DOCSLIB.ORG

Mud Slough Restoration Project

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mud Slough Restoration Project Mud Slough Restoration Project Initial Study and CEQA Checklist Prepared for San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority PO Box 2157 842 6th Street, Suite 7 Los Banos, CA 93635 Prepared by Summers Engineering, Inc. Consulting Engineers Hanford, CA Telephone Number (559) 582-9237 FAX Number (559) 582-7632 San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority Table of Contents 1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST............................................................................................................................................... 1-1 Project Information .............................................................................................................................................................................1-1 1. Project Title ...............................................................................................................................................................................1-1 2. Lead Agency Name and Address......................................................................................................................................1-1 3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................................................................1-1 4. Project Location ......................................................................................................................................................................1-1 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address .............................................................................................................................1-1 6. General Plan Designation ....................................................................................................................................................1-1 7. Zoning ........................................................................................................................................................................................1-1 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting ................................................................................................................................1-1 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required ....................................................................................................1-1 10. Description of Project............................................................................................................................................................1-1 Determination .................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-11 Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts ....................................................................................................................................... 1-12 1.1 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................................................................................... 1-13 1.2 Agriculture and Forest Resources .............................................................................................................................. 1-15 1.3 Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-17 1.4 Biological Resources ...................................................................................................................................................... 1-20 1.5 Cultural Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................1-57 1.6 Energy.................................................................................................................................................................................. 1-61 1.7 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................................................... 1-63 1.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ......................................................................................................................................... 1-68 1.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................................................................................................................1-72 1.10 Hydrology and Water Quality .....................................................................................................................................1-75 1.11 Land Use and Planning ................................................................................................................................................. 1-80 1.12 Mineral Resources ........................................................................................................................................................... 1-81 1.13 Noise ................................................................................................................................................................................... 1-83 1.14 Population and Housing .............................................................................................................................................. 1-86 1.15 Public Services ..................................................................................................................................................................1-87 1.16 Recreation ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1-89 1.17 Transportation ................................................................................................................................................................. 1-90 1.18 Tribal Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................................................. 1-92 1.19 Utilities and Service Systems ...................................................................................................................................... 1-94 1.20 Wildfire ............................................................................................................................................................................... 1-96 1.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................................................... 1-98 1.22 References Cited ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-103 Figures Figure 1 Mud Slough Restoration Project, Location Map .................................................................................... 1-3 Figure 2 Proposed Project .............................................................................................................................................. 1-5 Tables Table 1 Vegetation Types and Open Water in the Study Area ..................................................................... 1-22 Table 2 Construction Impacts by Vegetation Type1 .......................................................................................... 1-50 Table 3 GHG Emissions from Project Construction ............................................................................................1-70 Table 4 Typical Stationary and Mobile Noise Source Sound Levels in dBA .............................................. 1-84 Mud Slough Restoration Project INITIAL STUDY i Initial Study SLDMWA Appendices (follows text) Appendix A Mud Slough Restoration Project Drawings Appendix B Biological Resources Report for the Mud Slough Restoration Project, China Island Unit North Grasslands Wildlife Area, and Newman Land Company, East of Newman, Merced County, California Appendix C Cultural Resource Inventory for the Mud Slough Restoration Project, Merced County, California Appendix D Paleontological Technical Memorandum for the Mud Slough Restoration Project, Merced County, California Appendix E Mud Slough Restoration Project Hydrology Study Acronyms and Abbreviations APN Assessor’s Parcel Number BAAQMD Bay Area Air Quality Management District BMPs Best Management Practices CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CCaIC Central California Information Center CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act cfs Cubic Feet Per Second CNDDB California Natural Diversity Data Base CNPS California Native Plant Society CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board CWA Clean Water Act GBP Grassland Bypass Project NRHP National Register of Historic Places NWR National Wildlife Refuge Project Mud Slough Restoration Project RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SJRRP San Joaquin River Restoration Program SJVAPCD or Valley Air District San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District SLD San Luis Drain SLDMWA, Water Authority San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USFWS U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service WY Water Year Mud Slough Restoration Project INITIAL STUDY ii San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 1 ENVIRONMENTAL
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Late Cenozoic Tectonics of the Central and Southern Coast Ranges of California
    OVERVIEW Late Cenozoic tectonics of the central and southern Coast Ranges of California Benjamin M. Page* Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2115 George A. Thompson† Department of Geophysics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2215 Robert G. Coleman Department of Geological and Environmental Sciences, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2115 ABSTRACT within the Coast Ranges is ascribed in large Taliaferro (e.g., 1943). A prodigious amount of part to the well-established change in plate mo- geologic mapping by T. W. Dibblee, Jr., pre- The central and southern Coast Ranges tions at about 3.5 Ma. sented the areal geology in a form that made gen- of California coincide with the broad Pa- eral interpretations possible. E. H. Bailey, W. P. cific–North American plate boundary. The INTRODUCTION Irwin, D. L. Jones, M. C. Blake, and R. J. ranges formed during the transform regime, McLaughlin of the U.S. Geological Survey and but show little direct mechanical relation to The California Coast Ranges province encom- W. R. Dickinson are among many who have con- strike-slip faulting. After late Miocene defor- passes a system of elongate mountains and inter- tributed enormously to the present understanding mation, two recent generations of range build- vening valleys collectively extending southeast- of the Coast Ranges. Representative references ing occurred: (1) folding and thrusting, begin- ward from the latitude of Cape Mendocino (or by these and many other individuals were cited in ning ca. 3.5 Ma and increasing at 0.4 Ma, and beyond) to the Transverse Ranges. This paper Page (1981).
