NEW BUSINESS Agenda Item No.: 9a CC Mg.: 06112/2012
Date: May 24, 2012 TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Parks and Recreation Department SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 9002 - A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL PROJECT
BACKGROUNDIISSUE The Parks and Recreation Department has been working with staff from California State Parks and the Bureau of Reclamation to complete the last segment of the Lake Natoma Bike Trail and provide for a continuous trail around Lake Natoma. The last segment of trail in the Historic District is the most challenging and has many constraints including restricted right-of-way and environmental concerns. This last trail segment is one of the highest priority projects identified in the adopted Bikeway Master Plan.
In March 2009, the City Council awarded a contract with Kimley-Horn and Associates to prepare a feasibility study to examine alternative trail alignments through this corridor and to prepare a detailed analysis of the engineering and environmental impacts to determine the most cost-effective and the most environment-friendly alignment. In May 2010, the Traffic Safety Committee reviewed the proposed alignment and gave it unanimous support. The project was also presented to the local business owners along Leidesdorf Street and received positive feedback.
The Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project as identified in the 2007 Bikeway Master Plan extends from the terminus of the existing Class I trail behind the Lake Natoma Inn to the Historic Truss Bridge, and ultimately connecting to the American River Parkway bike trail. The overall length of the project is approximately 3,000 linear feet. This trail segment will complete the much anticipated loop around Lake Natoma. In December 2011, the City received grant funding totaling $484,000. This amount was less than requested by the City, but with a reduced project scope, adequate to make a significant improvement in the trail connection around Lake Natoma. With the City's required matching funds of $70,000, the total project budget is $554,000. On January 10, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 8947 accepting the grant award from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments Community Design Program.
POLICYIRULE The environmental review process and mitigated negative declaration preparation and filing is pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 6, Sections 15070 and 15071 of the California Administrative Code.
ANALYSIS The project review includes the design and construction of a Class I trail referred to as the Lake Natoma Bike Trail of approximately 3,000 lineal feet and extends from the terminus of the existing trail behind the Lakes Shopping Center to the intersection of Scott and Riley Streets.
Page ]
Staff Report Page No. 1 of 138 The trail will utilize two existing bridges that are part of the historic Powerhouse facility to connect to the existing trail on the south side of the intersection of Riley and Scott Streets. Another component of the project is the installation of a Class I trail along the north side of Leidesdorf Street extending from Gold Lakes Drive to Riley Street (Attachment 2). The proposed bikeway will be designed to Class I bikeway specifications as described in Chapter 1000 of the California Transportation Department (CalTrans) Highway Design Manual. The bikeway will have a 12-foot wide asphalt paved surface, with appropriate signage and striping.
The scope of the Initial Study focused on and identified potential environmental impacts on the natural resources and community infrastructure in the area from construction, and use of the new trail segment. The Community Development Department has reviewed the proposed project and determined that the project, with mitigation measures as identified in the Initial Study will not have a significant affect on the environment. The alignment of the trail was designed to reduce impacts to the existing vegetation and wetland and riparian habitat and complete the cycling infrastructure connection between State Parks and the Historic District. California State Parks, and the Bureau of Reclamation have been consulted and have determined that the trail will have minimal short and long-term impacts on the resources located along this section of the Lake Natoma Bike Trail.
The Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISIMND) was published by the State Clearinghouse on October 26, 2011, initiating a 30-day review period. Five comment letters were received on the proposed project (Attachment 4). The responses to comments are included with the comments in Attachment 4. As a result of the comments received and the available funding from the Sacramento Area Council of Governments grant program, the City reduced the scope of the trail development proposal to minimize development on State Park Lands and remove project components that were on U.S. Bureau of Reclamation property.
A summary of the mitigation measures and monitoring program proposed for the project is included as Attachment 5. 'T'hese measures, in recognition of potential environmental impacts, will reduce the identified impacts to a less than significant level.
FISCAL IMPACT The Folsom Parks and Recreation Department will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the project after it is constructed. The estimated cost to maintain this section of trail is approximately $2,500 per year. The trail system is maintained under a contract that is bid every two years. The actual trail maintenance is dependent on the characteristics of each trail section, the contractual scope of work, and the bid results.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (Attachment 3). The proposed project, with mitigation measures as identified in the Initial Study, will not have a significant affect on the environment. A majority of the impacts center on short-term impacts that will occur during construction of the project.
ATTACHMENTS I. Resolution No. 9002 - A Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project 2. Location Map 3. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration -- Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project Page 2
Staff Report Page No. 2 of 138 4. Public Review Comments and Responses 5. Table I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
RECOMMENDATION/CITY COUNCII, ACTION Move to approve Resolution No. 9002 - A Resolution Adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project.
Page 3
Staff Report Page No. 3 of 138 ATTACHMENT 1
Resolution No. 9002
Staff Report Page No. 4 of 138 RESOLUTION NO. 9002
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the project is consistent with the Folsom General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project is consistent with the adopted 2007 Bikeway Master Plan; and
WHEREAS, notice has been given at the time and in the manner required by State law and the Folsom Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the preparation of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines and procedures; and
WHEREAS, with implementation of the mitigation measures proposed, this project will not have a significant affect on the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Folsom adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on this 120' day of June 2012, by the following roll-call vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
Kerri M. Howell, MAYOR ATTEST:
Christa Saunders , CITY CLERK
Staff Report Page No. 5 of 138 ATTACHMENT 2
Location Map
Staff Report Page No . 6 of 138 A M E R I C A N R I V E R
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HISTORIC FOLSOM CANAL LAKE NATOMA INN
m
0OW'NTOvv NF OLIO LEGEND
ExrG.ng TrdiI Segnem 2
Imm= SegYhenl I Se9mera2
f'ill'^,J'F^il^uuil.^ike.tialogin Hrke 7i'tl11 Prrj^•^ti?l111' n
C1L!R(L Klniley 11,-&A,,,, I: US!) A N A 1P Aeriel P1 1,1 1,19, !009. AD. '012 Exhibit A Approved Project
Staff Report Page No. 7 of 138 This page is intentionally left blank.
Staff Report Page No. 8 of 138 ATTACHMENT 3
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Staff Report Page No. 9 of 138 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF FOLSOM LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL
SEPTEMBER 2011
LEAD AGENCY: City of Folsom Department of Parks & Recreation 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95639 (916) 355.7285
Staff Report Page No. 10 of 138 INITIAL STUDY CITY OF FOLSOM LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL
SEPTEMBER 2011
LEAD AGENCY: City of Folsom Department of Parks & Recreation 50 Natoma Street Folsom , CA 95630 (916) 355-7285
PREPARED BY: Analytical Environmental Services 1801 7th Street, Suite 100 Sacramento, CA 95811 (916) 447-3479 www. ana lyt i c a l corp. cam
Staff Report Page No. 11 of 138 TABLE OF CONTENTS CITY OF FOLSOM LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL INITIAL STUDY
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Purpose of Study ...... 1-1 1.2 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...... 1-1 1.3 Evaluation Terminology ...... 1-2 1.4 Organization of the Initial Study ...... 1-2
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 Introduction ...... 2-1 2.2 Project Location ...... 2-1 2.3 Project Background ...... 2-1 2.4 Project Objectives ...... 2-5 2.5 Project Descriptions ...... 2-5 2.5.1 Project Componets ...... 2-5 2.5.2 Construction Activities ...... 2-10 2.5.3 Operation and Maintenance Activites ...... 2-11 2.6 Permits and Approvals Needed ...... 2-11
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT , ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES , AND MITIGATION 3.1 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts ...... 3-1 3.2 Environmental Checklist and Disscussion ...... 3-1 Aesthetics ...... 3-1 Agricultural and Forestry Resources ...... 3-4 Air Quality ...... 3-7 Biological Resources ...... 3-13 Cultural Resources ...... 3-25 Geology & Soil-- ...... 3-33 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...... 3-39 Hazards & Hazardous Materials ...... 3-42 Hydrology & Water Quality ...... 3-47 Land Use & Planning ...... 3-51 Minerals Resorces ...... 3-52 Noise ., ...... 3-54 Population ...... 3.57 Public Services ...... 3.58 Recreation ...... 3-60 Transportation/Traffic ...... 3-61 Utilities & Servies Systems ...... •-...... --.-.--...... 3-64 Mandatotory Findings of Significance ...... 3-66
4.0 SIGNIFICANCE DETERMANATION ...... 4-1
5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS 5.1 Lead Agency ...... 5-1 5.2 Environmental Consultants ...... 5-1
6.0 REFERENCES ...... ----...... -- .... -.-...... 6-1
AE5 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 12 of 138 Table of Contents
LIST OF TABLES
3-1 National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards ...... 3.9 3-2 Federal and California Ambient Air Attainment Status ...... 3-9 3-3 Federal and State Air Monitoring Data...... -.. 3-10 3-4 Project Site Soils ...... 3-35 3-5 Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale.- ...... 3-37 3-6 Groundwater Quality Objectives ...... 3-49 3-7 Typical A-Weighted Sound Levels of Common Noise Sources ...... 3-55 3-8 Typical Noise Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 3-56
LIST OF FIGURES
1 Regional Location...... -- ...... -- ...... 2-2 2 Site and Vicinity ...... 2-3 3 Project Design ...... 2-4 4 Conceptual Plan ...... 2-6 5 Proposed Project Cross Sections ...... 2-8 6 Leidesdorff Segment ...... 2-9
AES ii City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 13 of 138 S ECTION 1 . 0
INTRODUCTION
Staff Report Page No. 14 of 138 1.0 I NTRODUCTION
1.1 PURPOSE OF STUDY This document examines the potential environmental effects associated with the construction and operation of the proposed Lake Natoma Bike Trail project (Proposed Project). The Proposed Project is the final segment of the Lake Natoma Bike Trail. Currently, the trail terminates behind the Lake Natoma Inn. This final segment would extend the bikeway from near its current terminus to the Historic Truss Bridge northeast of the Folsom Historic District. This segment would complete the loop around Lake Natoma. The overall length of this segment is approximately 3,000 feet. This Initial Study (1S) has been prepared for the City of Folsom (Lead Agency) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 (as amended), codified in California Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq., and the State CEQA Guidelines in the Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3. Additionally, this IS and associated technical studies have been prepared to meet National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for federal approval for development on land held by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and in the event that federal funding for the Proposed Project is secured in the future.
