black walnut Juglandaceae FAC Juncus effuses Soft rush Juncaceae OBL Juncus xiphioides Iris leaved rush Juncaceae OBL Lotus corniculatus Birdfoot trefoil Fabaceae FAC Lotus strigosus Bishop’s lotus Fabaceae UPL Lythrum hyssopifolium Hyssop loosestrife Lythraceae FACW Marah fabaceus California man-root Cucurbitaceae UPL Medicago polymorpha California bur clover Fabaceae UPL Melilotus alba White sweetclover Fabaceae FACU Phoradendron villosum Oak mistletoe Viscaceae UPL Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Salicaceae FACW Quercus lobata Valley oak Fagaceae FAC* Rorippa nasturtium-aquaticum Water cress Brassicaceae OBL Rosa californica Califonia rose Rosaceae FAC Salix exigua Sandbar willow Salicaceae OBL Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow Salicaceae FACW Salvia spathacea Pitcher sage Lamiaceae UPL
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project B-1 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
TABLE B-1 PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED DURING SURVEY OF STUDY AREA
Wetland Indicator Scientific Name Common Name Family Status*
Sambucus Mexicana Blue elderberry Caprifoliaceae FAC Senecio vulgaris Common groundsel Asteraceae UPL Silybum marianum Milk thistle Asteraceae NL Taraxacum officinale Common dandelion Asteraceae FACU Toxicodendron diversilobum Western poison oak Anarcardiaceae UPL Typha angustifolia Narrow-leaved cattail Typhaceae OBL Vicia villosa Hairy vetch Fabaceae UPL Vulpia michrostachys Poaceae UPL Vulpia myuros Rat-tail fescue Poaceae FACU* Xanthium strumarium Rough cocklebur Asteraceae FAC
*Wetland Indicator Status (Reed, 1988) OBL - Obligate Wetland FACW - Faculative Wetland FAC - Facultative FACU - Facultative Upland UPL - Obligate Upland NI - No Indicator NL - Not Listed (*) - Indicator assigned is tentative
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project B-2 ESA/208607 Wetland Delineation Report May 2009 Appendix C Site Photos
PHOTOGRAPH 1. Capay Dam. Photograph taken on the south bank looking north.
PHOTOGRAPH 2. Looking downstream from the Capay Dam spillway.
Capay Dam Restoration Project . 208607 SOURCE: ESA, 2009 Figure C-1 Project Site Photographs PHOTOGRAPH 3. Photograph taken on the north bank looking south showing the rock formation on the south bank and rip-rap on the north bank.
PHOTOGRAPH 4. Looking towards Capay Dam from the rock formation
Capay Dam Restoration Project . 208607 SOURCE: ESA, 2009 Figure C-2 Project Site Photographs PHOTOGRAPH 5. Looking downstream from the rock formation.
PHOTOGRAPH 6. DP2 looking down slope to DP1.
Capay Dam Restoration Project . 208607 SOURCE: ESA, 2009 Figure C-3 Project Site Photographs PHOTOGRAPH 7. Transition between freshwater emergent wetland to annual grassland on slope.
PHOTOGRAPH 8. West Adams Canal.
Capay Dam Restoration Project . 208607 SOURCE: ESA, 2009 Figure C-4 Project Site Photographs Appendix C California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Search Results
California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database Capay Dam Restoration Project - 208607
CDFG or Scientific Name/Common Name Element Code Federal Status State Status GRank SRank CNPS
1 Ambystoma californiense AAAAA01180 Threatened unknown code... G2G3 S2S3 SC California tiger salamander 2 Andrena blennospermatis IIHYM35030 G2 S2 Blennosperma vernal pool andrenid bee 3 Buteo swainsoni ABNKC19070 Threatened G5 S2 Swainson's hawk 4 Desmocerus californicus dimorphus IICOL48011 Threatened G3T2 S2 valley elderberry longhorn beetle 5 Lasiurus blossevillii AMACC05060 G5 S3? SC western red bat 6 Riparia riparia ABPAU08010 Threatened G5 S2S3 bank swallow
Commercial Version -- Dated April 04, 2009 -- Biogeographic Data Branch Page 1 Report Printed on Thursday, April 09, 2009 Information Expires 10/04/2009
Appendix D California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants
CNPS Inventory: search results Page 1 of 1
Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants v7-09a 1-13-09
Status: search results - Tue, Feb. 10, 2009 11:34 c
{QUADS_123} =~ m/515A|531C|531D|514B|514C|530C|515B|515C|515D/Search Tip: CNPS_LIST:"List 3" (note the field name) returns only taxa on List 3. "List 3" by itself, matches the phrase wherever found. Browse the list of field names .[ all tips and help .] [search history ]
Your Quad Selection: Esparto (515A) 3812261 , Guinda (531C) 3812272 , Bird Valley (531D) 3812271 , Madison (514B) 3812168 , Winters (514C) 3812158 , Zamora (530C) 3812178 , Brooks (515B) 3812262 , Lake Berryessa (515C) 3812252 , Monticello Dam (515D) 3812251 Hits 1 to 7 of 7 Requests that specify topo quads will return only Lists 1-3.
To save selected records for later study, click the ADD button. ADD checked items to Plant Press check all check none Selections will appear in a new window.
open save hits scientific common family CNPS California macrophylla round-leaved List 1 Geraniaceae filaree 1B.1 Greene's narrow- List 1 Erigeron greenei Asteraceae leaved daisy 1B.2 List 1 adobe-lily Liliaceae Fritillaria pluriflora 1B.2 Brewer's western List 1 Linaceae Hesperolinon breweri flax 1B.2 List 1 Colusa layia Asteraceae Layia septentrionalis 1B.2 Lepidium latipes var. Heckard's pepper- List 1 Brassicaceae heckardii grass 1B.2 Navarretia leucocephala List 1 Baker's navarretia Polemoniaceae ssp. bakeri 1B.1
No more hits.
http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi -bin/inv/inventory.cgi/Search?f%3A1=COUNTIES&e%3A1= ... 2/10/2009
Appendix E Federal Endangered and Threatened Species List
Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List Page 1 of 1
United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605
Sacramento, California 95825
February 10, 2009
Document Number: 090210103305
LeChi Huynh Environmental Science Associates 2600 Capitol Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816
Subject: Species List for Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project - 208607
Dear: Interested party
We are sending this official species list in response to your February 10, 2009 request for information about endangered and threatened species. The list covers the California counties and/or U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quad or quads you requested.
Our database was developed primarily to assist Federal agencies that are consulting with us. Therefore, our lists include all of the sensitive species that have been found in a certain area and also ones that may be affected by projects in the area . For example, a fish may be on the list for a quad if it lives somewhere downstream from that quad. Birds are included even if they only migrate through an area. In other words, we include all of the species we want people to consider when they do something that affects the environment.
Please read Important Information About Your Species List (below). It explains how we made the list and describes your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act.
Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be May 11, 2009.
Please contact us if your project may affect endangered or threatened species or if you have any questions about the attached list or your responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act. A list of Endangered Species Program contacts can be found at www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/branches.htm .
