DOCSLIB.ORG

Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project U.S. Department of the Interior City of Sacramento Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region June 2019 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................ ii Section 1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives ................................. 6 Section 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action .................................. 8 2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 8 2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................... 8 Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........ 24 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................. 25 3.2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .................................... 26 3.3 Air Quality ............................................................................. 26 3.4 Biological Resources ........................................................... 29 3.5 Cultural Resources .............................................................. 33 3.6 Geology and Soils ................................................................ 35 3.7 Hazardous Materials ............................................................ 37 3.8 Water Resources (Hydrology and Water Quality) ................ 37 3.9 Noise .................................................................................... 43 3.10 Recreation ............................................................................ 45 3.11 Transportation ...................................................................... 47 3.12 Environmental Commitments ............................................... 48 3.13 Cumulative Effects ............................................................... 60 Section 4. Consultation and Coordination ..................................................... 63 4.1 Public Review Period ........................................................... 63 4.2 State Historic Preservation Officer ....................................... 63 4.3 Endangered Species Act (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.) ... 63 4.4 Section 404 of the Clean Water Act ..................................... 64 4.5 Section 401 of the Clean Water Act ..................................... 64 4.6 Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act ............................ 64 4.7 Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act .......................... 64 4.8 State and Local Laws, Regulations, and Policies ................ 64 Section 5. Report Preparers ............................................................................. 65 Section 6. References ....................................................................................... 67 Tables Table 1-1. Past Spawning Gravel Placement and Habitat Creation/Enhancement - 2008 to Present ........................................ 2 Table 2-1. Proposed Restoration Site Summary ............................................. 10 Table 2-2. Construction Equipment .................................................................. 18 Table 2-3. Potential Federal Actions, Permissions, Permits, Authorizations, and Approvals ................................................................................. 21 Table 2-4. Potential State, Regional, and Local Actions, Permits, and Approvals ........................................................................................ 22 Table 3-1. Proposed Action Construction Emissions ....................................... 29 Table 3-2. Construction Equipment and Typical Equipment Noise Levels ...... 43 i Figures Figure 1-1. Overview of Restoration Sites, Borrow Sites, and Haul Routes ....... 3 Figure 2-1. Example Floodplain and Side Channel Creation at River Bend (top photos) and Nimbus Basin (bottom photos) ................................... 12 Figure 2-2. Example of Woody Material Placement - Nimbus Basin, 2014 ...... 17 Figure 2-3. Woody Material Placement from Sacramento Bar, 2016 ............... 17 Project Design Detail Plates Plate C-1. Cover Sheet Plate C-2. Project Overview Plate C-3. Site Plan Plate C-4. Profiles Plate C-5. Sections Plate C-6. Staking Plan List of Appendices Appendix A - Public Notices Appendix B - CEQA Environmental Checklist (City of Sacramento) Appendix C - Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Appendix D - Hydraulics Analysis Technical Report (Water Surface Elevations) Appendix E - Hydraulics Analysis Technical Report (Sediment Transport) Appendix F - Air Quality Model Results Appendix G - Biological Resources Technical Memorandum List of Acronyms and Abbreviations BA Biological Assessment BMP Best Management Practices BO Biological Opinion CAA Clean Air Act CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQ Council on Environmental Quality CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs Cubic feet per second City City of Sacramento CMP Sacramento Coordinated Water Quality Monitoring Program CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CO Carbon monoxide Corps US Army Corps of Engineers CRF California red-legged frog CVFPB Central Valley Flood Protection Board ii CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act CWA Clean Water Act dBA A-weighted Decibel DOI Department of the Interior DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FISH Group Fisheries and In-Stream Habitat Working Group FMS Flow Management Standard FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GGS Giant garter snake GHG Greenhouse gas IPaC Information for Planning and Conservation LAR Lower American River Leq Equivalent sound level Lmax Maximum sound level LOS Level of Service MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MDM Mount Diablo Meridian NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NO2 Nitrogen dioxide NPPA Native Plant Protection Act O3 Ozone OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration PCE Primary Constituent Elements PM Particulate matter Quad Quadrangle Reclamation Bureau of Reclamation ROG Reactive Organic Gases RM River mile RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SIP State Implementation Plan SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SO2 Sulfur dioxide SPCCP Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasures Plan SRA State Recreation Area SVAB Sacramento Valley Air Basin SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service USGS US Geological Survey iii VELB Valley elderberry longhorn beetle VOC Volatile organic compound Water Forum Sacramento Area Water Forum WYBC Western yellow-billed cuckoo iv Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project Section 1. Introduction In conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 42 U. S. C. Section 4431 et seq. (NEPA), as amended, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), California Public Resources Code, Section 21000 et seq, the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) and the City of Sacramento (City) have prepared this Environmental Assessment/Initial Study (EA/IS), in association with the Sacramento Area Water Forum (Water Forum), to evaluate and disclose potential environmental impacts associated with implementation of the Lower American River (LAR) Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project (Proposed Action or proposed project) over a 16-year period from 2019 through 2034. The City has also prepared a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), a CEQA Environmental Checklist, and a proposed MND, as required by the CEQA Guidelines. Reclamation is the NEPA lead agency and the City is the CEQA lead agency for the Proposed Action. CEQA review is required because the 16-year long Proposed Action will be physically implemented by the City, using City equipment and employee labor, in association with the Water Forum, and may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment that must be analyzed. This EA/IS describes the existing environmental resources in the project area; evaluates the impacts of the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action on the resources; and proposes measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate any significant adverse impacts. This EA/IS was prepared in accordance with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508), Department of the Interior Regulations (43 CFR Part 46), and State CEQA Guidelines (Title 14, Section 15000 et seq. of the California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Reclamation’s 2016 EA (Reclamation 2016) is incorporated by reference in its entirety, as well as Reclamation’s 2008 EA (Reclamation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Recalling the Suburban Side of California’S Agricultural Colonization
    CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY Sacramento And UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA Santa Barbara Harvesting Suburbs: Recalling the Suburban Side of California’s Agricultural Colonization A Dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in Public History by Paul Jason Prescott Sandul Committee in charge: Professor Lee M. A. Simpson, Chair (CSUS) Professor Randolph Bergstrom (UCSB) Professor Christopher J. Castaneda (CSUS) Professor Mary Hancock (UCSB) June 2009 The dissertation of Paul Jason Prescott Sandul is approved. _____________________________________________ Randolph Bergstrom, UCSB _____________________________________________ Christopher J. Castaneda, CSUS _____________________________________________ Mary Hancock, UCSB _____________________________________________ Lee M. A. Simpson, Committee Chair, CSUS June 2009 iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Many people helped me while I worked on my dissertation. Professors and faculty at California State University, Sacramento (CSUS) and University California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) at every point provided me with support and vital insights. Professors Mona Siegel and Harold Marcuse, for example, introduced me to memory studies while Professor Charles Postel took time to read early essays and drafts and make important suggestions. My committee members were, to be sure, especially important. Professor Christopher J. Castaneda, I swear, never leaves his office. Anytime I ever needed advice, council, or simply to talk, I could always find Professor Castaneda’s door open and, regardless of how busy he seemed, an open chair. He always provided keen insight, critical and helpful commentary, and, most important for a secluded graduate student, many lunches at a good restaurant. Professor Randolph Bergstrom first introduced me and guided my original inquires into the intersection of place, memory, and history. With the quickest and sharpest wit of any person I have ever known, his guidance was indispensable, his support unwavering, and direction always needed.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties
    A Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Table of Contents A.1 Early Notification Announcement A-1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letter, December 4, 2012 ................................................................................ A-3 A.1.2 Legal Notice Publication, December 9, 2012 ............................................................................. A-13 A.1.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-19 A.2 Project Information Meetings A-35 A.2.1 Project Meeting Notification Letters, August 27, 2013 ............................................................... A-37 A.2.2 Dates, Locations and Attendance .............................................................................................. A-57 A.2.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-59 A.3 Section 106 Consultation A-65 A.3.1 Section 106 Consultation Letters, November 2013 ................................................................... A-67 A.3.2 Comments from the November 2013 Letters ........................................................................... A-107 A.3.3 Section 106 Consultation Letters, April 8, 2014 ....................................................................... A-115 A.3.4 Section 106 Concurrence Letters............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior National Park Service
    NFS Form 10-900a OMBNo. 1024-0018 (8-86) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES CONTINUATION SHEET Section Page SUPPLEMENTARY LISTING RECORD NRIS Reference Number: 06000913 Date Listed: 9/25/2006 Fair Oaks Bridge, Old Sacramento CA Property Name County State N/A Multiple Name This property is listed in the National Register of Historic Places in accordance with the attached nomination documentation subject to the following exceptions, exclusions, or amendments, notwithstanding the National Park Service certification included in the nomination documentation. / Signature 6f the Keeper Date of Action Amended^!terns in Nomination: Significance: The correct Level of Significance is: Local [The nomination form certification block and transmittal letter differed from the narrative text.] Description: The Architectural Classification should read: Pennsylvania Petit truss bridge These clarifications were confirmed with the CA SHPO office DISTRIBUTION: National Register property file Nominating Authority (without nomination attachment) NPS Form 10-900 OMBNo. 1024-0018 (Oct. 1990) United States Department of the Interior National Park Service National Register of Historic Places Registration Form This form is for use in nominating or requesting determinations for individual properties an( plete the National Register of Historic Places Registration Form (National Register Bulletin 16A). Co item by marking "x" in the appropriate box or by entering the information requested. If any item does not apply to the property being documented, enter "N/A" for "not applicable." For functions, architectural classification, materials, and areas of significance, enter only categories and subcategories from the instructions. Place additional entries and narrative items on continuation sheets (NPS Form 10-900a).