This IS identifies potentially significant impacts and, where applicable, presents mitigation measures that would reduce all identified environmental impacts to less than significant levels. Therefore, as discussed in Section 4.0, this IS would support a Mitigated Negative Declaration as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15070 and a Categorical Exclusion for NEPA compliance in accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4.
1.2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Proposed Project, involving at least one impact requiring mitigation to bring it to a less than significant level. Impacts to these resources are evaluated using the checklist included in Section 3.0. The Proposed Project was determined to have a less than significant impact or no impact even without mitigation on unchecked resource areas.
q Aesthetics q Land Use and Planning q Agriculture q Mineral Resources ® Air Quality Noise Biological Resources q Population Cultural Resources q Public Services Geology and Solis q Recreation q Greenhouse Gas Emissions Transportation/Traffic Hazards and Hazardous Materials q Utility and Service Systems Water Resources
AES 1-1 City of Folsom Lake Netoms Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 15 of 138 1.0 Introduction
1.3 EVALUATION TERMINOLOGY
The following terminology is used to describe the levels of significance for impacts identified for each resource area discussed in Section 3.0.
n A conclusion of no impact is used when it is determined that the Proposed Project would not adversely impact the resource area under evaluation.
n A conclusion of less than significant impact is used when it is determined that the Proposed Project's adverse impacts to a resource area would not exceed established thresholds of significance.
n A conclusion of less than significant impact with mitigation is used when it is determined that mitigation measures would be required to reduce the Proposed Project's adverse impacts below established thresholds of significance.
1.4 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY
This document is organized into the following sections:
Section 1 .0 - Introduction : Describes the purpose, contents, and organization of the document.
Section 2.0 - Project Description : Includes a detailed description of the Proposed Project.
Section 3. 0 - Environmental Analysis (Checklist) : Contains the Environmental Checklist from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G with a discussion of potential environmental effects associated with the Proposed Project. Mitigation measures, if necessary, are noted following each impact discussion.
Section 4.0 - Significance Determination : Identifies the determination of whether impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project are significant, and what, if any, additional environmental documentation may be required.
Section 5.0 - Consultation and Preparation
Section 6.0 - References
Appendices - Contains technical reports and other information to supplement Section 2.0 and Section 3.0.
AES 1-2 City or Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 16 of 138 SECTION 2 . d
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Staff Report Page No. 17 of 138 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION The City of Folsom (City) proposes to develop the final segment of the Lake Natoma Bike Trail . Currently, the trail terminates behind the Lake Natoma Inn. This final segment would extend the bikeway from near its terminus west of Folsom Boulevard to the Historic Truss Bridge northeast of the Folsom Historic District. The trail would he into the existing trail at the southern end of the bike and pedestrian bridge immediately east of the Truss Bridge. This segment would complete the loop around Lake Natoma. The overall length of this segment is approximately 3,000 feet.
2.2 PROJECT LOCATION The Proposed Project would be located in historic downtown Folsom, adjacent to Lake Natoma and the American River ( Figures 1 and 2). The final segment of the Lake Natoma Bike Trail would generally follow existing roads, sidewalks, bike paths and informal dirt pathways within the Folsom Historic District, Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park, and Bureau of Reclamation property to avoid significant constraints. The study area is situated in Township 10 North, Range 7 East, Section 26 of the Folsom, CA U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle (quad). An aerial photograph of the study area and the preferred and alternative alignment is shown in Figure 3. The survey area for the proposed project generally consisted of land located within 20 feet on either side of the proposed route.
The topography of the surrounding area consists of developed roadways and bike paths, as well as roadway right-of--ways adjacent to steep slopes that lead to the American River. Surrounding land uses include commercial areas, recreational, parking and State Park (Folsom Powerhouse), and open space.
2.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND The Lake Natoma portion of the American River Bike Trail (Bike Trail) has been in the planning stages for over 20 years with the California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks) acting as lead agency in its implementation. The majority of the Lake Natoma portion of the Bike Trail was constructed approximately 10 years ago and has been one of the most heavily used trails in the region. The trail currently ends behind the Lake Natoma Inn. The City of Folsom, State Parks, and the Bureau of Reclamation have been working together over the last several years to design and develop the final trail segment extending from Folsom Boulevard to the Historic Truss Bridge just east of the Rainbow Bridge. After a thorough analysis of the alignment options , including an assessment of potential environmental constraints, the development of the Bike Trail along the Leidesdorf Street Corridor was selected as the preferred alternative. Various options were considered including development of the Bike Trail through the canyon between the hotel property and the State Historic Powerhouse site north of the intersection of Leidesdonf Street and Riley Street, but these options were all determined to be infeasible because of significant potential environmental impacts and excessive construction costs.
AES 2-1 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 18 of 138 C ehufst SCALE
Project Site Mks x Sacramento Cowtty
e 0 3 6
Nr^"rth
rEV%
Iao cklin
.Ros L ,Granite-Bay PROJECT SITE
us..Heights Li a` F! H}}tsCamerbn Park 8i^r ng eotJiiII rris - Orarjgev E1- 7orado Ndrth High)dn 0 ^9i r:,^ ales
Carriiichael ,,WOO
Ark e rs-.Area d e
r, _r Cordova I entO•_ a 13
Rot Hanrho Murieta
-k
in d
r Cit a(FVcI 'lle [- kesi agfi;:lA } W. [ton
Sutter Cr
Eck
3
- City ofl•olsam Lake Naroma Bike Trail P+oject i 211517 n SOURCE SieetMep NeithAtiierica, 20 09: ALS, 20 t1 Figure 1. Regional Location
Staff Report Page No. 19 of 138 Oty ofFolsom Like Natoma Hike hr leer: 211517 F SOURCE: USDA NA.l1Aezia l Plmtugraph , 2U(9: AE S- 2011 [rail Figure 2 Site and Vicinity
Staff Report Page No. 20 of 138 A M E R I C A N R I V E R
US BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
HISTORIC FO LSOM CANAL
LEGEND
Exig.n, T^ge - SvgR.a-2 3
Seamen 1 .^ Stgnw.:c
O Sep... 2 J .gvern3,n Roue
Irl i If, Z
Q SOURCE: kiinl., 1:.ni ; i-bI- .1:1I_;\I1:1 i^MP Aeni!I Pl-p ra,h. 2:N: .P.49. 2222 f'h Figure 3 P:njecr DL'sigre 2.0 Project Description
2.4 PROJECT OBJECTIVES
The Proposed Project is designed to meet the following objectives;
n Complete the Lake Nato ma Bike Trail which provides circular pedestrian, bicycle and recreational access around Lake Natoma and the American River through downtown Folsom:
n Increase pedestrian/bicycle safety by providing a fully-connected Class I bike trail eliminating the need for bicyclists and pedestrians to cross major vehicular traffic routes; and Be sensitive to the historical and cultural values of the Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park. Provide a bicycle/pedestrian boulevard along Leidesdorff Street that will enhance existing and proposed development along the corridor.
2.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Proposed Project would complete the Lake Natoma Bike Trail. A detailed description of the Proposed Project is provided below.
2.5.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS
The project involves the development of a Class l bikeway for bicyclist and pedestrian use. The preferred route is described by distinct segments as shown on Figure 3 and described below:
Segment 1: The initial segment would extend from near the terminus of the existing trail just as it goes under Lake Natoma Crossing Road and continue up the slope to the intersection with the public access point on the Lake Natoma Crossing Bridge at Gold Lakes Drive. This portion of the trail would be located within Bureau of Reclamation property and then transition onto City property at the intersection with Gold Lakes Drive. The trail would then extend up to the intersection with Leidesdorff Street. A detailed depiction of this segment is provided in Figure 4.
Terminus of existing trail. Existing path on west side of Intersection of Folsom Folsom Boulevard. Boulevard and Leidesdorff Street.