Endangered Species Division
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_letter.cfm 2/10/2009 Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List Page 1 of 4
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur in or may be Affected by Projects in the Counties and/or U.S.G.S. 7 1/2 Minute Quads you requested Document Number: 090210103305 Database Last Updated: January 29, 2009
Quad Lists Listed Species Invertebrates Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp (T) Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle (T) Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp (E) Syncaris pacifica California freshwater shrimp (E) Fish Hypomesus transpacificus delta smelt (T) Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley steelhead (T) (NMFS) Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Central Valley spring-run chinook salmon (T) (NMFS) winter-run chinook salmon, Sacramento River (E) (NMFS) Amphibians Ambystoma californiense California tiger salamander, central population (T) Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog (T) Reptiles Thamnophis gigas giant garter snake (T) Birds Strix occidentalis caurina northern spotted owl (T) Quads Containing Listed, Proposed or Candidate Species: ESPARTO (515A)
County Lists No county species lists requested.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm 2/10/2009 Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List Page 2 of 4
Key:
(E) Endangered - Listed as being in danger of extinction.
(T) Threatened - Listed as likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future.
(P) Proposed - Officially proposed in the Federal Register for listing as endangered or threatened.
(NMFS) Species under the Jurisdiction of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service . Consult with them directly about these species. Critical Habitat - Area essential to the conservation of a species.
(PX) Proposed Critical Habitat - The species is already listed. Critical habitat is being proposed for it.
(C) Candidate - Candidate to become a proposed species.
(V) Vacated by a court order. Not currently in effect. Being reviewed by the Service.
(X) Critical Habitat designated for this species
Important Information About Your Species List How We Make Species Lists We store information about endangered and threatened species lists by U.S. Geological Survey 7½ minute quads. The United States is divided into these quads, which are about the size of San Francisco.
The animals on your species list are ones that occur within, or may be affected by projects within, the quads covered by the list.
Fish and other aquatic species appear on your list if they are in the same watershed as your quad or if water use in your quad might affect them.
Amphibians will be on the list for a quad or county if pesticides applied in that area may be carried to their habitat by air currents.
Birds are shown regardless of whether they are resident or migratory. Relevant birds on the county list should be considered regardless of whether they appear on a quad list.
Plants Any plants on your list are ones that have actually been observed in the area covered by the list. Plants may exist in an area without ever having been detected there. You can find out what's in the surrounding quads through the California Native Plant Society's online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants .
Surveying Some of the species on your list may not be affected by your project. A trained biologist and/or botanist, familiar with the habitat requirements of the species on your list, should determine whether they or habitats suitable for them may be affected by your project. We recommend that your surveys include any proposed and candidate species on your list. See our Protocol and Recovery Permits pages. For plant surveys, we recommend using the Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories . The results of your surveys should be published in any environmental documents prepared for your project.
Your Responsibilities Under the Endangered Species Act All animals identified as listed above are fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Section 9 of the Act and its implementing regulations prohibit the take of
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm 2/10/2009 Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List Page 3 of 4
a federally listed wildlife species. Take is defined by the Act as "to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect" any such animal. Take may include significant habitat modification or degradation where it actually kills or injures wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or shelter (50 CFR §17.3).
Take incidental to an otherwise lawful activity may be authorized by one of two procedures:
If a Federal agency is involved with the permitting, funding, or carrying out of a project that may result in take, then that agency must engage in a formal consultation with the Service. During formal consultation, the Federal agency, the applicant and the Service work together to avoid or minimize the impact on listed species and their habitat. Such consultation would result in a biological opinion by the Service addressing the anticipated effect of the project on listed and proposed species. The opinion may authorize a limited level of incidental take.
If no Federal agency is involved with the project, and federally listed species may be taken as part of the project, then you, the applicant, should apply for an incidental take permit. The Service may issue such a permit if you submit a satisfactory conservation plan for the species that would be affected by your project. Should your survey determine that federally listed or proposed species occur in the area and are likely to be affected by the project, we recommend that you work with this office and the California Department of Fish and Game to develop a plan that minimizes the project's direct and indirect impacts to listed species and compensates for project-related loss of habitat. You should include the plan in any environmental documents you file.
Critical Habitat When a species is listed as endangered or threatened, areas of habitat considered essential to its conservation may be designated as critical habitat. These areas may require special management considerations or protection. They provide needed space for growth and normal behavior; food, water, air, light, other nutritional or physiological requirements; cover or shelter; and sites for breeding, reproduction, rearing of offspring, germination or seed dispersal. Although critical habitat may be designated on private or State lands, activities on these lands are not restricted unless there is Federal involvement in the activities or direct harm to listed wildlife. If any species has proposed or designated critical habitat within a quad, there will be a separate line for this on the species list. Boundary descriptions of the critical habitat may be found in the Federal Register. The information is also reprinted in the Code of Federal Regulations (50 CFR 17.95). See our Map Room page.
Candidate Species We recommend that you address impacts to candidate species. We put plants and animals on our candidate list when we have enough scientific information to eventually propose them for listing as threatened or endangered. By considering these species early in your planning process you may be able to avoid the problems that could develop if one of these candidates was listed before the end of your project.
Species of Concern The Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office no longer maintains a list of species of concern. However, various other agencies and organizations maintain lists of at-risk species. These lists provide essential information for land management planning and conservation efforts.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm 2/10/2009 Sacramento Fish & Wildlife Office Species List Page 4 of 4
More info
Wetlands If your project will impact wetlands, riparian habitat, or other jurisdictional waters as defined by section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, you will need to obtain a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Impacts to wetland habitats require site specific mitigation and monitoring. For questions regarding wetlands, please contact Mark Littlefield of this office at (916) 414-6580.
Updates Our database is constantly updated as species are proposed, listed and delisted. If you address proposed and candidate species in your planning, this should not be a problem. However, we recommend that you get an updated list every 90 days. That would be May 11, 2009.
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/spp_lists/auto_list.cfm 2/10/2009
Appendix F Capay Dam Restoration Project Cultural Resources Survey Report
CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Cultural Resources Survey Report
Prepared for May 2009 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Cultural Resources Survey Report
Prepared for May 2009 Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District
2600 Capitol Avenue Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 www.esassoc.com
Los Angeles
Oakland
Olympia
Petaluma
Portland
San Diego
San Francisco
Seattle
Tampa
Woodland Hills
206437
TABLE OF CONTENTS Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project Cultural Resources Survey Report
Page
Summary of Findings S-1 1. Introduction 1-1 2. Project Location and Description 2-1 Undertaking Location 2-1 Description of the Undertaking 2-1 Area of Potential Effect (APE) 2-1 3. Regulatory Requirements 3-1 Federal 3-1 State 3-4 Local 3-6 4. Cultural Setting 4-1 Prehistoric Background 4-1 Ethnographic Background 4-2 Historic Background 4-2 5. Methods 5-1 Archival Search 5-1 Native American Consultation 5-1 Field Survey 5-2 6. Results 6-1 Records Search Results 6-1 Native American Consultation 6-2 Survey Findings 6-2 Recommendations – Archaeological Resources 6-5 Recommendations – Architectural Resources 6-5 7. References 7-1
Appendices A. Native American Consultation A-1 B. Original DPR 523 Forms for Capay Dam and Adams Canal B-1 C. Updated DPR 523 Forms for Capay Dam C-1
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project i ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Table of Contents
Page
List of Figures 1. 24K Topo with Project Area 2-2 2. Study Area 2-3 3. Capay Dam 6-2 4. Erosion of Streambed under Capay Dam 6-3 5. Adams Canal 6-4
List of Tables 1. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within ½ Mile Radius of the APE 6-1
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project ii ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
This report documents the cultural resources study completed for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project in Yolo County, California. Due to oversight from the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers the study is required to comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended. The study consisted of a records search at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, contact with the Native American Heritage Commission and appropriate Native American organizations/individuals, and a field survey.
No recorded archaeological sites have been previously recorded in the Area of Potential Effect (APE). No archaeological resources were recorded during this current survey.