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties
    Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Table of Contents A.1 Early Notification Announcement ...................................................................................... A-1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letter, December 4, 2012 .......................................................................... A-3 A.1.2 Legal Notice Publication, December 9, 2012 ....................................................................... A-13 A.1.3 Comments from the Early Notification Announcement ........................................................ A-19 A.2 Project Meetings ................................................................................................................ A-35 A.2.1 Project Meeting Notification Letters, August 27, 2013 ......................................................... A-37 A.2.2 Project Meeting Sign-In Sheets, September 2013 ............................................................... A-59 A.2.3 Comments from the Project Meeting ................................................................................... A-65 A.3 Section 106 Consultation .................................................................................................. A-71 A.3.1 Section 106 Consultation Letter, November 21, 2013 ......................................................... A-73 A.3.2 Comments from the Section 106 Consultation Letter .......................................................
    [Show full text]
  • State Historical Resources Commission 2006 Annual Report
    STATE HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Port of San Francisco Embarcadero, San Francisco County, California. Listed in the National Register of Historic Places on May 12, 2006 at the State level of significance. 2006 ANNUAL REPORT Office of Historic Preservation California State Parks The Resources Agency State of California January 2007 This publication has been financed in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior, nor does the mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsements or recommendations by the Department of the Interior. This program received federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20240. STATE HISTORICAL RESOURCES COMMISSION Dr. Robert & Mary Walton House, Stanislaus County, California. This house was designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and was recommended for listing in the National Register of Historic Places on August 5, 2006. 2006 ANNUAL REPORT Office of Historic Preservation California State Parks 1416 9th Street, Room 1442 Post Office Box 942896 Sacramento, California 94296-0001 Phone: (916) 653-6624 Fax: (916) 652-9824 Website: www.ohp.parks.ca.gov January 2007 STATE OF CALIFORNIA – THE RESOURCES AGENCY Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor OFFICE OF HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENTOF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O.
    [Show full text]
  • Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project
    Environmental Assessment/Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Lower American River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Project U.S. Department of the Interior City of Sacramento Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region June 2019 Mission Statements The mission of the Department of the Interior is to protect and provide access to our Nation’s natural and cultural heritage and honor our trust responsibilities to Indian Tribes and our commitments to island communities. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Table of Contents List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................ ii Section 1. Introduction ....................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................ 1 1.2 Project Purpose, Need, and Objectives ................................. 7 Section 2. Alternatives Including the Proposed Action .................................. 8 2.1 No Action Alternative ............................................................. 8 2.2 Proposed Action ..................................................................... 8 Section 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences ........ 23 3.1 Aesthetics ............................................................................. 24 3.2 Agriculture
    [Show full text]
  • Lessons 1-8 (Pdf)
    lesson 1 Transportation INTRODUCING THE SACRAMENTO HISTORY ONLINE COLLECTION OVERVIEW This lesson introduces students to the documents in the Sacramento History Online Collection (SHO) at http://www.sacramentohistory.org and the role of primary sources in understanding history. It focuses on how materials that have survived from the past can be used to reconstruct the story of how a community has changed over time. Before using the database with your class, take some time to browse the SHO collection online to get an overview of the types of documents that are included. (These lessons use the term document to refer to any of the items in the database, including photographs). You can view or print most single images directly as a JPEG file. However, some documents are in Adobe Acrobat PDF format and must be viewed or printed with Acrobat Reader. Lesson 1 does not require students to work online. STUDENT OBJECTIVES 1. Describe the differences between a primary source and a textbook. 2. Give several examples of the types of documents that are in the SHO collection. 3. Categorize a group of items according to their document type. 4. List modern ephemera that might offer clues about your own community. CALIFORNIA HISTORY STANDARDS This lesson emphasizes database search strategies and how to use the collection to find information about transportation rather than teaching specific history content. BACKGROUND ARTICLE 1 The Sacramento History Online Collection (pages 1-5 and 1-6) STUDENT ACTIVITY SHEET 1 AND KEY Introducing the Sacramento History Online Collection (pages 1-7 and 1-8) DOCUMENTS TO DISCUSS (view online or print) The documents shown below provide examples of the different document types in the SHO collection, including books, ephemera, manuscripts, maps, photographs, postcards, prints, and technical drawings.