AES 2-5 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 22 of 138 LAZE NATOMA INN
W,
HISTORIC FOL.S,O
"RAI.LROA SCALE
0 621.2 ;25•
Cirr of ! )I.vunn I.ake :\'oronro Bike Dvil Pmj,^e•i 2115! 7 i SOU RC E: K!m[n-[Mono and Assomres , Eiw.. MS ?(i! I Figure 4 Conceptual Plan 2.0 Project Description
Segment 2: The second segment would extend east along the northern side of Leidesdorff Street ending near the intersection with Riley Street ( Figures 4 and 6). There is considerable construction activity along this segment and a mixed use development is proposed for the parcel adjacent to the newly constructed parking garage. The segment would be constructed adjacent to the northern side of the roadway and the sidewalks would be moved to act as a buffer between the businesses along Leidesdor i Street and the trail segment (refer to Figure 5 ). These areas are currently used as pedestrian walkways (sidewalks) and landscaping. Parallel parking on the north side of Leidesdorff Street would be eliminated . On street parking along the south side of Leidesdorff Street is currently being reconfigured as part of redevelopment activities.
Parcel proposed for mixed Parallel parking along north Intersection of Leidesdorff use development. side of Leidesdorff Street. Street and Riley Street.
Segment 3: The third segment provides two options to cross Riley Street. This segment would extend from the intersection of Leidesdorff Street and Riley Street continuing along the west side of Riley Street along the Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park property and connect with the at-grade signalized crossing at the intersection of Scott and Riley Streets, which provides access to the existing trail on the south side of Riley Street. The second part of this segment extends from the end of the existing path adjacent to the powerhouse (near the intersections of Riley Street and Scott Street) before jogging to the right near the new visitor's center and then paralleling the shoulder of Riley Street to the abutment of Rainbow Bridge. A cross section of the proposed segment is included in Figure 5.
Pathway on west side of Parking lot at Folsom Slope near abutment of Riley Street. Powerhouse State Historic Rainbow Bridge. Park.
AES 2-7 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 24 of 138 h.u..IA ltf • f.W sfl.. Y1 tT , a Segment 2
Segment 4
Concrete Arch Tunnel Section 4
0
20' - T Optional Tunnel Segment
City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project 1211517 n SOURCE: Kimiet-Flom and Assxiates, Inc.: AES 2011 Figure 5 Proposed Project Cross Sections
Staff Report Page No. 25 of 138 SCALE
r
k;1 17, %M817^, 6o
Ciri of 1•olsa+,r Luke fr'uzumu hike Trail Project. i)? 17 n $(7L9tC E. : Kim l ta- H orn and rlaori ates. 1 uc. : :^ li5 ? [] ]1 '"' -u re 6 Leidesdortl _ment 2.0 Project Description
Segment 4: The final segment would extend into Bureau of Reclamation lands traversing under the Rainbow Bridge, connecting with the existing trail on the east side of the bridge undercrossing. The existing pedestrian pathway on the east side of the Rainbow Bridge would need to be removed (Figure 3). A cross section of the proposed alignment under the bridge is included in Figure 5.
Slope down to undercrossing Utilities under Rainbow Existing pedestrian pathway below Rainbow Bridge. Bridge. on east side of bridge under crossing.
Alternative Segment 3-4: The proposed alternative to Segments 3 and 4 considered in this initial study entails construction of a tunnel under Riley Street along the approximate alignment of a canal that brought water to the historic Folsom Powerhouse (Figure 3 ). There is currently a drainage culvert in this location where fill was placed in the canal to build up Riley Street to grade. A cross section of the proposed tunnel is included i n Figure 5.
Canal on west side of Riley Canal on east side of Riley Culvert under Riley Street Street. Street. viewed from east side of roadway.
2.5.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES Project components would be designed and constructed in accordance with applicable City provisions. Components of the Proposed Project would require general construction activities including grading, excavating, trenching, pipe installation, utility relocation, placement of backfill, and asphalt patching. The Proposed Project would result in approximately 200 cubic yards of excavated material that would be exported off site. Alternative 3-4 would require substantial excavation. Energy efficient construction equipment would be utilized to the extent feasible. The following equipment may be utilized during
AES 2.10 City of FoIsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 27 of 138 2.0 Project Description
construction of the project:
n Pavement saw n Concrete trucks n • Front-end loaders Sweepers n 10-wheel dump trucks n Road grader n Bulldozers n Paving equipment: back hoe, asphalt n Water truck hauling trucks, compactors, paving n Trench shields machine, rollers n Air compressors n Concrete pumper trucks n Flat-back delivery truck Welding trucks
Construction Stages A traffic control plan will be developed prior to the initiation of construction, which will include provisions to ensure that adequate vehicular and bicycle/pedestrian travel lanes will remain open at all locations at all times during construction. Construction is not planned to be phased but instead will most likely go out to bid for the entire project.
Tunnel Alternative Construction of the tunnel alternative will require relocation of utilities along Riley Street. An open trench would be excavated along the general alignment of the canal that brought water to the Folsom Powerhouse. The volume of the material to be excavated would be substantially greater than for the other trail segments . Once the trench is excavated to the appropriate depth and grade a support structure would be placed within the alignment. The structure could consist of an arched corrugated metal pipe, a two way precast port box or a precast concrete arch. Electrical would be run within the tunnel for lighting. I t is estimated that the trench could be open for up to a month which would disrupt traffic on Riley Street and require alternating lane closures.
2.5.3 OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES Activities associated with maintenance of the proposed facilities may include shoulder repair, patching/filling of cracks and potholes, and installation and repair of trail signage and pavement striping. Additional maintenance activities may include periodic vegetation control within right-of-way areas outside of the trail shoulder for fire control purposes.
2.6 PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED As part of implementation of the Proposed Project, the following permits and approvals may be necessary:
CITY OF FOLSOM n Adoption of this Initial StudylNegative Declaration under the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
AES 2-11 City ofFaisom Lake Natoma Bike Trait September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 28 of 138 2.0 Project Description
Adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan that incorporates the mitigation measures identified in this document.
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD n Preparation of Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for compliance with the General Construction NPDES Permit.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION n Granting of easements for trail development.
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION n Granting of easements for trail development. n Conduct environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE n Section 7 Consultation for Threatened and Endangered Species.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER n Section 106 Finding of No Adverse Effect with Standard Conditions of Finding of Adverse Effect and Memorandum of Agreement.
AES 2-12 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 29 of 138 SECTION 3 .0
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (CHECKLIST)
Staff Report Page No. 30 of 138 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS (CHECKLIST)
3.1 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Pursuant to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15063, an initial study (IS) should provide the lead agency with sufficient information to determine whether to prepare an environmental impact report (EIR) or negative declaration (ND) for a proposed project. The CEQA Guidelines state that an initial study may identify environmental impacts by use of a checklist, matrix, or other method, provided that conclusions are briefly explained and supported by relevant evidence. If it is determined that a particular physical impact to the environment could occur, then the checklist must indicate whether the impact is Potentially Significant, Less Than Significant with Mitigation, or Less Than Significant. Findings of No impact for issues that can be demonstrated not to apply to a proposed project do not require further discussion.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impacts refer to two or more individual effects which , when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts . CEQA requires that cumulative impacts be discussed when the project 's incremental effect is cumulatively considerable. These impacts are discussed when appropriate in the relevant issue areas discussed below.
The cumulative setting includes past , present and reasonably foreseeable future actions not part of the Proposed Project , but related to cumulative effects . This includes projected growth and zoning as detailed in the City of Folsom General Plan. Future projects in the region include development of a mixed use facility near the train turntable on Leidesdorff Street.
3.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant AESTHETICS Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? q q ® q b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including , but not limited to, trees, rock croppings, and historic buildings q q ® q within a state scenic highway? q ® c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or q q quality of the site and its surroundings? q d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would q adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
REGULATORY SETTING The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended establishes that the federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe , healthful, productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added ) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 U.S.C. 4331 [b][2]). To further
AES 3-1 City ofFoisom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 31 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
emphasize this point, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in its implementation of NEPA (23 U.S.C. 109[h]) directs that final decisions regarding projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of aesthetic values.
CEQA establishes that it is the policy of the state to take all action necessary to provide the people of the state "with... enjoyment of aesthetic, natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities." (CA Public Resources Code Section 21001 [b])
City General Plan
The City of Folsom (City) General Plan, adapted in 1993 , is the guiding document for development in the City, which includes the project site. Relevant goals and policies , contained within the City's General Plan related to aesthetics are provided below.
Policies:
Policy 1.2: Existing viewsheds and opportunities for viewsheds should be incorporated into the design of new developments.
Policy 1.6: Folsom 's Historic District shall be enhanced and maintained through the improvement of public facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Proposed Project would be located in historic downtown Folsom, adjacent to Lake Natoma and the American River. The Proposed Project would be constructed in and follow existing roads, sidewalks, bike paths and informal dirt pathways within the Folsom Historic District, Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park, and Bureau of Reclamation property. The course of the Proposed Project from the American River Bike Trail west of Folsom Boulevard to the approach to the Rainbow Bridge is paved roadway, sidewalk, disturbed roadway shoulder or existing bike trail. The remaining portion of the Proposed Project consists of sloped, sparsely wooded open space adjacent to Greenback Lane and the Rainbow Bridge.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and C - Scenic Vista and Visual Quality Most of the proposed bike path is within existing streets, disturbed street right of way and sidewalks; however, implementation of the Proposed Project would introduce a paved pathway from the entrance driveway to the Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park (FPSHP) to the eastern terminus of the Proposed Project. This portion of the Proposed Project would be visible from the FPSHP and partially visible from Lake Natoma State Park and the American River for that portion connecting under the Rainbow Bridge. The trail alignment adjacent to the FPSHP traveling west to east would follow the existing trail crossing over Riley Ravine Foot Bridge and continue into the FPSHP parking lot before jogging to the right to parallel Riley Street transitioning to Greenback Lane within the road right of way. Areas that would be disturbed within the FPSHP property would be limited to existing paved areas including trails, parking areas and driveways, and the disturbed road frontage. No natural or historic features including the Riley Ravine Foot Bridge would be disturbed with project implementation. The portion of the trail transitioning
AES 3-2 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 32 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts down along the western side of the Rainbow Bridge abutment would require excavation and most likely construction of short retaining walls to avoid disturbance to the ravine west of the alignment. The retaining wall would be screened from direct views from the main visitor areas of the FPSHP and from Lake Natoma by intervening vegetation and terrain . The small segment of the Proposed Project that would alter the current scenic vista and visual quality of the area would not substantially adversely effect, damage, or degrade the current visual characteristics of the project area.