Two recorded historic-period structural resources were located within the APE: the 1915 Capay Dam, and a segment of the c. 1857 Adams Canal. Each of these are described below.
The 1915 Capay Dam was determined potentially eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (National Register) in 1986. Emergency maintenance and repair work performed on the Capay Dam since it was originally evaluated has resulted in an altered appearance. A re- evaluation of the Capay Dam in March 2009 determined that despite its recent alterations, this resource retains a sufficient amount of physical integrity to convey its historical association with local agriculture, and therefore would remain eligible for listing in the National Register. As the dam is structurally unsound due to scouring effects, the undertaking would prevent the possibly future destruction of the dam during high flow periods. Therefore, the proposed undertaking would not result in a significant adverse effect to the Capay Dam. No mitigation measures have been identified.
A segment of the Adams Canal located approximately ½ mile of the project area was recorded in 1989, and was determined to be a potentially significant historical resource at that time. A portion of the Adams Canal extends to the Capay Dam and is within the APE. The segment of the Adams Canal located immediately adjacent to the project area was evaluated in March 2009, and determined to be potentially historically significant resource as well. The proposed undertaking would result in no significant adverse direct or indirect impacts to the Adams Canal, which would remain potentially eligible for listing in the National Register. (Department of Parks and Recreations forms for both of these resources were completed and are located in Appendix B).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project S-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SECTION 1 Introduction
Environmental Science Associates (ESA) was retained by the Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (YCFCWCD or District) to conduct a cultural resource investigation for the proposed replacement of the existing concrete apron of the Capay Dam, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream. Since the project would affect waters of the United States, the project proponent must meet requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and therefore, is seeking a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Sacramento District. Due to federal involvement, the cultural resources survey and assessment was conducted in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA, as amended and its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 800). The purpose of this cultural resources study, in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA, was to:
• identify historic properties, including prehistoric and historic archaeological resources, buildings, structures, and places of importance to Native Americans located within the Area of Potential Effect (APE); • evaluate cultural resources according to the criteria set forth by Section 106; • determine whether the proposed project will have an adverse affect on historic properties; and • recommend procedures for avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects to potentially significant cultural resources.
The archaeological component of this study was completed by Heidi Koenig who has an M.A. in Cultural Resources Management, is a Registered Professional Archaeologist, and has 8 years of archaeological experience throughout California. Ms. Koenig meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for archaeologist.
This historic architectural analysis of this study was completed by Katherine Anderson who has an M.A. in Public History, and meets the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualification Standards for historian.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 1-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SECTION 2 Project Location and Description
Undertaking Location
The Proposed Undertaking is located on Cache Creek in northwestern Yolo County, California and sits just outside the unincorporated town of Capay. The dam spans the width of Cache Creek.
The study area is located within the Mexican-era land-grant of Canada de Capay on the Esparto, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 1). The dam is located on Cache Creek, north of State Route 16 and east of County Road 82B. Surrounding uses include rural residential and agricultural properties, as well as recreation along Cache Creek. The extent of the study area is shown in Figure 2.
Description of the Undertaking
The District has determined that the apron on Capay Dam must be replaced due to the inadequate hydraulic performance of that structure, deterioration of the concrete due to sediment erosion resulting in structural instability, and exposure of the foundation due to a combination of Cache Creek degradation and local scour off the end of the apron.
The District proposes to dewater the site, remove the riprap along the toe of the dam, remove approximately 75 feet of the current apron that was repaired in 2003, and excavate into bedrock on the downstream face of the existing apron. The District would then fill the void with gravel fill, replace and extend the apron with roller compacted concrete, and place new riprap along the toe of the new cutoff wall of the apron.
Area of Potential Effect (APE)
The APE for this project is limited to the Capay Dam, the area between the dam and the proposed concrete grade control structure proposed to be located approximately 150 feet downstream, and associated staging areas adjacent to the dam (Figure 2).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 2-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 ESPARTO
1/4 Mile Buffer Project Area
0 2,000
Feet
Capay Dam . P208607 SOURCE: USGS, 1993; and ESA, 2009 Figure 1 24K Topo with Project Area Proposed Project Staging Areas
0 100
Feet
Capay Dam Restoration Project Cultural Resources Survey Report . 208607 SOURCE: GlobeXplorer, 2007; Stantec, 2009; and ESA, 2009 Figure 2 Project Study Area
SECTION 3 Regulatory Requirements
Federal
The cultural resources investigation conducted for the proposed project was conducted to comply with the requirements of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The NEPA review process for cultural resources impact assessment has been conducted concurrently with the requirements of Section 106 of the NHPA.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 requires federal agencies, or those they fund or permit, to consider the effects of their actions on the properties that may be eligible for listing or are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It is generally the federal agency’s responsibility to consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) before granting permits, funding, or other authorization of the undertaking. The Section 106 review process normally involves a four-step procedure described in detail in the regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR Part 800):
• identify and evaluate historic properties in consultation with the SHPO and interested parties; • assess the effects of the undertaking on properties that are eligible for inclusion in the NRHP; • consult with the SHPO, other agencies, and interested parties to develop an agreement that addresses the treatment of historic properties and notify the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation; and • proceed with the project according to the conditions of the agreement.
Archaeological and architectural resources (buildings and structures) are protected through the NHPA of 1966 (16 USC 470f) and its implementing regulation, Protection of Historic Properties (36 CFR Part 800), the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, and the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979. Prior to implementing an “undertaking” (e.g., issuing a federal permit), Section 106 of the NHPA requires federal agencies, to consider the effects of the undertaking on historic properties and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
the SHPO a reasonable opportunity to comment on any undertaking that would adversely affect properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Under the NHPA, a find is significant if it meets the NRHP listing criteria at 36 CFR 60.4, as stated below:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and:
a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history, or b) That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past, or c) That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction, or d) That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
In addition to meeting the criteria of significance, a property must have integrity. Integrity is defined as “the ability of a property to convey its significance” (U.S. Department of the Interior 1995). The National Register recognizes seven qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity. To retain historic integrity a property must possess several, and usually most, of these seven aspects. Thus, the retention of the specific aspects of integrity is paramount for a property to convey its significance. The seven factors that define integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
State California Register of Historical Resources The California Register of Historical Resources (California Register) is “an authoritative listing and guide to be used by state and local agencies, private groups, and citizens in identifying the existing historical resources of the state and to indicate which resources deserve to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change.” (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[a]). The criteria for eligibility for the California Register are based upon National Register criteria (California Public Resources Code § 5024.1[b]). Certain resources are determined by the statute to be automatically included in the California Register, including California properties formally determined eligible for, or listed in, the National Register.
To be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources, a prehistoric or historical property must be significant at the local, state, and/or federal level under one or more of the following criteria:
• Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; • Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-2 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
• Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or • Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
A resource eligible for the California Register must meet one of the criteria of significance described above, and retain enough of its historic character or appearance (integrity) to be recognizable as a historical resource and to convey the reason for its significance. It is possible that a historical resource may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but it may still be eligible for listing in the California Register.
Additionally, the California Register consists of resources that are listed automatically and those that must be nominated through an application and public hearing process. The California Register automatically includes the following:
• California properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places and those formally Determined Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. • California Registered Historical Landmarks from No. 770 onward. • Those California Points of Historical Interest that have been evaluated by the OHP and have been recommended to the State Historical Commission for inclusion on the California Register. • Other resources that may be nominated to the California Register include: • Historical resources with a significance rating of Category 3 through 5 (Those properties identified as eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and/or a local jurisdiction register). • Individual historical resources. • Historical resources contributing to historic districts. • Historical resources designated or listed as local landmarks, or designated under any local ordinance, such as an historic preservation overlay zone. Local Yolo County General Plan The Yolo County General Plan addresses goals and objectives for cultural resources preservation within its Open Space and Recreation Element and its Historic Preservation Element (Yolo County, 1983). The following includes goals and objectives relevant to the proposed Project.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-3 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
OG-6. Goal
Preserve cultural resources
OO-8. Objectives
Protection of identified areas of unique historical or cultural values within the County and preservation of those sites for educational, scientific, and aesthetic purposes.
