DOCSLIB.ORG

Lower Laguna Creek Open Space Trail Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lower Laguna Creek Open Space Trail Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Lower Laguna Creek Open Space Trail Project Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for: City of Elk Grove March 4, 2016 Prepared by: © 2016 This page is intentionally left blank. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION for the Lower Laguna Creek Open Space Trail Project Public Notice is hereby given that a Mitigated Negative Declaration (Environmental Report) is available for public review for the Lower Laguna Creek Open Space Trail Project (Project). Project Location: The Project site is located approximately 0.5 mile east of Franklin Boulevard, and approximately two miles west of California State Route 99, within portions of Sections 21 and 28, Township 7 North, Range 5 East on the USGS Florin, California 7.5‐minute quadrangle (38° 26’ 17.783” North, 121° 26’ 4.170” West). Proposed improvements within the City of Elk Grove would traverse through an existing area of open space as well as the Laguna Springs Unit 2 Open Space Preserve. Proposed improvements within the City of Sacramento would extend through the North Laguna Creek Wildlife Area. Project Description: Implementation of the Proposed Project would result in the development of a 1.15‐mile Class I multi‐use bikeway and educational area within the City of Elk Grove and City of Sacramento, California. The Proposed Project would develop a paved ten‐foot bikeway with two‐foot shoulders for use by pedestrians and bicyclists connecting trail users to existing trails, residences, schools, and commercial centers. Additional Project amenities would include landscape improvements, trail nodes and signage, approximately eight culverts, a signalized pedestrian crossing at Big Horn Boulevard, and an educational area with a new parking lot. The educational area would provide opportunities for school field trips and other educational activities and educational events with an outdoor amphitheater and stage, and several small gathering areas. Document Review and Availability: The public review and comment period will extend for 30 calendar days in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105(b) starting March 4, 2016 and ending April 4, 2016. The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is available for public review at the following location: City of Elk Grove Public Works Department 8401 Laguna Palms Way Elk Grove, CA 95758 (8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M., Monday through Friday) The IS/MND can also be viewed and/or downloaded at the City of Elk Grove Environmental Review webpage via the following web address: http://www.elkgrovecity.org/city_hall/departments_divisions/planning/environmental_review/ Comments/Questions: Comments and/or questions regarding the IS/MND may be directed to: Jonathan Mitchell, P.E., Senior Project Manager, City of Elk Grove, Public Works Development, 8401 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, California 95758, Phone: (916) 478‐2234, Fax: (916) 691‐ 3173, Email: [email protected]. Public Meetings: The IS/MND is tentatively scheduled for consideration and possible adoption by the City of Elk Grove City Council on April 27, 2016. City Council meetings start at 6:00 P.M. in the City of Elk Grove City Hall, Council Chambers, 8401 Laguna Palms Way, Elk Grove, California, 95757. Interested parties should call the City Clerk’s Office at (916) 478‐3635 to confirm meeting agendas, times, and dates. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Mitigated Negative Declaration Information Sheet ......................................................... 1‐1 2.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 2‐1 2.1. Introduction and Regulatory Guidance ......................................................................... 2‐1 2.2. Lead Agency .................................................................................................................. 2‐1 2.3. Purpose and Document Organization ........................................................................... 2‐2 2.4. Thresholds of Significance ............................................................................................. 2‐3 2.5. Terminology Used in this Document ............................................................................. 2‐3 2.6. Required Permit Approvals ........................................................................................... 2‐4 3.0 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.1. Project Location ............................................................................................................. 3‐1 3.2. Environmental Setting ................................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2.1. General Plan Land Use Determination and Zoning Designation ........................... 3‐1 3.2.2. Surrounding Land Uses .......................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2.3. Biological Communities ......................................................................................... 3‐1 3.2.4. Topography ............................................................................................................ 3‐5 3.2.5. Master Plans .......................................................................................................... 3‐5 3.2.6. Laguna Springs Unit 2 Open Space Preserve ......................................................... 3‐6 3.2.7. North Laguna Creek Wildlife Area ......................................................................... 3‐6 3.2.8. Existing Trails and Roads ........................................................................................ 3‐9 3.3. Project Purpose & Objectives ........................................................................................ 3‐9 3.4. Project Components .................................................................................................... 3‐10 3.4.1. Trail Design ........................................................................................................... 3‐10 3.4.2. Landscape Improvements .................................................................................... 3‐12 3.4.3. Educational Area .................................................................................................. 