Question B - Scenic Resources
The Proposed Project is not within a vista of a State scenic highway. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources within a State scenic highway will result. Question D - Light and Glare The Proposed Project would not include the installation of street or pedestrian lighting; therefore, no light or glare would occur with the implementation of the Proposed Project. Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project would not significantly impact visual resources in the vicinity of the project. It is not anticipated that significant additional build out would occur in the project area. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not result in a cumulatively considerable degradation to the scenic vista or resources or character. Cumulative impacts are therefore less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
AES 3-3 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 33 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less Than AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY Significant With No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact RESOURCES Impact Impact Incorporated In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental impacts, 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. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. 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 q q q of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a q q q Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources q q q Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? q d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land q q to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, q due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of q Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest o land to non-forest use?
REGULATORY SETTING Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act The Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act (SWRCA) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop, in cooperation with state and national organizations and the public , a national soil and water conservation program (16 USC 2001-2009 ). This program is a guide for the Secretary in assisting landowners and land users , at their request, in soil and water conservation on private and non-federal lands. Programs administered by the Secretary of Agriculture for the conservation of soil , water, and related resources must be responsive to the long-term needs of the United States. A key component of this act is that the Department of Agriculture possess information , technical expertise , and a delivery system for providing assistance to land users with respect to conservation and use of soils, plants,
AES 3-0 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 34 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental impacts
woodlands, watershed protection and flood prevention, water use and conservation, animal husbandry, fish and wildlife management, recreation, community development, and related resource uses. Officials must use information and data available from other federal, state , and local governments and private organizations, and must coordinate activities with the resource appraisal and planning efforts of other federal agencies to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlap of planning and program efforts. This information provides the foundation for the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) to provide public data including soil maps.
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the California Department of Conservation (CDC) have become involved with analyzing farmland losses. In 1975, the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SC$) began a mapping program to produce agricultural resource maps based on soil quality and land use across the nation. In 1982, the State of California created the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) within the CDC to carry on the mapping activity from the USDA-SCS on a continuing basis (CDC, 2007). The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California's agricultural resources. Agricultural land is rated according to soil quality and irrigation status and is usually based on information obtained from aerial photographs and data from the NRCS. There are no agricultural lands within the proposed project corridor.
Williamson Act The California Legislature passed the California Land Conservation Act (commonly referred to as the "Williamson Act") in 1965 to preserve agricultural lands and open space by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the Williamson Act, private landowners contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict privately-owned land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than their potential market value. The vehicle for these agreements is a rolling-term, ten-year contract that is automatically renewed unless either party files a "notice of nonrenewal." There are no parcels within the Proposed Project's path that are currently subject to Williamson Act contracts.
Timber Land There are no timber lands within the vicinity of the project site.
City General Plan The General Plan, adopted in 1993, does not contain any agricultural or timber goals or policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The Proposed Project would be located in historic downtown Folsom, in the vicinity of Lake Natoma and the American River. The Proposed Project would be constructed adjacent to or on existing roads, sidewalks, bike paths and informal dirt pathways within the Folsom Historic District, Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park (FPSHP), and Bureau of Reclamation property. The course of the Proposed Project from the American River Bike Trail west of Folsom Boulevard to the driveway to the FPSHP is paved roadwaylparking, sidewalk, or existing paved bike trail. The remaining portion of the Proposed Project is
AES 3-5 City of Folsom Lake 1Vatoma Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 35 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
within a disturbed roadway right of way with the final portion including steep topography and a partially wooded area, adjacent to Greenback Lane near the approach to the Rainbow Bridge.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A, B. and E - Farmland and Agricultural Resources As discussed above, the land within the Proposed Project area is not designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Timber land, or Farmland of Statewide Importance by the FMMP; therefore, a less than significant impact to agricultural resources would be caused directly by the construction of the Proposed Project.
Questions C and D - Forestry Resources As discussed above, the land within the Proposed Project area is not designated as timber or forestry land; therefore , a less than significant impact to timber resources would be caused directly or indirectly by the construction of the Proposed Project.
Cumulative Impacts Because the vicinity surrounding the Proposed Project is primarily urban or in recreational use with no agricultural land designations, construction of the Proposed Project would not cause conversion of Prime, Important, or Unique farmland or cause other changes in the cumulative environment that would cause conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural land. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to agricultural resources . A less than significant cumulative impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
AES 3-6 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Septernber 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 36 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant AIR QUALITY Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated 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 roject: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the q ® q q applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality q q I q 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 q q ® q state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant q q q concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial q q ® q number of people?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The proposed project is located in Sacramento County, under the jurisdiction of the Sacramento Municipal Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), which is in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). The climate in the SVAB area is classified as Mediterranean, with mild, wet winters and warm, dry summers. The major climatic influences are the Pacific High Pressure system over the eastern Pacific Ocean and the local valley topography. Folsom's proximity to the Pacific Ocean and location within the Central Valley are the greatest influences on temperature variability in the project area. In the summer the average temperature is 89.3 degrees Fahrenheit (°F), whereas the average winter is 55.6 OF. Hot spells can occur with temperatures exceeding 100 OF and are typically caused by a lack of airflow and low humidity; these spells do not allow air pollutants to disperse from the SVAB (WRCC 2011). Annual average rainfall is approximately 18.15 inches. Heavy rains that occur mainly in mid-winter reduce air pollutions in the project area (WRCC 2011).
Criteria Air Pollutants Criteria Air Pollutants (CAPS) are common pollutants that have been identified by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or California Air Resource Board (CARE) as being detrimental to human health. CAPs are used as indicators of regional air quality. The EPA and CARB has designated six CAPS: ozone (03), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate matter (PM), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), and lead (Pb), GARB has added three addition CAPS, visibility reducing particles, sulfates, and hydrogen sulfide. The following CAPs are of special concern in the SVAB:
AES 3-7 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 37 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Ozone Photochemical reactions involving ROG and NOx resulting from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels is the largest source of ground-level ozone (03). Because photochemical reaction rates depend on the intensity of ultraviolet light and air temperature, ozone is primarily a summer air pollution problem. As a photochemical pollutant, 03 is formed only during daylight hours under appropriate conditions, but is destroyed throughout the day and night. 03 is considered a regional pollutant, as the reactions forming it take place over time and are often most noticeable downwind from the sources of the emissions.
Particulate Matter (PMIo and PM2. ) Particle pollution is a mixture of microscopic solids and liquid droplets suspended in air. This pollution, also known as particulate matter, is made up of a number of components, including acids (such as nitrates and sulfates), organic chemicals, metals, soil or dust particles, and allergens (such as fragments of pollen or mold spores). The size of particles is directly linked to their potential for causing health problems. Particulate matter less than 10 micrometers (pm) in diameter (PM,o) and 2.5 pm in diameter (PM2.5) pose the greatest public health concerns, because they can traverse deep into the lungs (PMin) and can be small enough to enter the bloodstream (PM25).
National and California Ambient Air Quality Standards The EAP and CARB have jurisdiction over air quality in California. The EPA and CARB identify areas throughout California that meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These areas are labeled either "attainment", "unclassifiable", or .maintenance". Areas that do not meet the NAAQS and/or CAAQS are labeled either "nonattainment". Table 3-1 shows the NAAQS and CAAQS.
The EPA and CARB further classify nonattainment areas according to the level of pollution. There are five classes of nonattainment areas: 'maintenance" (recently became compliant with the NAAQS or CAAQS), "marginal" (relatively easy to obtain levels below the NAAQS or CAAQS), "serious", "severe", and "extreme" (will be difficult to reach levels below NAAQS or CAAQS). The EPA and CARB uses these classifications to design clean-up requirements appropriate for the severity of the pollution and set realistic deadlines for reaching those clean-up goals. Table 3-2 shows the attainment status for the SVAB. Attainment and nonattainment areas are identified through monitoring. Unclassifiable areas are those for which air monitoring has not been conducted but are assumed to be in attainment under the NAAQS and/or CAAQS. Table 3-3 provides a three-year summary listing the highest annual concentration observed for pollutants of concern in the SVAB (state 1-hour ozone and federal 8-hour ozone, state and federal 24-hour average PM10, and federal 24-hour PM25). The monitoring station is located at the Folsom-Natoma Street station for ozone and Sacramento-T Street station for PM10 and PM2,5. These stations were selected because of their relative proximity to the Proposed Project.