HP 1. Goal.
Yolo County shall support the preservation and enhancement of historic and prehistoric resources within the County when fiscally able.
HP 2. Objectives.
2.1 To preserve Yolo County's natural resources with historical significance by designating certain natural resources such as trees and vegetation as "historic" and by supporting a program to preserve them.
2.2 To preserve Yolo County's prehistoric resources by identifying and preserving Native American sites and other significant archaeological sites and by encouraging development of demonstration sites.
2.3 To preserve Yolo County's natural resources with historical significance by designating certain natural resources such as trees and vegetation as "historic" and by supporting a program to preserve them, including
1. Identification of historic resources within the County; 2. Recording the historic resources identified in the 1986 Yolo County Historic Resources Survey on the General Plan map and maintenance and updating of the map for planning purposes; 3. Adoption of a Historic Preservation Ordinance and establishment of a Yolo County Historic Preservation Commission; 4. Support for the conversion of older residential structures in commercial zones to commercial or office use and of older historically significant structures in agricultural areas to tourist uses through the use permit process while maintaining or enhancing their historical authenticity; 5. Encouragement of County efforts to seek financing for the preservation of the County's historic resources; and 6. To encourage the property owners to revitalize their properties through incentives such as utilizing the Historic Building Code, easements, state and federal tax exemptions as well as seeking Community Development Block Grant funds.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 3-4 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SECTION 4 Cultural Setting
Prehistoric Background
A three-part cultural chronological sequence, the Central California Taxonomic System (CCTS) was developed by archaeologists to explain local and regional cultural change in prehistoric central California from approximately 4,500 years ago to the time of European contact (Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga, 1939; Beardsley, 1948, 1954). In 1969, several researchers addressed the substantive taxonomic problems that had developed with the CCTS.
The Windmiller Pattern was the earliest comprehensive view of the region for the terminal-Paleo- Indian Period to Lower Archaic period (~6,000 B.C. to ~3,000 B.C.) (Beardsley, 1954; Heizer & Fenenga, 1939; Ragir, 1972). This cultural horizon reflected a people well adapted to riverine and marshland environments. Scholars have maintained that these Penutian speakers emigrated from the Columbia Plateau or western Great Basin and settled in the bountiful Delta region where they gave rise to many of the Bay Area cultures that survived up to historic times, such as the Costanoan, Miwok, Yokut, and Wintun (Fagan, 1995).
The Windmiller economy was diffuse in breadth, a common trait among peoples during this time. People made use of a wide range of resources so as to reduce risk in times of resource shortfall, such as those caused by climatic shifts. The artifactual evidence of the Windmiller tradition suggests a wide range of specialized technology suited to the diffuse nature of their diet. These artifacts included large projectile points (spear or dart tips), baked-clay net sinkers, bone fish hooks, and spears. Mortars and milling slabs were predominant during this time period, as well as charmstones and abalone shell and olive snail ornaments and beads (Beardsley 1948; Heizer, 1949; Heizer and Fenenga 1939; Ragir, 1972).
The subsequent Berkeley Pattern or Cosumnes culture (~2,000 B.C. to A.D. 300), comparable to the emerging Archaic Period in California prehistory (3,000 B.C. to A.D. 1000), reflected a change in socioeconomic complexity and settlement patterns. Many of the settlements of this period were denser and more sedentary, yet continued to exploit a diverse resource base—from woodland to grassland and marshland, to bayshore resources throughout the San Francisco Bay Area (Bickel, 1978; King, 1974). Moreover, the Archaic Period was characterized by increasing sociopolitical complexity and the radiation of peoples into new ecological niches (Chartkoff & Chartkoff, 1984).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Out of the Cosumnes Tradition came the Hotchkiss Tradition (or “Late Horizon”) by the Emergent Period (about 500 A.D.). The peoples of the Hotchkiss Tradition likely flourished in the Stockton and Delta region until European contact.
Ethnographic Background
The project area was once inhabited by the Patwin Indians, who held an extensive region within north-central California. Patwin territory included the lower portion of the west side of the Sacramento Valley west of the Sacramento River from about the location of the town of Princeton in the north to Benicia in the south (Kroeber 1925). The Patwin were bounded to the north, northeast, and east by other Penutian-speaking peoples (the Nomlaki, Wintu, and Maidu, respectively), and to the west by the Pomo and other coastal groups. Within this large territory, the Patwin have traditionally been divided into River, Hill and Southern Patwin groups, although in actuality a more complex set of linguistic and cultural differences existed than is indicated by these three geographic divisions. (Whistler 1977; McCarthy 1985)
As with most of the hunting-gathering groups of California, the "tribelet" represented the basic social and political unit. Typically, a tribelet chief would reside in a major village where ceremonial events were also typically held. The project area located just south of Cache Creek and just east of the mouth of Capay Valley was considered territory held by the Hill Patwin triblets. The Hill Patwin lived in villages occupying the intermontane valleys and clustered along Cache and Putah Creeks. As would be expected, subsistence for the inhabitants in this area would have relied heavily on riparian and wetland resources provided by the prominent water courses. Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl were important sources of protein in the diet of these groups. (Johnson 1978)
The Patwin populations suffered near extinction with the emigration of Euro-American settlers into the area through exposure to disease and the process of displacement. However, today the Patwin culture survives through descendants who still reside in Capay Valley as part of the Rumsey Band of Wintun near Cache Creek.
Historic Background
The earliest Euro-American presence in Yolo County was the expedition of Gabriel Moraga in 1808. Moraga led a Spanish expedition up the Sacramento River as far as Sutter County. By the late 1820s, English, American, and French fur trappers, attracted by the valley’s abundance of animal life, had begun operations throughout the region. The Hudson Bay Company cached their furs along smaller streams, one of which would become known as Cache Creek. In 1846 the Rancho Canada de Capay was granted to Francisco Berryessa and his two brothers, Santiago and Demisio. At more than 4,000 acres it was the largest landgrant located wholly within the area that would become Yolo County (Kyle, 2002).
The discovery of gold in 1848 at Coloma resulted in the influx of thousands of fortune seekers into California and the Sacramento area. Sacramento became a trading center with supplies from
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-2 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
San Francisco and the Central Valley sold to miners. Livestock production and grain farming became the economic mainstays of the project area. In 1858, land speculators Arnold and Gillig purchased 13,760 acres of the Berryessa grant and began to subdivide the land into parcels of 200 to 3800 acres. Capay, previously known as Munchville and Langville, was first laid out as Langville in 1874. Langville's name was changed to Capay City and then to Capay by 1889. The coming of the Southern Pacific Railroad encouraged land division and increased irrigation throughout the area. By 1888, Esperanza (later renamed Esparto) was laid out and railroad track was laid up to Rumsey at the north end of the Capay Valley. By 1900 the population of the Capay Valley was recorded at 1,381. (Capay Valley Vision, 2009).