    [Show full text]
  • Panoche Valley
    THE Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society Established 1926 AVOCET The Newsletter of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society September-October 2017 Panoche Valley: Saving an Important Bird Area (IBA) by Shani Kleinhaus, Environmental Advocate oncluding almost eight years of advocacy and litiga- tion, SCVAS, Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter, and Defenders of Wildlife have signed a settlement agree- Cment that allows a photovoltaic solar farm to be built on about 1,000 acres of Panoche Valley floor, while at the same time preserving 26,000 acres, including 4,000 acres of valley floor grasslands, as habitat for endangered species. Califor- nia Department of Fish and Wildlife and Con Edison have also signed the agreement. We are proud of this achievement! Monterey Audubon Society first alerted SCVAS to the plans to construct a solar farm in Panoche Valley. In 2009, plans for solar arrays and supportive infrastructure encompassed most of the valley floor, as well as Little Panoche Valley. No mitigation was offered for the inevitable loss of habitat for the many endangered species that call the valley home, so we started mobilizing. In early 2010 we organized a work- shop that formed an alliance of farmers and environmental organizations in opposition to the project. This alliance has never faltered. In the years that followed, our advocacy and permit require- ments by state and federal wildlife agencies resulted in changing project ownership as investors came and went. The project footprint shrunk and mitigation lands were added. San Benito County produced additional environmental re- view documents, asserting repeatedly that the construction of a solar project on thousands of acres of valley floor could Ferruginous Hawk by Debra Shearwater cont’d on page 4 Wednesday, September 20, 2017 Cuba - The Isle of Endemics: Birds and Bats! with Dave Johnston Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Understanding California's Whales with Ted Cheeseman The Avocet 1 Please carpool if possible; bring binoculars, field guides, layered September-October Field Trips clothing.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Westside-San Joaquin Stormwater Resource Plan Table of Contents Final
    WESTSIDE-SAN JOAQUIN Stormwater Resource Plan May 2020 Prepared by: 2020 Westside-San Joaquin Stormwater Resource Plan Table of Contents Final Table of Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Legislative Background ............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 West-Side San Joaquin Region Watershed Planning Area ......................................................... 1-2 1.3 Document Organization ........................................................................................................... 1-4 Chapter 2 Watershed Identification ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Region Overview ...................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Major Water-Related Infrastructure .............................................................................. 2-3 2.1.2 Flood Management ....................................................................................................... 2-3 2.1.3 Major Land Uses ............................................................................................................ 2-3 2.1.4 Counties ........................................................................................................................ 2-3 2.2 Watersheds ............................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Water Quality Control Plan, Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. Amendments to the 1994 Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins The Third Edition of the Basin Plan was adopted by the Central Valley Water Board on 9 December 1994, approved by the State Water Board on 16 February 1995 and approved by the Office of Administrative Law on 9 May 1995. The Fourth Edition of the Basin Plan was the 1998 reprint of the Third Edition incorporating amendments adopted and approved between 1994 and 1998. The Basin Plan is in a loose-leaf format to facilitate the addition of amendments. The Basin Plan can be kept up-to-date by inserting the pages that have been revised to include subsequent amendments. The date subsequent amendments are adopted by the Central Valley Water Board will appear at the bottom of the page. Otherwise, all pages will be dated 1 September 1998. Basin plan amendments adopted by the Regional Central Valley Water Board must be approved by the State Water Board and the Office of Administrative Law. If the amendment involves adopting or revising a standard which relates to surface waters it must also be approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) [40 CFR Section 131(c)].