AES 3-8 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 38 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TABLE 3-1 NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS
Aitt . N A1iidl NA.► 1 hour 0. 09 - 180 - If exceeded N/A If exceeded on Ozone 8 hours 0.07 0.075 137 147 N/A more than 3 days in 3 years Annual arithmetic N/A NIA 20 N/A N/A If exceeded mean PMm If exceeded on 24 hours N/A N/A 50 150 N/A more than 1 day per year Annual arithmetic N/A NIA 12 15 N/A If exceeded mean PM2.5 If exceeded on 24 hours N/A NIA NIA 35 N/A more than I day per year Notes: All standards are based on measurements at 25°C and 1 atmosphere pressure. National and state standards shown are the primary (health effects ) standards- NIA = not applicable ; ppm = parts per million ; ug1m3 = micrograms per cubic meter. CAAQS = California Ambient Air Quality Standard NAAQS = National Ambient Air Quality Standard Source : California Air Resource Board, 2011.
TABLE 3-2 FEDERAL AND CALIFORNIA AMBIENT AIR ATTAINMENT STATUS
Pollutants
Ozone 1-hour No Federal Standard NonattainmentiSerious Ozone 8-hour Non attainment/Severe-15 Nonattainment/serious PM,a Nonattainment Nonattainment PM 2-5 Nonattainment Nonattainment Carbon Monoxide Attainment AttainmentlUnclassified Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Attainment Lead Attainment Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide No Federal Standard Unclassified Sulfates No Federal Standard Attainment Visibility Reducing Particles No Federal Standard Attainment Pinyl Chloride No Federal Standard Attainment Source: SMAQMD, 2011.
AES 3-9 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 39 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TABLE 3-3 FEDERAL AND STATE AIR MONITORING DATA
Ozone State 1-hour: Highest 0.129 0.166 0.120 0.09 ppm Days Exceeded 13 38 24 Ozone Federal (State) 8-hour: Highest 0.122 (0.123 0.123 (0.123) 0.104 (0.104) q.075 (0.07) ppm Days Exceeded 21 (34} 50 {fi5) 35 (47] PM+e Federal (State) 24-hour: Highest a 53.4 (57.4) 73.7 70.9) 47.8 (50.7) 12115] ugltn Days Exceeded 0 (5) 0(3) 0(l ) PM2.6 Federal (State) 24 -hour (annual): Highest 3 58.0 (58.0) 66.1 (78.9) 37.7 (50.1) 50 (150) uglm Days Exceeded 1 19(13) 503) 1(10) Source: California Air Resource Board (CARE), 2011 a.
City General Plan The City of Folsom (City) General Plan, adopted in 1993, is the guiding document for development in the City, which includes the project site. Relevant goals and policies, contained within the City's General Plan related to air quality are provided below.
Policies:
Policy 31.9 The City should encourage bicycle usage through the development and maintenance of a safe and comprehensive bikeway system which includes: 1. The provision of securely anchored bicycle racks. 2. Sidewalks in residential development with protective curbs and adequate lighting.
Sensitive Receptors Sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses that house people who are susceptible to experience adverse impacts from air pollution emissions and, as such, should be given special consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. Sensitive receptors include facilities that house or attract children, the elderly, people with i llnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the effects of air pollutants.
The land surrounding the project site is primarily commercial or recreational space with scattered residential use. The nearest sensitive receptors are residences located approximately 300 feet southeast of the eastern portion of the Proposed Project . There are no schools or hospitals in the immediate vicinity of the Proposed Project.
AES 3-10 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 40 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A, B, C and D -- Emissions of Criteria Pollutants and Human Health Risk
Short Term Construction Impacts During construction, the Proposed Project would generate NOx, ROG and PM2.5 from heavy duty construction equipment exhaust. Due to the size and scope of construction of the Proposed Project, air quality modeling is not warranted under the SMAQMD 2011 CEQA Guide to Assessing Air Quality. The implementation of SMAQMD mitigation measures ( Mitigation Measure AQ-1) would reduce NOx, ROG, PM10, and PM2,5 emissions from construction activities, such as grading, excavation, and soil hauling. Therefore, construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with criteria air pollutants and fugitive dust emissions.
Long- Term Operational Impacts Operation of the Proposed Project would not emit criteria pollutants; therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation. The project would also not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Operation of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant adverse impact to air quality and would actually to have a beneficial impact on air quality, because it would facilitate bicycle use as opposed to car use.
Carbon Monoxide Hotspots Analysis The Proposed Project is located in an area classified as "attainment/unclassified" under the NAAQS and CAAQS for CO. Under Section 4.2 of the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (U.C. Davis, 1997), a project that is within an attainment area is considered satisfactory if it complies with the following conditions (a) does not significantly increase the percentage of vehicles on the road; (b) does not significantly increase traffic volumes; (c) cause an insignificant increase in emissions. The project would not increase the percentage of traffic on the road, or traffic volume during operation; therefore, the impact is less than significant.
Particulate Matter Hot Spot The Proposed Project would not increase PM2.5 emissions in the SVAB, consequently, the Proposed Project would not create a new violation or worsen an existing violation of the NAAQS for PM2.5. Therefore, no mitigation measures are required for long-term operational air quality effects. This impact is less than significant.
Question E - Odor Construction of the Proposed Project would temporarily emit odors from heavy duty construction equipment . Odors from heavy duty construction equipment are generally in the form of diesel particulate matter (DPM). Heavy equipment would be used intermittently and given the distance to the nearest sensitive receptor it is unlikely that odors would be detectable; therefore , construction of the Proposed Project would result in a less than significant impact associated with construction odor. Since the Proposed Project would not increase truck and vehicle traffic there would not be additional odors emitted
AES 3-11 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 41 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
during operation of the Proposed Project. Impacts associated with operational odor would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES AQ-1 The following would control fugitive dust from the construction site and reduce NOx and ROG emissions from construction equipment:
• Water all exposed surfaces two times daily as appropriate. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking area, staging areas, and access roads. • Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered. • Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible track out mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. • Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour. • All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. • Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to five minutes (required by California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 249(d)(3) and 2485). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrance to the site. • Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer's specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.
AES 3-12 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 42 of 138 3,0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect , either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as sensitive, or special status in local or regional q a candidate, q ® q 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 sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans , policies, or regulations , or by the California q ® q q 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, q 0 q q 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 q established native residents 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 q ® q q ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, q q q 01 or other approved local, regional , or state habitat conservation plan?
REGULATORY SETTING Federal Endangered Species Act The U . S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) implement the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC Section 1531 et seq .). Under the FESA, threatened and endangered species on the federal list and their habitats (50 CFR Subsection 17.11 , 17.12) are protected from "take" (i.e., activities that harass , harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect) as well as any attempt to engage in any such conduct , unless a Section 10 Permit is granted to an individual or a Section 7 consultation and a Biological Opinion with incidental take provisions are rendered from the lead federal agency . Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency reviewing a Proposed Project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species may be present within the project site and vicinity and determine whether the Proposed Project will have a potentially significant impact upon such species . Under the FESA , habitat loss is considered to be an impact to the species. In addition , the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under the FESA or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC
AES 3-13 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 43 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Section 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project-related impacts to these species, or their habitats, would be considered significant and require mitigation.
Under the FESA, critical habitat may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior for any listed species. The term "critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species refers to the following: specific areas within the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the species, which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the species and is determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Under Section 7 of the FESA, all federal agencies (including the USFWS and the NMFS) are required to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or modify their critical habitat.
The USFWS published the Recovery Plan for Vernal Pool Ecosystems for California and Southern Oregon (Recovery Plan) (USFWS, 2005b) on December 15, 2005. The Recovery Plan covers 33 plants and animals that occur exclusively or primarily within a vernal pool ecosystem: 15 endangered or threatened plants, five endangered or threatened animals, ten plant species of concern, and three animal species of concern. The overall goals of the Recovery Plan are to: achieve and protect in perpetuity self- sustaining populations of each species; delist the 20 federally listed plant and animal species; and ensure the long-term conservation of the 13 species of special concern.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act Most bird species, (especially those that are breeding, migrating, or of limited distribution) are protected under federal and/or state regulations. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC Subsection 703-712), migratory bird species, their nests, and their eggs are protected from injury or death, as well as any project-related disturbances during the nesting cycle. As such, project-related disturbances must be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle.
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act The Bald Eagle Protection Act was originally enacted in 1940 to protect bald eagles and was later amended to include golden eagles (16 USC Subsection 668-668). This Bald Eagle Protection Act prohibits the taking or possession of, and commerce in, bald and golden eagles, parts, feathers, nests, or eggs with limited exceptions. The definition of take includes pursue, shoot, shoot at, poison, wound, kill, capture, trap, collect, molest, or disturb. Bald eagles may not be taken for any purpose unless a permit is issued prior to the taking. Activities which can be authorized by permit are: scientific collectinglresearch, exhibition, tribal religious, depredation, falconry, and the taking of inactive golden eagle nests, which interfere with resource development or recovery operations. The statute imposes criminal and civil sanctions as well as an enhanced penalty provision for subsequent offenses.
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern Waters of the U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The USACE requires that a permit be obtained if a project proposes the placement of structures
AES 3-14 Crry of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 44 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
within, over, or under navigable waters and/or discharging dredged or fill material into waters below the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits (NWP) that authorize certain activities in waters of the U.S.