An 1879 deed book for Yolo County indicates that the land for the Capay Dam site was sold for $1000 by John and Rebecca Gillig of Virginia City, Nevada to the Cottonwood Ditch Company. The Cotton Ditch Company had been formed in 1870 for the purpose of channeling water from Cache Creek into the Cottonwood Ditch (running from just west of Capay to Madison) for agricultural irrigation. By late 1879, a headgate and temporary dam was in place. In 1914, the Yolo County Consolidated Water Company began construction of a reinforced concrete diversion dam (Capay Dam) crossing Cache Creek. The dam was intended to improve water storage capacity for flood control and irrigation purposes. Completed in 1915, the Dam serves 150 miles of irrigation canals and diverts water into two principal canals; the Winters Canal and the West Adams Canal (see discussion of the Adams Canal, below). The dam is approximately 500 feet wide and ten feet high. In 1993, wooden flashboards were removed from the dam, and a 5-foot high inflatable bladder was installed along the entire length of the dam’s overflow section. Emergency repairs to the dam were completed in 2003, when a section of the concrete apron failed. At that time, the dam was repaired with grouted riprap.
The Adams Canal was originally an earthen water diversion feature built in 1857. It was built in sections from 1857 to 1870 by David Quincy Adams on Rancho Canada de Capay. The Adams Canal is associated with early water diversion practices and agricultural development in Yolo County, and particularly in the Rancho Canada de Capay, and may be one of the first irrigation ditches in Yolo County. The Adams Canal was extended to the Capay Dam when the dam was completed in 1915. Modifications to the canal’s original features include enlargement, placement of cement foundations for iron gates, and possible dredging, which likely occurred in the 1940s.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 4-3 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SECTION 5 Methods
Archival Search
A records search was conducted at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at Sonoma State University on February 20, 2009 (File No. #08-0972). Records were accessed by reviewing the Esparto 7.5-minute quadrangle base maps. Additional research was conducted using the files and literature at ESA. The records search included a 1/2-mile radius around the study area in order to (1) determine whether known cultural resources had been recorded within or adjacent to the study area; (2) assess the likelihood of unrecorded cultural resources based on historical references and the distribution of environmental settings of nearby sites; and (3) develop a context for identification and preliminary evaluation of cultural resources. Included in the review were the California Inventory of Historical Resources (California Department of Parks and Recreation 1976), California Historical Landmarks (1990), California Points of Historical Interest (1992), and the Historic Properties Directory Listing (2008). The Historic Properties Directory includes listings of the National Register and the California Register of Historical Resources, and the most recent listing (December 4, 2007) of the California Historical Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. The 1945 USGS Capay Quadrangle was also reviewed. Research was also conducted at the Yolo County Archives, and the Esparto Regional Branch of the Yolo County Library. Native American Consultation
Cultural institutions, lifeways, culturally valued viewsheds, places of cultural association, and other sacred places and trust assets must also be considered under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (40 CFR 1501.2), Executive Order 12898 and sometimes other authorities (Executive Order 13175, Executive Order 13007, NAGPRA). Although it basically provides another rationale for consultation with tribes, Executive Order 13007 specifically deals with sacred sites. The Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted on February 4, 2009 to request a database search for sacred lands or other cultural properties of significance within or adjacent to the study area. A response was received on February 17, 2009. The sacred lands survey did not identify the presence of cultural resources in the study area. The NAHC provided a list of seven Native American contacts that might have further knowledge of the study area with respect to cultural resources. Each person or organization identified by the NAHC was contacted by letter on February 19, 2009. On April 20, 2009, ESA received a letter from the Rumsey Indian Rancheria, stating that they were not aware of any known cultural resources on the site, and that they always recommend
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 5-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
tribal monitors be present for earth moving activities occurring along creeks or rivers. While dam repair does include earth moving within the creek bed itself, no earth moving activities are planned along Cache Creek.
Copies of all correspondence are provided in Appendix A at the end of this report.
Field Survey
ESA staff Katherine Anderson conducted an intensive pedestrian field survey of the study area on March 19, 2009 to identify potentially historic architectural resources in the study area. Structures located in the study area were photographed and evaluated for their historic significance, and are discussed below.
ESA archaeologist surveyed the APE, including the staging areas, on April 29, 2009. Potential staging areas were surveyed in 10-meter transects.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 5-2 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SECTION 6 Results
Records Search Results
Results of the cultural resources records search conducted at the NWIC indicate that a small portion of the project area had been previously surveyed. Within the APE, the Capay Dam was surveyed and evaluated in 1986 by Les-Thomas Associates.
Three additional cultural resources studies have been conducted adjacent to, but outside of, the APE. The project area was included in a countywide inventory of historic oak groves in 1986. In 1990, M.J. Moratto completed a cultural resources assessment for the PGT-PG&E Pipeline Expansion east of the project area, near the community of Capay. In 2005, St. John and Wooten completed a historical resources evaluation for improvements on State Route 16, located south of the project area.
During these surveys, one cultural resource within the APE (the 1915 Capay Dam) was recorded, and three cultural resources outside of but within ½ mile of the APE were recorded: a portion of the Adams Canal (P-57-000185), a grove of valley oak trees (P-57-000132H), and remnants of the Duncan Farmstead (P-57-000511).
TABLE 1 PREVIOUSLY RECORDED CULTURAL RESOURCES WITHIN ½ MILE RADIUS OF THE APE
Trinomial/Primary Date Recorded Description
P-57-000132H 1986 Grove of Valley Oak trees P-57-000511 2002 Remnants of the Duncan Farmstead P-57-000185 1989 The Adams Canal YOL-HRI-1/017 1986 1915 Capay Dam
SOURCE: CCIC, 2008
With the exception of the Capay Dam, all other recorded resources are located ¼ to ½ mile from the APE. However, while a portion of the Adams Canal surveyed in 1989 is located approximately 1 ½ miles east of the APE, another portion of the Adams canal extends to into the northern part of the APE. The original DPR forms for the Capay Dam and the Adams Canal are located in Appendix B. A description of the Capay Dam and the Adams Canal are provided below.
The closest California Historic Landmark to the APE is the Gable Mansion (CHL 864), one of the last 19th Century Victorian Italianate mansions of its style, size, and proportion in California.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 6-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
It was built in 1885 for Amos and Harvey Gable, pioneer Yolo County ranchers. The landmark is located approximately 17 miles east of the APE at 659 First Street in Woodland. The closest site listed on the National Register of Historic Places is the Canon School, built in 1894, located approximately 4 ½ miles northwest of the APE on Highway 16 at Road 76.
Native American Consultation
The NAHC’s February 17, 2009 response indicated that the sacred lands survey did not identify the presence of cultural resources in the study area. The NAHC provided a list of seven Native American contacts that might have further knowledge of the study area with respect to cultural resources. Each person or organization identified by the NAHC was contacted by letter on February 19, 2009. On April 20th, ESA received a letter from the Rumsey Rancheria of Wintun Indians, stating that they were unaware of any known cultural resources on the site. The Rumsey Rancheria also stated that they always recommend tribal monitors be present for any ground moving activities along creeks or rivers. On May 7, 2009, ESA made follow up phone calls and emails to the remaining contacts provided by the NAHC. To date, no additional comments have been received. Survey Findings
No newly discovered cultural resources were encountered during the survey of the APE. One previously identified resource, the Capay Dam, was relocated in the APE. A description and reevaluation of the Dam is provided below, and updated DPR 523 forms are included in Appendix C. The segment of the Adams Canal located in the APE was also surveyed and evaluated. A DPR form for the Adams Canal is also included in Appendix C.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 6-2 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Structure Descriptions and Evaluations Capay Dam:
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project. 208607 SOURCE: ESA, 2009 Figure 3 Capay Dam
Capay Dam (YOL-HRI-1/017): located on parcels 48-140-01 and 48-130-17, this resource was originally evaluated in 1986. This resource is a reinforced concrete dam measuring approximately 470 feet long, 10 feet high, and 5 feet wide at the top of the dam sloping down to 10 feet wide at the base. The dam also includes a 16 foot wide concrete apron. Horizontal and vertical cracks are evident along the length of the dam and apron. On either side of the dam are sluice gates which distribute water to the Adams and Winters Canals, as well as a small control building on the south side of the dam that houses the pump mechanism for the inflatable bladder.