3‐12 3.4.4. Culvert Crossings and Hydrology ......................................................................... 3‐14 3.4.5. Road Crossings and Signage ................................................................................. 3‐14 3.4.6. Parking ................................................................................................................. 3‐14 3.4.7. Utilities ................................................................................................................. 3‐15 3.4.8. Trail Amenities ..................................................................................................... 3‐15 3.4.9. Trail Maintenance ................................................................................................ 3‐15 3.4.10. Existing Easements ........................................................................................... 3‐15 LOWER LAGUNA CREEK OPEN SPACE TRAIL PROJECT I CITY OF ELK GROVE INTIAL STUDY/DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOOTHILL ASSOCIATES © 2016 3.5. Construction ................................................................................................................ 3‐15 3.5.1. Staging .................................................................................................................. 3‐15 3.5.2. Avoided Aquatic Features .................................................................................... 3‐18 3.5.3. Construction Protocols ........................................................................................ 3‐18 3.5.4. Worker Environmental Awareness Training ........................................................ 3‐19 3.5.5. Schedule ............................................................................................................... 3‐19 4.0 Initial Study Checklist ...................................................................................................... 4‐21 4.1. Aesthetics .................................................................................................................... 4‐21 4.1.1. Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4‐21 4.1.2. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4‐23 4.2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ............................................................................ 4‐25 4.2.1. Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4‐25 4.2.2. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4‐28 4.3. Air Quality .................................................................................................................... 4‐29 4.3.1. Impact Analysis .................................................................................................... 4‐29 4.3.2. Mitigation Measures ............................................................................................ 4‐35 4.4. Biological Resources ...................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Biological Resources Assessment for the Cannabis Cultivation Operation at 6233 Eickhoff Road, Lakeport, California
    BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT FOR THE CANNABIS CULTIVATION OPERATION AT 6233 EICKHOFF ROAD, LAKEPORT, CALIFORNIA February 14, 2020 Applicant: Huntz, Inc. 6233 Eickhoff Road, Lakeport, CA 95453 Prepared by: G.O. Graening, PhD and Tim Nosal, MS Natural Investigations Company, Inc. 3104 O Street, #221, Sacramento, CA 95816 Bio. Assessment TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 2 1.1. PROJECT LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION ........................................................................... 2 1.2. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 2 1.3. REGULATORY SETTING ........................................................................................................ 2 1.3.1. Special-status Species Regulations .................................................................................. 2 1.3.2. Water Resource Protection ............................................................................................... 4 1.3.3. Tree Protection ................................................................................................................. 5 2. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ........................................................................................................ 6 3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................................... 6 3.1. PRELIMINARY DATA GATHERING
    [Show full text]
  • 2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today
    2016 Utility Honorees Utility of the Future Today 1 The partners of the Utility of the Future Today are pleased to present the inaugural program’s 61 public and private utilities from across the U.S., Canada, and Denmark selected by a peer committee of utility leaders from an impressive number of first year entries. The recipients were recognized and honored during a September 27 ceremony held in conjunction with WEFTEC 2016 in New OrleansWEF’s 89th annual technical exhibition and conferenceas well as a number of commensurate events sponsored by the partners. The recipients received a display flag and a special certificate to further identify and promote their outstanding achievement as a Utility of the Future Today. The following 61 utilities have met the criteria for Utility of the Future Today by meeting the Organizational Culture requirement plus at least one of the Activities identified above. Recognized Activities are indicated for each utility as identified by a and are listed in alphabetical order. 2 Table of Contents Background 6 Program Purpose 7 Aarhus Vand, Denmark 8 Albuquerque Bernalillo County Water Utility Authority, NM 17 Alexandria Renew Enterprises, VA 23 Avon Lake Regional Water, OH 34 Baltimore City Department of Public Works, MD 38 Camden County Municipal Utilities Authority, NJ 50 Charlotte Water, NC 61 City of Cedar Rapids, IA 71 City of Fayetteville, AR 76 City of Fond du Lac, WI 80 City of Grand Rapids, MI 86 City of Gresham, OR 94 City of Los Angeles – LA Sanitation, CA 99 City of Roseville, CA 108 City of San
    [Show full text]
  • Biological Resources Assessment the Ranch ±530- Acre Study Area City of Rancho Cordova, California