Waters of the U.S . are defined as. All waters used in interstate or foreign commerce; all interstate waters including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, where the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate commerce; and impoundments of these waters, tributaries of these waters, or wetlands adjacent to these waters (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328 ). The limit of USACE jurisdiction for non-tidal waters (including non-tidal perennial and intermittent watercourses and tributaries to such watercourses) in the absence of adjacent wetlands is defined by the OHWM.
The OHWM is defined as: The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a 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 (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328).
Wetlands are defined as : 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 (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328).
In addition , a Section 401 Water Quality Certification Permit was established to comply with CWA Sections 301 , 302, 303, 306, and 307 and is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Anyone that proposes to conduct a project that may result in a discharge to U.S. surface waters and/or "waters of the state" including wetlands (all types) year round and seasonal streams, lakes and all other surface waters would require a federal permit . At a minimum, any beneficial uses lost must be replaced by a mitigation project of at least equal function, value, and area. Waste Discharge Requirements Permits are required pursuant to California Water Code Section 13260 for any persons discharging or proposing to discharge waste, including dredge/fill, that could affect the quality of the waters of the state.
California Endangered Species Act The California Endangered Species Act (CESA ) prohibits the take of state-listed threatened and endangered species . Under CESA, state agencies are required to consult with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) when preparing CEQA documents . Under the CESA , the CDFG is responsible for maintaining a list of rare, threatened, and endangered species designated under state law (California Fish and Game Code 2070 -2079). The CDFG also maintains lists of candidate species, species of special concern , and fully protected species . Candidate species are those taxa , which have been formally recognized by the CDFG and are under review for addition to the state threatened and endangered list. Species of special concern are those taxa, which are considered sensitive and this list serves as a "watch list." Pursuant to the requirements of the CESA , agencies reviewing proposed projects within their jurisdictions must determine whether any state-listed species have potential to occur
AES 3-15 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 45 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
within a proposed project site and if the proposed project would have any significant impacts upon such species . Project-related impacts to species on the CESA 's rare, threatened , and endangered list would be considered significant and require mitigation. Impacts to species of concern would be considered significant under certain circumstances discussed in subsequent sections. The CDFG can authorize take, if an incidental take permit is issued by the Secretary of the Interior or Commerce in compliance with the FESA, or if the director of the CDFG issues a permit under Section 2080 in those cases where it is demonstrated that the impacts are minimized and mitigated.
CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 Several federal and state statutes protect rare, threatened, and endangered species. The CEQA Guidelines Article 20, Section 15380 provides that a species not listed on the federal or state list of protected species may be considered rare, threatened, or endangered if the species can be shown to meet certain specified criteria. These criteria have been modeled after the definitions of endangered, rare, or threatened provided in the FESA and the CESA, This section of the Guidelines provides public agencies with the ability to protect a species from any potential impacts of proposed projects until the respective government agency has the opportunity to designate (list) that species as protected, if warranted.
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) maintains an extensive list of plant species that it considers to be rare, threatened, or endangered, but have no designated status or protection under federal or state endangered species legislation. Impacts to CNPS listed species (e.g., CNPS list 18 and 2) are considered during CEQA environmental review.
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600-1616 Under Sections 1600-1616, the CDFG regulates activities that would alter the flow, bed, channel, or bank of streams and lakes. It derives this jurisdiction under the CESA because the CDFG is responsible for the protection of fish or wildlife resources and their habitats (including wetlands). The CDFG provides comments on USAGE Section 404 and 401 permits under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, last amended in 1995. The CDFG is authorized under the California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600- 1616 to develop mitigation measures and enter into Streambed Alteration Agreements with applicants whose proposed projects 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 and wetlands. Biological components of rivers, streams, or lakes may include aquatic and riparian vegetation, aquatic animals and fish, amphibians, reptiles, invertebrates, and terrestrial species that derive benefits from the stream system.
City General Plan The following purpose and intent (12.16.010) identified within the City of Folsom General Plan (General Plan) associated with tree preservation (Chapter 12.16) are applicable to the Proposed Project.
A. In order to promote the public health, safety and general welfare, to enhance the beauty of Folsom and to complement and strengthen zoning, subdivision and land use standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing individual rights to develop private property, the
AES 3-16 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trait September 2011 3nitiai Study
Staff Report Page No. 46 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
city council finds it necessary to establish basic standards, measures and compliance for the preservation and protection of trees.
B. The provisions of this chapter are enacted to: 1. Establish and maintain the optimum amount of tree cover on public and private lands to enhance the natural scenic beauty, moderate climatic conditions, and sustain property values; 2. Promote conservation of tree resources; 3. Authorize the planning director to administer the tree ordinance; 4. Implement the conservation goals of the General Plan. (Ord. 826 § 1 (part), 1995)
The City requires that an application be submitted for projects for trees anticipated for removal and for the protection of trees not anticipated for removal within the project site. The tree permit process (12.16.040) is comprised of an application, which includes an application form, a justification statement, a site map, a preservation program, and an arborist report. The arborist report would be prepared to evaluate tree conditions, identify measures to protect trees for preservation and to evaluate areas in which to plant replacement trees.
METHODOLOGY Analytical Environmental Services (AES) obtained information for the project site from the following sources: a USFWS list, updated April 29, 2010, of federally listed species with the potential to occur on or be affected by projects on the Folsom quad (USFWS, 2010); a California Natural Diversity DataBase (CNDDB) query, dated April 2, 2011, of special status species known to occur on the Folsom quad and 8 surrounding quads (Roseville, Rocklin, Pilot Hill, Citrus Heights, Clarksville, Carmichael, Buffalo Creek, and Folsom SE quads) (CDFG, 2003); a CNPS inventory, dated April 14, 2011, of special status species known to occur on the Folsom quad and 8 surrounding quads (CNPS, 2011); and CNDDB records of special status species known to occur within five miles of the project site. The USFWS, CNDDB, and CNPS lists are provided in the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) (AES, 2011).
Standard references used for the biology and taxonomy of plants include: Abrams (1951, 1960), CNPS (2010), CDFG (2003; 2009), Hickman, ed. (1993), Mason (1957), Munz (1959), and Sawyer and Keeler Wolf (1995). Standard references used for the biology and taxonomy of wildlife include: Cornell Lab of Ornithology (2011), Ehrlich et al. (1988), Jennings and Hayes (1994), Peterson (1990), Sibley (2003), and Stebbins (2003).
Field Survey and Analysis AES biologist Kelly Bayne, M.S. conducted a biological survey, which included a botanical inventory on May 2, 2011. The biological survey consisted of conducting a botanical inventory, evaluating biological communities, and documenting potential habitat for special status species with the potential to occur within the project site. The botanical inventory was conducted in accordance with CDFG's (2009) protocol plant surveys. Plants and wildlife observed within the project site are identified in the BRA.
AES 3-17 City ofFolsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 47 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
The BRA provides a summary of special status species in the vicinity of the project site based on the USFWS file data , the CLAPS inventory , and the CNDDB query and provides a rationale as to whether the species has the potential to occur within the project site based on presence of the species or their habitat types documented during the May 2, 2011 biological survey and documented geographic and elevation ranges required by the species . Species without the potential to occur in the vicinity of the project site are not discussed further.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Habitat Types Habitat types within the project site include : ruderalldeveloped areas , a disturbed riparian corridor, a manmade detention basin/canal , and two drainages. Aquatic habitat types outside the boundary of the project site include Lake Natoma and the American River . Habitat types are discussed in detail below. Representative photographs of the habitat types are shown in the BRA. A habitat map is provided in Figure 6 of the BRA.
RuderallDeveloped The project site is comprised primarily of ruderalldeveloped areas . These areas include the Historic Truss Bridge , the Rainbow Bridge, the Folsom Crossing Bridge , paved roads and road shoulders, and landscape trees and shrubs. The ruderal areas include disturbed ground with ruderal vegetation, and nonnative and native trees . Dominant native trees include : valley oak (Quercus lobata ) and interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii var. wislizenii) trees. Dominant nonnative trees include : silk tree (Albizia julibrissin ), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp.), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima ). Dominant understory vegetation observed within the ruderal areas includes : hairy vetch ( Vicia villosa), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), medusa head ( Taeniatherum caput-medusae), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), milk thistle (Silybum marianum ), and cranesbill ( Geranium mole).
Disturbed Riparian A disturbed riparian corridor occurs along the edge of Segment 3 of the project site BRA Figure 6: Photograph 3. Although it contains overstory native riparian vegetation, it also contains overstory nonnative and native upland vegetation and is dominated by understory nonnative grasses similar to those present in the ruderal areas . Dominant overstory vegetation observed within the riparian habitat includes: box elder (Acer negundo ssp . californicum), alder (Alnus sp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Northern California walnut (Juglans californica var. hindsii), pine (Pinus sp.), redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), interior live oak, valley oak, and tree of heaven . Dominant understory observed within this habitat type consists primarily of upland species including: ripgut grass , prickly lettuce, Italian thistle, cranesbill , and mustard (Brassica sp.).
Drainage Two drainages occur within Segment 3 of the project site. One approximately 2-foot wide drainage crosses northward beneath Leidesdori Street near the intersection with Riley Street through an approximately 3-foot wide culvert. Riprap and plywood occur within the bed and banks of the drainage on
AES 3-18 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 48 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts the north side of the road. Water was observed flowing northward during the May 2, 2011 biological survey of the project site. The other approximately one-foot wide drainage occurs just south of the detention basin/canal. The drainage is culverted beneath the road, exits the project site, continues northward, and connects to the manmade detention basinlcanal. No water was observed within the drainage during the May 2, 2011 biological survey. Dominant vegetation within the bed and along the banks of the drainages are comprised of primarily upland species including: ripgut grass, wild oat, and soft chess.