The dam was originally equipped with sockets in the dam crest to install flashboards during periods of high water. In 1993, the sockets and flashboards were removed, and a 5-foot high inflatable bladder was installed along the approximately 470-foot length of overflow section of dam. The downstream face of the dam and apron were originally designed and constructed to be covered with lumber. At some point in time, the use of lumber was abandoned. The downstream face of the dam had a concrete overlay installed in the 1940s, intended to repair sediment induced erosion of the concrete. The concrete overlay is missing in numerous large sections (Stantec Consulting, 2007).
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 6-3 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project. 208607 SOURCE: Stantec Consulting, 2007 Figure 4 Erosion of Streambed under Capay Dam
The surface concrete of the apron is in poor condition with considerable erosion, large cracks, and disrepair. A section of the apron failed in 2003 and was subsequently repaired with grouted riprap. However since this time, a portion of the riprap has slumped and rotated away from the cutoff wall. Additionally, other areas of the riprap have been undermined including a 50-foot length at the left end of the dam where the streambed has eroded about 30 inches below the bottom of the riprap (see Figure 4). It is likely that scour is undermining the riprap, which will eventually cause the riprap to fail and the apron to loosen from its foundation. The depth of scour is due to the degradation of the bed of Cache Creek downstream of the dam, coupled with high energy flow sweeping off the end of the apron that is too short to dissipate the high velocities of flows. Scour at the toe of the apron is a serious threat to the integrity of the dam (Stantec Consulting, 2007).
The removal of the flashboards and associated wooden features of the dam, installation of additional riprap on the dam and along the cutoff wall, as well as the installation of the inflatable bladder and associated ancillary structures has resulted in alterations to the appearance of the dam since its 1986 evaluation. Extensive erosion has resulted in cracks and disrepair to the dam and apron, resulting
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 6-4 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
in impacts to the integrity of the dam as well as a threat to its structural integrity. However, the dam retains a sufficient amount of its physical integrity to convey its importance in the broad patterns of history of agriculture within the area (Criteria a). The dam would therefore continue to be considered an potential historic property under NEPA and CEQA.
Adams Canal:
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project. 208607 SOURCE: ESA, 2009 Figure 5 Adams Canal
The Adams Canal (P-57-000185): located on parcel 48-130-17, a more easterly portion of this resource was originally evaluated in 1989 (and described above). This resource is a U-shaped, concrete lined canal measuring approximately 10 feet wide and 7 feet deep. While the canal dates to the mid 19th century, the concrete lining of the canal dates to the same period as the concrete lining of the dam during the 1940s. A gravel road is located to the south of the segment of the canal, and an earthen embankment is immediately north.
The segment of canal located immediately adjacent to the dam remains in good condition, although it has been extensively modified due to the construction and maintenance of the dam and associated sluiceways, which has removed its immediate association with its mid-19th century earthen canal construction, and associations with mid-19th century water diversion practices and agricultural development in Yolo County. However, the canal remains associated with water diversion and agricultural development in Yolo County (Criteria A). Therefore this portion of the Adams Canal would be considered a potential historic property under NEPA and CEQA.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 6-5 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Recommendations – Archaeological Resources
No recorded archaeological sites are located within a ½-mile radius of the study area. No archaeological resources were recorded during this current survey. No additional work is recommended regarding archaeological resources.
Recommendations – Architectural Resources
Despite recent alterations to the Capay Dam, it retains sufficient physical integrity to convey its historic associations with the broader patterns of agriculture within Yolo County. As such, the Capay Dam remains potentially eligible for listing in the National and California Registers. Due to the degraded bed of Cache Creek and river scouring action which has resulted in the deep exposure of the cutoff wall, the apron and dam are threatened with destruction during high flow events. The proposed undertaking would remove the existing riprap and replace the existing apron, preventing the possible future destruction of the dam. As the proposed undertaking would eliminate the possible destruction of the resource, the proposed undertaking would not have a significant, adverse effect on the historic significance of the Capay Dam. No mitigation would be necessary.
The segment of the Adams Canal located on the north end of the APE appears to be potentially eligible for listing in the National and California Registers. The proposed undertaking, however, would have no effect on this resource. No mitigation would be necessary.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 6-6 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009
SECTION 7 References
Bean, Lowell John, and Dorothea Theodoratus, Western Pomo and Northeastern Pomo. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 289–305. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1978. Beardsley, R.K., 1948, “Culture sequences in central California archaeology,” American Antiquity 14(1): 1-29. Beardsley, R.K., 1954, Temporal and areal relationships in central California archaeology. Parts I and II. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, Nos. 24 & 25, Berkeley, California. Bickel, P. McW., 1978, “Changing sea levels along the California coast: anthropological implications,” Journal of California Archaeology 5(1): 6-20. California Department of Parks and Recreation, California Inventory of Historical Resources. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, 1976. California Office of Historic Preservation, Historic Properties Directory Listing by City (through January 2009). State Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento, 2009. Chartkoff, J.L and Chartkoff, K.K., 1984, The archaeology of California. Stanford University Press: Stanford, California. Fagan, B.M., 1995, Ancient North America: The archaeology of a continent. Thames and Hudson, New York. Fredrickson, D.A., Cultural Diversity in Early Central California: A View from the North Coast Ranges. Journal of California Anthropology 1(1):41–53, 1974. ______, Central California Archaeology: The Concepts of Pattern and Aspect. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp. 75–79. Contributions to the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52. Berkeley, 1994. Hackel, O., 1966, Summary of the geology of the Great Valley, Geology of Northern California: California Division of Mines and Geology, Bulletin 190: 508. Heizer, R. F., and F. Fenenga, 1939, “Archaeological horizons in central California,” American Anthropologist 41: 378-399. Heizer, R.F., 1949, “The archaeology of central California I: The Early Horizon,” University of California Anthropological Records, Vol. 12(1):1-84. Hoover, Mildred et al., 1966, Historic Spots in California, revised by William N. Abeloe, :Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 7-1 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Johnson, P.J. 1978. Patwin. Pages 350-360 in R.F. Heizer (ed.), Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8: California. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. King, T. F., 1974, “The evolution of status ascription around San Francisco Bay” in Antap: California Indian Political and Economic Organization, Bellena Press Anthropological Papers: 2: 35-54. Kroeber, A. L., 1925, Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletins, No. 78., Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Lillard, J.B., Heizer, R.F., and Fenenga, F., 1939, “An introduction to the archaeology of central California” Sacramento Junior College, Department of Anthropology, Bulletin, No. 2: Sacramento, California. McCarthy, H. 1985. Linguistics and its Implications for California Ethnogeography and Culture History. Pages 20–35 in Ethnography and Prehistory of the North Coast Ranges, California, Publication Number 8, Center for Archaeological Research, University of California, Davis, CA. McIntre and Lewis, Official Map of the County of Sonoma, California, 1908. McKern, W.C. 1922. Functional Families of the Patwin. American Archaeology and Ethnology 13 (7): 235-258. McLendon, Sally, and Robert L. Oswalt, Pomo: Introduction. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 274–288. Handbook of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., 1978. Moratto, M. J., 1984, California Archaeology. Smithsonian Press: San Diego, CA. Ragir, S., 1972, “The Early Horizon in central California prehistory.” University of California Archaeological Research Facility Contributions, No. 15: Berkeley, California. Stantec Consulting, 2007. Capay Dam Inspection and Assessment. Prepared for Yolo County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Capay Dam Inspection and Assessment United States Geological Survey (USGS), Esparto, Calif. 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle, 1993. Whistler, K.A. 1977. Wintun Prehistory: An Interpretation Based on Reconstruction of Plant and Animal Nomenclature. Pages 157-174 in Proceedings of the Third Annual Meeting of the Berkely Lingusitics Society, Berkeley Linguistics Society. Berkeley, CA.
Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project 7-2 ESA / 208607 Cultural Resources Survey Report May 2009 Appendix A Native American Consultation
2600 Capitol Avenue www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 4, 2009
Debbie Pilas-Treadway Native American Heritage Commission 915 Capitol Mall, Room 364 Sacramento, CA 95814
SUBJECT: Request for Search of Sacred Lands Files and Native American Contact List
Dear Ms. Treadway:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek.
In an effort to provide an adequate appraisal of all potential impacts that may result from the proposed project, ESA is requesting that a search be conducted of the sacred lands files and records of traditional cultural properties that may exist within or adjacent to the project area. I would also like to request a list of Native American individuals and organizations that should be contacted about potential sites and resources of importance to Native Americans.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. Please contact me at 916-564-4500 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resource Associate
2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Kesner Flores PO Box 1047 Wheatland, CA 95692
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Dear Mr. Flores:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments 2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Cortina Band of Indians Elaine Patterson, Chairperson PO Box 1630 Williams, CA 95987
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Dear Ms. Patterson:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments
2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Cortina Band of Indians Karen Flores, Vice Chairperson PO Box 1630 Williams, CA 95987
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Dear Ms. Flores:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments
2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians Marshall McKay, Chairperson PO Box 18 Brooks, CA 95606
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Dear Mr. McKay:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments
2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians Leland Kinter, Native Cultural Renewal Committee PO Box 18 Brooks, CA 95606
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Dear Mr. Kinter:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments 2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Rumsey Indian Rancheria of Wintun Indians Cynthia Clark, Native Cultural Renewal Committee PO Box 18 Brooks, CA 95606
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
Dear Ms. Clark:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments 2600 Capitol Ave www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95814 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
February 19, 2009
Wintun Environmental Protection Agency PO Box 1839 Williams, CA 95987
Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project
To Whom It May Concern:
ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson Cultural Resources Associate
Attachments
file:///G|/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20Capay%20Dam%20Restoration%2...0Resources/Appendix%20A%20-%20NAHC/Flores%20email%20050709.htm From: Kathy Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:32 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project consultation
Attachments: Capay Dam 24Ktopo.pdf Dear Mr. Flores,
This email is being sent as a follow up to our original letter, dated February 19, 2009. ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson
Katherine Anderson Associate III ESA | Cultural Resources 2600 Capitol Ave, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500| 916.564.4501 fax [email protected]
file:///G|/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20Capay%20Dam%20R...ppendix%20A%20-%20NAHC/Flores%20email%20050709.htm [5/12/2009 11:58:29 AM] file:////sfo-file01/Projects/SAC/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20Capay%...20Resources/Appendix%20A%20-%20NAHC/Flores%20email%20050709.htm From: Kathy Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:32 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project consultation
Attachments: Capay Dam 24Ktopo.pdf Dear Mr. Flores,
This email is being sent as a follow up to our original letter, dated February 19, 2009. ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson
Katherine Anderson Associate III ESA | Cultural Resources 2600 Capitol Ave, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500| 916.564.4501 fax [email protected]
file:////sfo-file01/Projects/SAC/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%...ces/Appendix%20A%20-%20NAHC/Flores%20email%20050709.htm5/7/2009 8:37:26 AM 2600 Capitol Avenue www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
telephone notes
project project no. Capay Dam 208607 date time May 7, 2009 present Kathy Anderson route to
contact Karen Flores title Vice Chairperson agency Cortina Band of Indians phone 530 473 3274
subject NAHC Consultation
action required
Receptionist answered, stating that Karen Flores no longer works for the Cortina Band of Indians, and that no one was available to discuss the project. 2600 Capitol Avenue www.esassoc.com Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500 phone 916.564.4501 fax
telephone notes
project project no. Capay Dam 208607 date time May 7, 2009 present Kathy Anderson route to
contact Kesner Flores title
agency
phone 925 586 8919
subject NAHC Consultation
action required
Voicemail - left a message describing the project and asking Mr Flores to return the call if he had any questions or concerns.
file:///G|/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20Capay%20Dam%20Restoration%20...ntun%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency%20email%20050709.htm From: Kathy Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:29 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project consultation
Attachments: Capay Dam 24Ktopo.pdf To Whom It May Concern:
This email is being sent as a follow up to our original letter, dated February 19, 2009. ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson
Katherine Anderson Associate III ESA | Cultural Resources 2600 Capitol Ave, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500| 916.564.4501 fax [email protected]
file:///G|/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20Capay%20Dam%20Re...onmental%20Protection%20Agency%20email%20050709.htm [5/12/2009 11:58:57 AM] file:////sfo-file01/Projects/SAC/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20Capay%20...Wintun%20Environmental%20Protection%20Agency%20email%20050709.htm From: Kathy Anderson Sent: Thursday, May 07, 2009 7:29 AM To: '[email protected]' Subject: Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project consultation
Attachments: Capay Dam 24Ktopo.pdf To Whom It May Concern:
This email is being sent as a follow up to our original letter, dated February 19, 2009. ESA is conducting environmental studies for the Capay Dam Apron Replacement Project, Yolo County. The project is located on the Esparto USGS 7.5’ Quad; T/R Canada de Capay Land Grant (See attached map). The project would remove and replace the existing 475 foot concrete apron located within the banks of Cache Creek, as well as the construction of new grade control structure to be located 150 feet downstream which is intended to protect the dam from continued streambed degradation.
In an effort to address any potential impact to archaeological or ethnographic resources, we are seeking comments from Native American representatives; your name was supplied to us by the Native American Heritage Commission as a contact for this area. We would appreciate your comments identifying any concerns or issues pertinent to this project.
Thank you for your time and cooperation regarding this matter. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Katherine Anderson
Katherine Anderson Associate III ESA | Cultural Resources 2600 Capitol Ave, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95816 916.564.4500| 916.564.4501 fax [email protected]
file:////sfo-file01/Projects/SAC/208xxx/D208607.00%20-%20...0Environmental%20Protection%20Agency%20email%20050709.htm5/7/2009 8:37:42 AM
Appendix B Original DPR 523 Forms for Capay Dam and Adams Canal
Appendix C Updated DPR 523 Forms for Capay Dam
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# YOL-HRI-1/017 CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or # Capay Dam
*Recorded by: Katherine Anderson, ESA *Date: April 11, 2009 Continuation Update 2600 Capitol Ave, Ste 200 Sacramento, CA 95814
Capay Dam (YOL-HRI-1/017), located on parcels 48-140-01 and 48-130-17, was originally evaluated in 1986. This resource is a reinforced concrete dam measuring approximately 470 feet long, 10 feet high, and 5 feet wide at the top of the dam sloping down to 10 feet wide at the base (See Photograph 1). The dam also includes a 16 foot wide concrete apron. Horizontal and vertical cracks are evident along the length of the dam and apron. On either side of the dam are sluice gates which distribute water to the Adams and Winters Canals, as well as a small control building on the south side of the dam that houses the pump mechanism for the inflatable bladder.