    Biological Resources Assessment The Ranch ±530- Acre Study Area City of Rancho Cordova, California Prepared for: K. Hovnanian Homes October 13, 2017 Prepared by: © 2017 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. Project Description ........................................................................................................... 1 2.0 Regulatory Framework ........................................................................................................ 2 2.1. Federal Regulations .......................................................................................................... 2 2.1.1. Federal Endangered Species Act ............................................................................... 2 2.1.2. Migratory Bird Treaty Act ......................................................................................... 2 2.1.3. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act ............................................................... 2 2.2. State Jurisdiction .............................................................................................................. 3 2.2.1. California Endangered Species Act ........................................................................... 3 2.2.2. California Department of Fish and Game Codes ...................................................... 3 2.2.3. Native Plant Protection Act .....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 4.4 Biological Resources
    Monterey Bay Sanctuary Scenic Trail Network Master Plan EIR Section 4.4 Biological Resources 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES This section addresses biological resources issues related to the proposed MBSST Network project described in Section 2.0, Project Description. A variety of terrestrial and aquatic habitats are present along the three distinct trail reaches (northern, central and Watsonville reaches) of the proposed MBSST Network. The proposed MBSST Network ranges in elevation from sea level to approximately 30 to 40 feet above sea level throughout the corridor. Portions of the proposed project are located within the Coastal Zone of Santa Cruz County. Rincon Consultants, Inc. biologists visited the site on December 3, 11, and 12, 2012 and conducted reconnaissance-level floral and wildlife surveys along the proposed MBSST Network. To support the field investigation, data on biological resources were collected from numerous sources, including relevant literature, maps of natural resources, and data on special- status species and sensitive habitat information obtained from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW, formerly the California Department of Fish and Game), California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) (2003; queried August 2012), the California Native Plant Society online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California (2012), and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information, Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) (2012b). The USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (2012a) and National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; 2012c) were also queried. 4.4.1 Setting a. Habitats. The proposed MBSST Network contains 12 habitats mapped by the CDFW California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) habitat classification system (Table 4.4-1).
    [Show full text]
  • Coast Dairies Long Term Resource Protection and Access Plan
    COAST DAIRIES LONG-TERM RESOURCE PROTECTION T HE TRUST AND ACCESS PLAN F O R PUBLIC LAND February 2004 COAST DAIRIES LONG-TERM RESOURCE PROTECTION T HE TRUST AND ACCESS PLAN F O R PUBLIC LAND February 2004 Prepared by The Trust for Public Land for the Future Stewards of the Coast Dairies Property 225 Bush Street 8950 Cal Center Drive 710 Second Avenue 2685 Ulmerton Road Suite 1700 Building 3, Suite 300 Suite 730 Suite 102 San Francisco, CA 94104 Sacramento, CA 95826 Seattle, WA 98104 Clearwater, FL 33762 (415) 896-5900 (916) 564-4500 (206) 442-0900 (727) 572-5226 436 14th Street 4221 Wilshire Boulevard 1751 Old Pecos Trail 5850 T.G. Lee Boulevard Suite 600 Suite 480 Suite O Suite 440 Oakland, CA 94612 Los Angeles, CA 90010 Santa Fe, NM 87505 Orlando, FL 32822 (510) 839-5066 (323) 933-6111 (505) 992-8860 (407) 851-1155 200071 A READER’S GUIDE TO THE COAST DAIRIES PLAN Coast Dairies Long-term Resource Protection and Access Plan RG-1 been a simple, straight-line trajectory from Swiss-owned dairy and A Reader’s Guide to the Coast farmland to public park. The Coast Dairies Plan is complete and stands by itself as land management guidance, but its future use and Dairies Plan the multiplicity of appendices spawned by the process require some explanation. The Trust for Public Land, in its role as first steward, had responsibilities that stretched backward to the funding entities and The document in your hands is the result of a comprehensive planning forward to the ultimate managers of the land.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record—Senate S9142
    S9142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD Ð SENATE September 25, 2000 Again, I didn't intend to come to the resources, to authorize the Secretary of the a very important amendment. We cer- floor this afternoon, but nor did I want Army to construct various projects for im- tainly have read a lot about Corps re- to sit and listen to debate which sug- provements to rivers and harbors of the form in the local newspapers, specifi- gests that the minority leader, or the United States, and other purposes. cally the Washington Post, over the Democratic caucus, or anybody else for The PRESIDING OFFICER. There last few months. The stories raised that matter, is at fault for what is tak- will now be 1 hour for closing remarks. very legitimate issues about the eco- Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. ing place. nomic modeling used to justify some of Madam President, I yield myself such As the Senator from West Virginia these water resources projects. indicated, there is perhaps sufficient time as I may consume. However, it is important to under- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Sen- blame to go around. I don't disagree stand that a series of articles in a with that. But I also know that we ator from New Hampshire. Mr. SMITH of New Hampshire. newspaper is no substitute for careful didn't win the election. I wish we had. Madam President, this is the first consideration of the facts and of the We don't control the Senate. I wish we major piece of environmental legisla- issues by the Congress.