Manmade Detention Basin A manmade detention basin/canal occurs just north of the approximately one-foot wide drainage within Segment 3 of the project site. This basin is a portion of the historic canal that delivered water to the Folsom Powerhouse. The approximately 20-foot wide detention basin collects stormwater runoff via a culvert under Riley Street during precipitation events. No water was observed within the drainage during the May 2, 2011 biological survey. Dominant vegetation within the bed and along the banks of the drainage is comprised of upland species including: ripgut grass, wild oat, and soft chess.
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. Waterways observed within the project site include two drainages and a manmade detention basinlcanal. These features may be considered waters of the U.S. subject to USACE jurisdiction.
Special-Sta tus Species For the purposes of this assessment, special status has been defined to include those species that are:
• Listed as endangered or threatened under the FESA (or formally proposed for, or candidates for, listing); • Listed as endangered or threatened under the CESA (or proposed for listing); • Designated as endangered or rare, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§1901); • Designated as fully protected, pursuant to California Fish and Game Code (§3511, §4700, or §5050); • Designated as species of concern to the CDFG; or, • Defined as rare or endangered under CEQA.
Special status species with the potential to occur within the project site are discussed in detail below. Special status species documented within 5 miles of the project site are shown in the BRA Figure 7. The USFWS list identifies critical habitat for Central Valley steethead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and Sacramento Orcutt grass (Orcuttia viscida) on the Folsom quad. The project site does not occur within designated critical habitat for these species. A critical habitat map is shown in the BRA Figure 8 (AES, 2011).
Special Status Plants No special status plants occur within the project site.
AES 3-19 City of Folsom Lake Natama Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 49 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Special Status Wildlife Birds
Swainson's Hawk (Buteo swainsoni) Federal Status - None State Status -- Threatened
Swainson 's hawks are nesting raptors that arrive to their breeding grounds in the Central Valley in early March . Swainson's hawk often nest peripherally to Valley riparian systems and utilize lone trees or groves of trees in agricultural fields . Valley oak, Fremont cottonwood , walnut, and large willow trees, ranging in height from 41 to 82 feet, are the most commonly used nest trees in the Central Valley (County of Sacramento, 2007). A breeding pair immediately constructs nests and lays eggs from mid- to late- April. The young hatch in mid-May and remain near the nest . The young depend on the adults for approximately 4 weeks after fledging until they permanently leave the breeding territory. Swainson's hawks nest from February 15 through September 15. Suitable foraging habitat nearby nesting sites is critical for fledgling success (CDFG, 1994).
The CDFG prepared the State Fish and Game Staff Report Regarding Mitigation for Impacts to Swainson's Hawks in the Central Valley of California (Staff Report ) (CDFG , 1994). The CDFG considers whether a project will adversely affect suitable foraging habitat within a 10-mile radius of a Swainson's hawk nest that has been active within the last 5 years . Suitable Swainson's hawk foraging habitat includes alfalfa, fallow fields , beet, tomato, and other low -growing row or field crops , dry-land and irrigated pasture, rice land (when not flooded ), and cereal grain crops (including corn after harvest ) (CDFG , 1994). Projects that occur in urban areas and are less than 5 acres in size are considered exempt from compensatory mitigation so long as there are no documented nest sites within 0.25 miles of the project site within the last 5 years.
There are two CNDDB records for Swainson's hawk within 10 miles of the project site. The nearest record is from 1982 (CNDDB occurrence number 200) and is mapped approximately 5 miles southeast of the project site. The record states that one adult Swainson's hawk was observed in 1979 and in 1982, but no nest was found. The other record is from 2007 (CNDDB occurrence number: 1641) and is mapped approximately 6.6 miles southwest of the project site. The record states that a Swainson's hawk pair was observed nesting in a cottonwood (Populus sp) surrounded by cottonwoods and oaks.
The trees within and in the vicinity of the project site provide potential nesting habitat for this species. There is no foraging habitat present within or adjacent to the project site as the surrounding area is mostly developed . The approximately 2.75-acre project site is exempt from compensatory mitigation because it is less than 5 acres in size, it is located in an urban area , and there are no documented nest sites within 0.25 miles of the project site within the last 5 years. In accordance with the Staff Report, no compensatory mitigation is required . No Swainson's hawks were observed during the May 2, 2011 biological survey of the project site. Swainson 's hawk is not likely to occur because of the minimal amount of documented occurrences and the lack of foraging habitat in the proximity of the project site.
White-Tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) Federal Status - None State Status - Fully Protected
AES 3-20 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 50 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
White-tailed kites are year-round residents in coastal and Valley lowlands. White-tailed kites forage in open grasslands, meadows, agricultural fields, and emergent wetlands. Nesting occurs in dense stands of oaks, willow, or other deciduous trees from February through October (CDFG, 2003). There are 6 CNDDB records for white-tailed kite within 5 miles of the project site. The nearest record is from 1989 (CNDDB occurrence number: 29) and is approximately 0.75 miles southwest of the project site. The record states that 2 adults and 3 juveniles were observed on the west side of Lake Natoma in a stand of blue oak (Quercus douglassi), foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana), and buckeye trees.
The trees within the ruderal areas of the project site provide potential nesting habitat for this species. The vicinity of the project site does not provide foraging habitat for this species. No white-tailed kites were observed during the May 2, 2011 biological survey of the project site. This species has the potential to nest within the project site.
Purple Martin (Progne subis) Federal Status - None State Status -- Species of Concern
Purple martins breed in North America and winter in South America . This species is widely distributed throughout the eastern U.S., and patchily distributed throughout the western U.S. In California, the species is locally distributed , with the highest concentration of populations occurring along the western Cascade and Sierra Nevada Ranges, North Coast and northern Central Coast Ranges , and in the extreme southwest California. Purple martins breed in Valley foothill and montane hardwood , Valley foothill and montane hardwood -conifer, coniferous, and riparian habitats. Purple martins are cavity- nesters that are generally restricted to trees containing woodpecker holes . Breeding season extends from April to August (Brown, 1997; Sibley , 2000).
There are no CNDDB records for purple martin within 5 miles of the project site. The nearest record is from 2007 (CNDDB occurrence number : 27) and is approximately 7.5 miles northwest of the project site. The record states that two adults were observed nesting in an overpass drainage hole surrounded by freeways , nonnative grassland, and oak woodland.
The disturbed riparian habitat within the project site provides habitat for this species . No purple martins were observed during the May 2 , 2011 biological survey of the project site. These species have the potential to occur within the project site.
Migratory Birds and Bird of Prey Fish and Game Code 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (collectively known as birds of prey). The MBTA protects migratory birds and other birds of prey, including Cooper's hawk (Accipiter cooperii), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), great egret (Arden alba), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), merlin (Falco columbarius), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus). Migratory birds and other birds of prey have the potential to nest within the ruderalldeveloped areas in the trees and beneath the Folsom Crossing Bridge, the Rainbow Bridge , and the Historic Truss Bridge. No birds were observed nesting within the project site during the May 2, 2011 biological survey. Migratory birds and other birds of prey have the potential to nest within the project site.
AES 3-21 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 51 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Pallid Bat (Antrazous pallidus) Federal Status - None State Status -- Species of Concern
Pallid bats are found in grasslands , shrublands, woodlands, and forests from sea level up to mixed conifer forests through 2,000 meters. The species commonly occurs in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for roosting. Other roosts include cliffs, abandoned buildings, bird boxes, and under bridges (Harris, 2000). Pallid bats forage over open ground during the dawn and dusk hours. This species establishes daytime roosts in caves, crevices, mines, large hollow trees, and unoccupied buildings. Pallid bats mate from October through February and most young are born from April through July (Harris, 2000). They occur in and and semi-arid regions across much of the American west, along the coast from Canada and Mexico (Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2006-2009).
There is one CNDDB record for pallid bat within 5 miles of the project site. The record is from 1941 (CNDDB occurrence number: 233) and is approximately 1.3 miles northwest of the project site. The only information provided within the record is that one female was collected in 1941.
Pallid bats have the potential to roost within the ruderal/developed areas of the project site within the trees and beneath the Folsom Crossing Bridge, the Rainbow Bridge, and the Historic Truss Bridge. No pallid bats were observed roosting within the project site during the May 2, 2011 biological survey. Pallid bats have the potential to roost within the project site.
IMPACT DISCUSSION A Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) documents the scope and results of the biological surveys, records review and impact analysis for the Proposed Project. The BA will be submitted to USFWS to initiate formal consultation in accordance with Section 7 of the FESA.
Question A - Special Status Species As discussed above, the study area and/or surrounding vicinity represent potential habitat for one state listed threatened species: Swainson's hawk; one state fully protected species: white-tailed kite; and two state listed species of special concern: purple martin and pallid bat; as well as nesting habitat for migratory bird species. No federally listed species would be impacted by the Proposed Project. As described in detail below, any potential impacts to these special status species will be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-3.
Question B - Sensitive Biological Communities The project site does not occur within any designated critical habitat for federally listed species. The project site consists mainly of developed roadways and dirt paths. The Proposed Project has the potential to impact nest sites for federally protected migratory birds through noise, vibrations, and possible tree removal from construction activities and increased human activity. Impacts are considered to be less than significant through the implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-3.