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Plan Amenment Implementing Control of Salt and Boron
    Presented below are water quality standards that are in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. EPA is posting these standards as a convenience to users and has made a reasonable effort to assure their accuracy. Additionally, EPA has made a reasonable effort to identify parts of the standards that are not approved, disapproved, or are otherwise not in effect for Clean Water Act purposes. AITACHMENT 2 AITACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. RS-2004-0108 AMENDING THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS FOR THE CONTROL OF SALT AND BORON DISCHARGES ~NTO THE LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Following are excerpts from Basin Plan Chapters I and IV shown similar to how they will appear after the proposed amendment is adopted. Deletions are indicated as strike­ through text (deleted te~) and additions are shown as underlined text (added text). Italicized text (Notation Text) is included to locate where the modifications will be made in the Basin Plan. All other text changes are shown accurately, however, formatting and pagination will change. 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. R5-2004-0108 AMENDING THE WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS FOR THE CONTROL OF SALT AND BORON DISCHARGES INTO THE LOWER SAN JOAQUIN RIVER Under the Chapter I heading: “Basin significant quantities of water to wells or springs, it can Description” on page IV-28, make the be defined as an aquifer (USGS, Water Supply Paper following changes: 1988, 1972). A ground water basin is defined as a hydrogeologic unit containing one large aquifer or several connected and interrelated aquifers (Todd, Groundwater Hydrology, 1980).
    [Show full text]
  • Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California
    SEP 151964 n:~l~ l. i Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 352-E Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources Geomorphology of Segmented Alluvial Fans in Western Fresno County, California By WILLIAM B. BULL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION IN SEMIARID ENVIRONMENT GEOLOGICAL SURVEY PROFESSIONAL PAPER 352-E Prepared in cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources A study of the interrelations of alluvial-Jan morphology, drainage-basin characteristics and tectonic and climatic events UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON : 1964 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR STEWART L. UDALL, Secretary GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Thomas B. Nolan, Director For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Washington, D.C. 20402 CONTENTS Page Page Glossary __________________________________________ _ v Geomorphology of the alluvial fans-Continued • Abstract __________________________________________ _ 89 Possible causes of fan segmentation_-------------- 103 Introduction ______________________________________ _ 89 Tectonic hypothesis _________ -_-------------- 105 Purpose and scope _____________________________ _ 89 Fans associated with progressively gentler Acknowledgments ______________________________ _ 90 stream gradients _____________________ _ 106 Geographic setting _____________________________ _ 90 Fan~ associated with progressively steeper Location and topographic features ___________ _ 90 stream
    [Show full text]
  • Types of Vegetation in the San Joaquín Valley of California and Their Relation to the Beet Leafhopper
    TECHNICAL BULLETIN NO. 557 JUNE 1937 TYPES OF VEGETATION IN THE SAN JOAQUÍN VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA AND THEIR RELATION TO THE BEET LEAFHOPPER By R. L. PIEMEISEL Physiologist Division of Sugar Plant Investigations Bureau of Plant Industry and F. R. LAWSON Junior Entomologist Division of Truck Crop and Garden Insects Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, WASHINGTON, D. C. For lale by the Superintendent of Documenti. Washington, D. C Price 10 cenu Technical Bulletin No. 557 June 1937 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE WASHINGTON, D. C. TYPES OF VEGETATION IN THE SAN JOAQUÍN VALLEY OF CALIFORNIA AND THEIR RELATION TO THE BEET LEAFHOPPER By R. L. PiEMEiSEL, physiologist, Division of Sugar Plant Investigations, Burean of Plant industry, and F. R. LAWSON, junior entomologist, Division of Truck Crop and Garden Insects, Bureau of Entomology and Plant Quarantine ^ CONTENTS Page Introduction 1 Types of vegetation—Continued. Definition of types of vegetation and their Plant communities along washes and relationships 3 stream beds 16 Relation of types of vegetation to climate and Plant communities of minor importance.. 17 topography 4 Changes in weedy plant cover _ 18 Types of vegetation ^ 6 Principal species of present plant cover 20 Tree savanna 6 Possibilities of reduction of weedy areas and Pacific grassland 8 the effect on leafhopper population and curly Desert saltbush 10 top damage 24 Spiny saltbush 13 Summary 27 Lowland types 14 Literature cited 28 INTRODUCTION Earlier studies by a number of investigators have determined that in the San Joaquin Valley of California the virus disease curly top causes damage every year to sugar beets, tomatoes, beans, melons, and squash, as well as to other truck crops and to ornamental plants, and that severe crop losses have occurred in years of high population of the beet leafhopper {Eutettix tenellus (Baker)), only known vector of the curly top disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan January 2019
    San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority 2019 Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan January 2019 Prepared by: 2019 Westside-San Joaquin Integrated Regional Water Management Plan Table of Contents Final Table of Contents Chapter 1 Governance ............................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Regional Water Management Group ............................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 History of IRWM Planning ............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Governance ................................................................................................................................... 1-5 1.4 Coordination ................................................................................................................................. 1-8 1.5 WSJ IRWMP Adoption, Interim Changes, and Future Updates .................................................. 1-11 Chapter 2 Region Description ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.1 IRWM Regional Boundary ............................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Quality and Quantity of Water Resources .................................................................................. 2-15 2.3 Water Supplies and Demands ....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the San Joaquin Valley of California
    Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the San Joaquin Valley of California Final Report prepared for United States Bureau of Reclamation Mid-Pacific Region in support of Grant #R10AP20010 by California Water Institute 6014 North Cedar Avenue Fresno, CA 93710 Phone: 559.298.6072 FAX: 559.298.3576 www.californiawater.org May 2016 Integrated Regional Water Management Plan for the San Joaquin Valley of California Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................................... iii 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Regions .......................................................... 3 1.2 Integrated Regional Water Management Planning Legislation and Funding................................. 3 1.2.1 Senate Bill 1672 (2002) ................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.2 Proposition 50 (2002) .................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.3 Proposition 1E (2006) .................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.4 Proposition 84 (2006) .................................................................................................................... 5 1.2.5 Proposition
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SEIR Section B
    B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES B.1 INTRODUCTION The Los Banos-Gates 500 kV Transmission Project was first conceived of in the mid-1980s. At that time, PG&E believed that this 500 kV transmission line would be required in order for PG&E to meet its transmission contracts (see Section A.1.2) after the California-Oregon Transmission Project was constructed. The project was evaluated in an EIS/EIR that was completed in 1988. This Supplemental EIR was prepared because much of the information in the original document is 15 years old, so an updated analysis was determined to be required in order to adequately evaluate the transmission line routes and alternatives that were considered in the 1986 Draft EIS/EIR and the 1988 Final EIS/EIR. The PG&E Proposed Project that is evaluated in this Supplemental EIR is the route that was found to be environmentally superior among the alternatives considered at that time. The following sections present the description of the Proposed Project (the Western Corridor, as evaluated in the EIS/EIR) and the other alternatives considered in that document, which are the same alternatives that are re-evaluated in this SEIR. One full alternative to the Proposed Project is described and analyzed: the Eastern Corridor Alternative. In addition, four segment alternatives to portions of the Western Corridor are evaluated. This SEIR does not consider any new alternatives. Two considerations under CEQA determine whether new or additional alternatives should be analyzed in a SEIR: (1) If the impacts of
    [Show full text]
  • Basin Description Recommended Changes DWW 10-16-2012
    The following changes are recommended for the Basin Description in the Introduction Chapter of the Basin Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins. The basin description referred to here is contained on pages I-1.00 to I-4.00 in the 10 September 2004 version of the Basin Plan. The recommended changes are shown below and on the following pages in strikeouts and underlines that are highlighted in red: INTRODUCTION BASIN DESCRIPTION This Basin Plan covers the entire area included in the Sacramento and San Joaquin River drainage basins1. The basins are bound by the crests of the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast Range and Klamath Mountains on the west. They extend some 400 miles from the California - Oregon border southward to the headwaters of the San Joaquin River. The Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins cover about one fourth of the total area of the State and over 30% of the State's irrigable land. The Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers furnish roughly 51% of the State's water supply. Surface water from the two drainage basins meet and form the Delta, which ultimately drains to San Francisco Bay. Two major water projects, the Federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project, deliver water from the Delta to Southern California, the San Joaquin Valley, Tulare Lake Basin, the San Francisco Bay area, as well as within the Delta boundaries. The Delta is a maze of river channels and diked leveed islands covering roughly 1,150 square miles, including 78 square miles of water area.
    [Show full text]
  • Draft SEIR Section C.5 Geology, Soils, and Minerals
    C.5 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND MINERALS This chapter provides an update on geology, soils, and minerals from that presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (FEIS/EIR) for the California-Oregon Transmission Project and the Los Banos-Gates Transmission Project (TANC/WAPA, 1988). The environmental setting of the Proposed Project area has not significantly changed since the publication of the FEIS/EIR with respect to the geology, soils, mineral and paleontologic resources of the region; however, the general understanding of the processes underlying the observed conditions have advanced and seismic standards have changed. This chapter includes a general description of the geology and associated geologic hazards of the Project area; a revision of the seismic hazard analysis reflecting changes in the governing regulations and an improved understanding of the faulting in the Project area; a description of the soil conditions; and a revised description of the paleontologic resources of the Project area. A revised discussion of potential impacts is presented, as well as five revised mitigation measures for the Proposed Project. In general, the methodology used for this analysis did not differ substantially from that used in the FEIS/EIR, except for access to recent studies and publications. The impacts identified in this chapter differ from the FEIS/EIR only in the inclusion of a mitigation measure for identification and avoidance of paleontologic resources within the Moreno Formation of the Panoche and Tumey Hills, which has recently been, designated an Area of Critical Environmental Concern. The mitigation measures from the FEIS/EIR have been incorporated into new mitigation measures because those from the previous document were generally vague and lacked enforcement procedures.
    [Show full text]