    [Show full text]
  • 5 References
    5 REFERENCES 5.1 “LAND” REFERENCES Section 3A.1, “Aesthetics – Land” California Department of Transportation. 2008. Scenic Highway Routes: Caltrans Landscape Architecture Program. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic/cahisys.htm. Last updated May 19, 2008. Accessed February 18, 2008. City of Folsom. 1993. City of Folsom General Plan. January 1993 update. County of El Dorado. 2004. El Dorado County General Plan. Adopted July 19, 2004. Placerville, CA. U.S. Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management. Chapter 1, Volume 2: The Visual Management System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook Number 462. Federal Highway Administration. 1981. Visual Impact Assessment for Highway Projects. Publication Number: FHWA-HI-88-054. Washington, DC. Sacramento County. 1993. Sacramento County General Plan. Adopted December 15, 1993. Sacramento, CA. Section 3A.2, “Air Quality – Land” Anderson, Charles. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, Sacramento, CA. September 9, 2009―e-mail correspondence with Joseph Hurley of SMAQMD and Austin Kerr of AECOM regarding the status of the Sacramento Regional 8-Hour Ozone Attainment and Reasonable Further Progress Plan. ARB. See California Air Resources Board. ARCADIS. 2007 (November 29). Draft Ambient Air Evaluation of Aerojet Area 40. Petaluma, CA. Letter memorandum from Steve Huntley, to Bruce Cline and David Miller, City of Folsom, Folsom, CA. California Air Resources Board. 1994 (June). California Surface Wind Climatology. Sacramento, CA. ———. 2003. HARP User Guide. Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/toxics/harp/harpug.htm. Updated: July 29, 2008. Accessed August 2009. ———. 2005 (March). Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. Sacramento, CA.
    [Show full text]
  • Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program Stormwater Resource Plan
    ALAMEDA COUNTYWIDE CLEAN WATER PROGRAM STORM WATER RESOURCE PLAN MEMBER AGENCIES: Alameda Albany PUBLIC RELEASE Berkeley Dublin DRAFT Emeryville Fremont Hayward Livermore Newark Oakland Piedmont Pleasanton San Leandro Union City County of Alameda Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Zone 7 Water Agency October 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................... 2 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 5 1.1 Purpose of the Plan .................................................................................................... 5 1.2 Alameda County’s Watersheds: Approach and Characterization ................................ 5 1.3 Water Quality Issues And Regulatory Requirements .................................................. 5 1.4 Organization of the SWRP .......................................................................................... 6 2. Coordination and Collaboration ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Entities Involved in Plan Development ........................................................................ 7 2.2 Coordination of Cooperating Entities and Stakeholders .............................................. 7 2.3 Relationship with Existing Planning Documents .......................................................... 7 2.3.1 San Francisco
    [Show full text]
  • Calendar No. 130
    Calendar No. 130 109TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! 1st Session SENATE 109–84 ENERGY AND WATER APPROPRIATIONS BILL, 2006 JUNE 16, 2005.—Ordered to be printed Mr. DOMENICI, from the Committee on Appropriations, submitted the following REPORT [To accompany H.R. 2419] The Committee on Appropriations, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 2419) making appropriations for energy and water develop- ment for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2006, and for other purposes, reports the same to the Senate with an amendment and recommends that the bill as amended do pass. Amount in new budget (obligational) authority, fiscal year 2006 Total of bill as reported to the Senate .................... $31,245,000,000 Amount of 2005 appropriations ............................... 29,832,280,000 Amount of 2006 budget estimate ............................ 29,746,728,000 Amount of House allowance .................................... 29,746,000,000 Bill as recommended to Senate compared to— 2005 appropriations .......................................... ∂1,412,720,000 2006 budget estimate ........................................ ∂1,498,272,000 House allowance ................................................ ∂1,499,000,000 21–815 PDF CONTENTS Page Purpose ..................................................................................................................... 4 Summary of Estimates and Recommendations ..................................................... 4 Title I—Department of Defense—Civil: Department of the Army: Corps of Engineers—Civil: General Investigations
    [Show full text]
  • Sabercat Historical Park Signs / Interpretive Panels
    Appendix 6.1a: East View View East Appendix 6.1a: Interpretive Signs 1a Interpretive vulture Future location of Mission Peak Fremont cottonwood Diablo Range Western California bay laurel sycamore arroyo willow Western redbud cattail creeping wildrye tule ground sloth Western toad Painting by Don Ramie, 2016 Western pond turtle The Columbian mammoth was the About half of the animals living in the land mammals of the Irvingtonian Saber-toothed cats largest land mammal to live in North America during Irvingtonian landscape are present today, Many of the large of the genus Smilodon are the Irvingtonian Age, standing around 13 feet tall and including the Western pond turtle, mallard duck, continued into the late Pleistocene, but went extinct by The Western horse distant relatives of today’s was a large, stout grassland weighing about ten tons. A tusk found in this area and many others. wild and domestic cats. 6,000 years ago, due to climate change and human predation. grazer. It was the largest of was 13 feet long! These mammoths ranged from These massive carnivores Columbian mammoth the prehistoric horses that what is now the central United States all the way to Some species, like the raccoon, and red fox, surive to this had front canines as long as fossilized skeleton originated in North America, South America. seven inches, and preyed on day. Though the environment was wetter, landscape features and was similar in size to large herbivores. Smilodon a zebra. These horses lived and plant communities would be very familiar, resembling the Skull of Smilodon fatalis from fatalis is California’s state in herds, as wild and feral the La Brea Tar Pits fossil.