    [Show full text]
  • Historic Truss Bridges in California Thematic Determination of Eligibility
    NATIONAL REGISTER DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY: HISTORIC TRUSS BRIDGES IN CALIFORNIA (THEMATIC) Determined eligible on December 24, 1985 by the KEEPER of the National Register of Historic Places (With subsequent determinations by the Keeper on January 9, 1986 and January 13, 1986) Historic Truss Bridges in California (Thematic) 1985 Keeper Formal DOE With Subsequent DOEs Jan. 9 & 13, 1986 Request for Determination of Eligibility for Inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places 1. Agency Requesting Determination: u.s. Department of Transportation: Federal Highway Administration Attn: Bruce Cannon California Division Administrator P.O. Box 1915 Sacramento, CA 95809 2. Properties: Historic Truss Bridges in California 1 Historic Truss Bridges in California (Thematic) 1985 Keeper Formal DOE With Subsequent DOEs Jan. 9 & 13, 1986 3. LOCATION: This thematic request for determination of eligibility concerns 72 historic truss bridges located throughout the State of California. Location -- by county, nearest city, highway, ) feature intersected, and UTM Coordinates -- is identified for each structure in the attached "Truss Bridge Rating Sheets." 4. CLASSIFICATION: The classification for this determination of eligibility is "thematic group." Each individual bridge is classified as a "structure." 5. OWNERSHIP: BRIDGE NUMBER: 26C-8; 26C-ll County of Amador 108 Court street Jackson, California 95642 BRIDGE NUMBER: 12C-8 County of Butte 7 County Center Drive oroville, California 95965 BRIDGE NUMBER: 30C-16 County of Calaveras Government Center 891 Mountain Ranch Road San Andreas, California 95249 J BRIDGE NUMBER: 15C-8 County of Colusa 546 Jay Street Colusa, California 95932 BRIDGE NUMBER: 25C-4; 25C-25 County of El Dorado 360 Fair Lane Placerville, California 95667 BRIDGE NUMBER: 42C-551 County of Fresno 4499 E.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment
    4.3 Vulnerability Assessment Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii): [The risk assessment shall include a] description of the jurisdiction’s vulnerability to the hazards described in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section. This description shall include an overall summary of each hazard and its impact on the community. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(A): The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of the types and numbers of existing and future buildings, infrastructure, and critical facilities located in the identified hazard areas. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(B): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of an] estimate of the potential dollar losses to vulnerable structures identified in paragraph (c)(2)(i)(A) of this section and a description of the methodology used to prepare the estimate. Requirement §201.6(c)(2)(ii)(C): [The plan should describe vulnerability in terms of] providing a general description of land uses and development trends within the community so that mitigation options can be considered in future land use decisions. With Sacramento County’s hazards identified and profiled, the HMPC conducted a vulnerability assessment to describe the impact that each hazard would have on the Sacramento County Planning Area. The vulnerability assessment quantifies, to the extent feasible using best available data, assets at risk to natural hazards and estimates potential losses. This section focuses on the risks to the County as a whole. Data from the individual participating jurisdictions was also evaluated and is integrated here and in the jurisdictional annexes, and noted where the risk differs for a particular jurisdiction within the Planning Area.
    [Show full text]