An 1879 deed book for Yolo County indicates that the land for the Capay Dam site was sold for $1000 by John and Rebecca Gillig of Virginia City, Nevada to the Cottonwood Ditch Company. The Cotton Ditch Company had been formed in 1870 for the purpose of channeling water from Cache Creek into the Cottonwood Ditch (running from just west of Capay to Madison) for agricultural irrigation. By late 1879, a headgate and temporary dam was in place. In 1914, the Yolo County Consolidated Water company began construction of a reinforced concrete diversion dam (Capay Dam) crossing Cache Creek he dam was intended to improve water storage capacity for flood control and irrigation purposes. Completed in 1915, the Dam serves 150 miles of irrigation canals and diverts water into two principle canals, the Winters Canal and the West Adams Canal.
The Capay dam has been instrumental in serving the western portion of the county with irrigation water which has been central to agriculture in the region. This dam is part of a larger ditch system linking land owners with irrigable water as early as the 1850s. The dam remains since its construction and is still used today.
The dam was originally equipped with sockets in the dam crest to install flashboards during periods of high water. In 1993, wooden flashboards were removed from the dam, and a 5-foot high inflatable bladder was installed along the entire length dam’s overflow section. The downstream face of the dam and apron were originally designed and constructed to be covered with lumber. At some point in time, the use of lumber was abandoned. The downstream face of the dam had a concrete overlay installed in the 1940s, intended to repair sediment induced erosion of the concrete. Emergency repairs to the dam were completed in 2003. A section of the concrete apron failed in 2003 and was subsequently repaired with grouted riprap. The concrete overlay is missing in numerous large sections.
The surface concrete of the apron is in poor condition with considerable erosion, large cracks, and disrepair. A section of the apron failed in 2003 and was subsequently repaired with grouted riprap. However since this time, a portion of the riprap has slumped and rotated away from the cutoff wall. Additionally, other areas of the riprap have been undermined including a 50-foot length at the left end of the dam where the streambed has eroded about 30 inches below the bottom of the riprap (see Photograph 2). It is likely that scour is undermining the riprap causing riprap to fail and the apron to loose its foundation. The depth of scour is due to the degradation of the bed of Cache Creek downstream of the dam coupled with high energy flow sweeping off the end of the apron that is too short to contain the high velocity flow. Scour at the toe of the apron is a serious threat to the integrity of the dam.
The removal of the flashboards and associated wooden features of the dam, installation of additional riprap on the dam and along the cutoff wall, as well as the installation of the inflatable bladder and associated ancillary structures has resulted in alterations to the appearance of the dam since its 1986 evaluation. Extensive erosion has resulted in cracks and disrepair to the dam and apron, resulting in impacts to the integrity of the dam as well as a threat to its structural integrity. However, the dam retains a sufficient amount of its physical integrity to convey its importance in DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information the broad patterns of history of agriculture within the area (Criteria A). The dam would therefore continue to be considered an historic resource under NEPA and CEQA.
Photograph 1: Capay Dam, facing northwest March 2009
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# YOL-HRI-1/017 CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 3 *Resource Name or # Capay Dam
*Recorded by: Katherine Anderson, ESA *Date: April 11, 2009 Continuation Update 2600 Capitol Ave, Ste 200 Sacramento, CA 95814
Photograph 2: Capay Dam, facing north, 2007
DPR 523L (1/95) *Required information
State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # PRIMARY RECORD Trinomial NRHP Status Code Other Listings Review Code Reviewer Date Page 1 of 2 *Resource Name or #: Adams Canal
P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: Not for Publication Unrestricted *a. County: Yolo and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.) *b. USGS 7.5' Quad: Esparto Date: 1993 T ; Canada de Capay Land GrantR; ¼ of ¼ of Sec ; M.D. B.M. c. Address: n/a City: Zip: d. UTM: Zone: 10 ; mE/ mN (G.P.S.) e. Other Locational Data: To access this resources, follow County Road 85 out of Capay for .5 miles. Immediately before crossing the Adams Canal, turn left at the gravel lined private maintenance road and follow the road until it reaches the Capay Dam. The Adams Canal will be located immediately to the right.
*P3a. Description:
This resource is a segment of the Adams Canal located immediately adjacent to the sluice gates of the Capay Dam. It is a U- shaped, concrete lined canal measuring approximately 10 feet wide, and 7 feet deep.
*P3b. Resource Attributes: HP20. Canal/aqueduct *P4. Resources Present: Building Structure Object Site District Element of District Other (Isolates, etc.) P5b. Description of Photo: Adams P5a. Photo or Drawing Canal, facing west, March 2009
*P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: 1857 NWIC, P-57-000185 Historic Prehistoric Both
*P7. Owner and Address: Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District 34274 State Highway 16 Woodland, CA 95695
*P8. Recorded by: Katherine Anderson, ESA 2600 Capitol Ave, Ste 200 Sacramento, CA 95814
*P9. Date Recorded: March 19, 2009 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive
*P11. Report Citation: ESA, 2009. CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Cultural Resources Survey Report. Prepared for Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District.
*Attachments: NONE Location Map Sketch Map Continuation Sheet Building, Structure, and Object Record Archaeological Record District Record Linear Feature Record Milling Station Record Rock Art Record Artifact Record Photograph Record Other (List): DPR 523A (1/95) *Required information State of California ⎯ The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 2 *NRHP Status Code *Resource Name or # Adams Canal
B1. Historic Name: Adams Canal B2. Common Name: Adams Canal B3. Original Use: canal B4. Present Use: canal *B5. Architectural Style: *B6. Construction History: c 1857 Original construction c 1914 Construction of Capay Dam and sluice gates c 1940 Concrete lining installed
*B7. Moved? No Yes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features:
B9a. Architect: n/a b. Builder: David Quincy Adams *B10. Significance: Theme: Agriculture Area: Yolo County, Capay Valley Period of Significance: 1914-1945 Property Type: Agricultural Canal Applicable Criteria: A
The original Adams Canal was an earthen water diversion feature originally built in 1857. It may be one of the first irrigation ditches in Yolo County and was built from 1857 to 1870 by David Quincy Adams on Rancho Canada de Capay. While the canal dates to the mid-19th century, the concrete lining of the canal dates to the same period as the concrete lining of the Capa Dam during the 1940s. A gravel road is located to the south of the segment of the canal, and an earthen embankment is immediately north.
The Adams Canal is associated with early water diversion practices and agricultural development in Yolo County, and particularly in the Rancho Canada de Capay.
The segment of canal located immediately adjacent to the dam remains in good condition, although it has been extensively modified due to the construction and maintenance of the dam and associated sluiceways, which has removed its immediate association with its mid-19th century earthen canal construction, and associations with mid-19th century water diversion practices and agricultural development in Yolo County. However, the canal remains associated with water diversion and agricultural development in Yolo County (Criteria A). Therefore this portion of the Adams Canal would be considered an historic resource under NEPA and CEQA.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: HP20. Canal/aqueduct
*B12. References: ESA, 2009. CAPAY DAM APRON REPLACEMENT YOLO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Cultural Resources Survey Report. Prepared for Yolo County Flood Control & Water Conservation District.
B13. Remarks:
*B14. Evaluator: Katherine Anderson, ESA. 2600 Capitol Ave, Suite 200, Sacramento, CA 95814
*Date of Evaluation: April 11, 2009
(This space reserved for official comments.)
DPR 523B (1/95) *Required information