    [Show full text]
  • 4.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
    4.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY This section discusses and analyzes the surface hydrology, groundwater, and water quality characteristics of the Planning Area. The information provided in this section is based on the Zone 40 Water Supply Draft Master Plan Update (2002), the Water Master Plan for Areas Adjacent to Zone 40 Water Supply Master Plan Update’s Study Area (1998), the Sacramento Stormwater Quality Improvement Plan (2000), the Local Floodplain Management Plan for the County of Sacramento (2001), The Water Quality Control Plan for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region: the Sacramento River Basin and the San Joaquin River Basin (1998), the Sacramento County General Plan Update Environmental Impact Report (1992), the East Franklin Drainage Corridor Alternative Design Project (2002), and various drainage master plans for creeks throughout the Elk Grove Planning Area. 4.8.1 EXISTING SETTING SURFACE WATER Sacramento County is part of the Sacramento River watershed, which covers approximately 27,000 square miles, with 400 miles of river from Lake Shasta to the convergence of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The Planning Area is also part of this larger watershed. More specifically, surface water resources in the Planning Area are part of the Morrison Creek Stream Group, and include Elder, Elk Grove, Laguna (and tributaries), Morrison, Strawberry, and Whitehouse Creeks. Florin, Gerber, and Unionhouse creeks are located close to the Planning Area in Sacramento County. Deer Creek is located in the eastern portion of the Planning Area, parallel to the Cosumnes River. The Cosumnes River is the eastern border of the Planning Area, however, all of the creeks in the area drain into the Morrison Creek Stream Group, then eventually into the Sacramento Riv er.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 – Watershed Description
    Chapter 2 Watershed Description This chapter describes existing land uses and resource values in the watershed, and provides the foundation for assessing environmental conditions, which, along with input provided by the stakeholder community, provides the basis for developing management action recommendations presented in Chapter 6. The objectives of this chapter are to describe the watershed’s geographical and historical setting, to list natural and human-caused changes in the watershed that have occurred over time, and to describe key physical, chemical, and biological conditions that relate to existing beneficial uses and potential preservation, restoration, and enhancement opportunities in the watershed. 2.1 Geographical Setting The Laguna Creek Watershed encompasses approximately 65 square miles of land draining to Laguna Creek and its tributary streams, starting in northeast Sacramento County (Figure 2-1). Laguna Creek flows southwesterly from its headwaters at the eastern watershed boundary through Elk Grove to its confluence with Morrison Creek near the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (SRWTP) just east of Interstate 5 (I-5). Downstream of the Morrison Creek confluence, water is either pumped to the Sacramento River, or during winter storms, may travel to the Beach Lake-Stone Lake system (Stone Lakes 2 Watershed Description 2-1 Figure 2-1 Laguna Creek Sub-Watersheds and Primary Tributaries 2-2 Laguna Creek Watershed Management Action Plan National Wildlife Refuge) before it ultimately discharges into the including a commercial nursery, school, and park district Sacramento River within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta sprinkler systems. (Delta) region. Over time, various planning efforts have divided the Table 2-1 Laguna Creek Watershed into two distinct sub-watersheds: Tributaries to Laguna Creek upper and lower.
    [Show full text]