AES 3-22 Crry of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 52 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Question C - Waters of the U.S. Potential jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. within the project site include 2 drainages and one manmade detention basin. These features may be subject to USAGE jurisdiction. A Section 404 CWA permit, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and a Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement would be required if the Proposed Project would result in impacts to these features. The Proposed Project would not have an adverse effect on federally protected wetlands and a less than significant impact would occur with the implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-3.
Question D -- Wildlife Movement and Migratory Corridors The Proposed Project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native residents or migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant.
Question E- Local Policies and Ordinances The removal of any protected trees within the project site will have to follow mitigation measures set forth in the Folsom Tree Ordinance per Chapter 12.16 of the Folsom Municipal Code. Through the implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-3, The Proposed Project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. A less than significant impact would result from the Proposed Project.
Question F- Conservation Plans The Proposed Project is located in Conservation and Preservation land use management zones designated by the Folsom Lake Recreation Area and Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures BR-1 through BR-3, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any conservations plans and no impact would occur (Folsom Lake SRA, 2007).
Cumulative Impacts Cumulative projects in the vicinity of the project site are anticipated to permanently remove minimal plant and wildlife resources, which could impact special-status species and their habitat, nesting and foraging habitat for resident and migratory birds, and/or local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Impacts as a result of the Proposed Project do not contribute to a cumulative direct or indirect loss of sensitive or special-status wildlife species and their habitat, loss of migratory birds, or conflict with local plans or policies protecting biological resources. The Proposed Project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to biological resources. No impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES BR-'I The Proposed Project has the potential to impact nest sites for federally protected migratory birds through noise and vibrations from construction equipment and increased human disturbance during construction activities. The Proposed Project has the potential to impact nest sites within trees if any are anticipated for removal. The following mitigation measures are required to avoid impacts to nest sites for migratory birds and other birds of prey:
AES 3-23 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 fnital Study
Staff Report Page No. 53 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
• If any trees are anticipated for removal, they should be removed outside of the nesting season (October 1 to February 1). If trees are anticipated for removal during the nesting season, a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey within 10 days prior to their removal. If no birds are observed nesting within the trees anticipated for removal, then the biologist would document the results of the preconstruction survey in a letter to the CDFG and the City within 30 days following the survey. If an active nest is observed within a tree anticipated for removal, then the biologist should contact the City by phone or email within one day following the survey. A 50-foot buffer should be established around the tree until a biologist determines that the nest is no longer occupied. The biologist should consult with the CDFG if the 50-foot buffer is impractical.
• A preconstruction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting migratory birds and other birds of prey within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities that occur within the nesting season. The nesting season occurs from February 1 to October 1. The qualified biologist should document the results of the preconstruction survey in a letter to the CDFG and the City within 30 days following the survey. If no active nests are identified during the preconstruction survey, then no further mitigation is required.
• If any active nests are identified during the preconstruction survey within the project site, a 100-foot buffer zone should be established around the nests. The biologist will delimit the buffer zone with construction tape or pin flags within 50 feet of the active nest and maintain the buffer zone until the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged. Guidance from the CDFG will be requested for a reduced buffer zone if establishing a 50-foot buffer zone is impractical. BR-2 The Proposed Project has the potential to impact roosting sites within trees if any are anticipated for removal and during construction activities in the vicinity of the Folsom Crossing Bridge, the Rainbow Bridge, and the Historic Truss Bridge. The following mitigation measures should be implemented to avoid project-related impacts to roosting sites for pallid bats:
• A qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey for roosting bats within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The qualified biologist should document the results of the preconstruction survey in a letter to the CDFG and the City within 30 days following the survey. If no active roosts are identified during the preconstruction survey, then no further mitigation is recommended. • If any bats are found to occur within cavities of any trees proposed to be removed or beneath the Folsom Crossing Bridge and the overpass that crosses Folsom Boulevard, then the trees should not be removed and no construction activities should occur within 25 feet until the biologist can assure that the bats have vacated the structure or cavity. • If unavoidable impacts to bat roosting sites are identified, these impacts should be mitigated through the installation of roosting boxes on the project site. Five roosting boxes should be created for every roosting structure destroyed. The results should be documented in a letter report to the City and the CDFG within 30 days following the completion of the mitigation.
AES 3-24 city of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 lnirfal Study
Staff Report Page No. 54 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
BR-3 If any trees are proposed for removal or work is proposed beneath the drip fine of protected trees, then the following mitigation measures would be required:
• An application should be submitted to and adopted by the City Council prior to commencement of construction activities in accordance with the City's General Plan. The application should include an application form, a justification statement , a site map, a preservation program, and an arborist report. The arborist report should be prepared by a certified arborist. The arborist report should include the botanical and common names of the trees by tree number; locations of the trees by tree numbers; diameters at breast height (DBH) by tree numbers, identifying whether the trees are single or multitrunked; protected zone radii by tree numbers; and condition of tree numbers based on the excellent, good, fair to good, fair, fair to poor, and poor tree rating system.
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With Significant Significant No CULTURAL RESOURCES Mitigation Impact Im act Impact p Incorporated Would the project: in the significance of ® a) Cause a substantial adverse change q ci a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of ® El El El an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological ® q El q resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred ® q outside of formal cemeteries?
A comprehensive cultural resources study was prepared for the proposed project; due to its confidential nature, the document appears under a separate cover (AES, 2011). A summary of the findings of the study appears below.
REGULATORY SETTING National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and its implementing regulations found in 36 CFR Part 800, require federal agencies to identify cultural resources that may be affected by actions involving federal lands, funds, or permitting. The significance of the resources must be evaluated using established criteria outlined 36 CFR 60.4, as described below.
If a resource is determined to be a historic property, Section 106 of the NHPA requires that effects of the development on the resource be determined. A historic property is:
...any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, records, and material remains related to such a property ... (NHPA Sec. 301(5])
AES 3-25 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 55 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Section 106 of the NHPA prescribes specific criteria for determining whether an undertaking would adversely affect a historic property, as defined in 36 CPR 800.5. An impact is significant when the following occurs to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or objects that are listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP):
n physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the property; • alteration of a property; n removal of the property from its historic location; n change of the character of the property's use or of physical features within the property's setting that contribute to its historic significance; • introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features; n neglect of a property that causes its deterioration; and
• transfer, lease, or sale of the property out of federal control without adequate and legally enforceable restrictions or conditions to ensure long-term preservation of the property's historic significance.
If development will adversely affect an historic property, then prudent and feasible measures must be undertaken to avoid or reduce adverse impacts. The State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) should be provided with an opportunity to review and comment on these measures prior to project implementation.
National Register of Historic Places The eligibility of a resource for listing in the NRHP is determined by evaluating the resource using criteria defined in 36 CFR 60.4 as follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess integrity of location, design, setting , materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and
a) That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; b) that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 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 has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or history.
Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP.
In addition to meeting at least one of the criteria listed above, the property must also retain enough integrity to enable it to convey its historic significance. The National Register recognizes seven aspects
AES 3-26 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 56 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts or qualities that, in various combinations, define integrity (NPS, 1990). These seven elements of integrity are location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. To retain integrity a property will always possess several, and usually most, of these aspects.
While most historic buildings and many historic archaeological properties are significant because of their association with important events, people, or styles (criteria A, B, and C), the significance of most prehistoric and some historic-period archaeological properties is usually assessed under criterion D. This criterion stresses the importance of the information contained in an archaeological site, rather than its intrinsic value as a surviving example of a type or its historical association with an important person or event. It places importance not on physical appearance but rather on information potential.
California Environmental Quality Act The California Environmental Quality Act requires that, for projects financed by, or requiring the discretionary approval of public agencies in California, that the effects that a project has on historical and unique archaeological resources be considered (PRC Section 21083.2). Historical resources are buildings, sites, structures, or objects, each of which may have historical, architectural, archaeological, cultural, or scientific importance (PRC Section 50201). The CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5) define three cases in which a property may qualify as a historical resource for the purpose of CEQA review:
a) The resource appears in, or is determined eligible for the listing, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). Section 5024.1 defines eligibility requirements and states that a resource may be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR if it., 1) Is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage; 2) is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or 4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.
Sites younger than 45 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the CRHR.
As with the NRHP, properties must retain integrity to be eligible for listing on the CRHR. Properties that are listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP are considered eligible for listing in the CRHR, and thus are significant historical resources for the purpose of CEQA (PRC section 5024.1(d)(1)).
b) The resource is included in a local register of historic resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the PRC, or is identified as significant in a historical resources survey that meets the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the PRC (unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant).
AES 3-27 City of Folsom Lake Netome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 57 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
c) The lead agency determines that the resource may be a historical resource as defined in PRC section 5020.1(j), 5024.1, or significant as supported by substantial evidence in light of the whole record.
Public Resources Code Section 21083.2 governs the treatment of unique archaeological resources, defined as "an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated" as meeting any of the following criteria:
1. Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information. 2. Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best example of its type. 3. Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.
California Public Resources Code Section 5097 .5 of the PRC prohibits "knowing and willful" excavation , removal, destruction , injury, or defacement of paleontological resources on public lands without prior permission from the appropriate agency. Public lands include those "owned by , or under the jurisdiction of, the state , or any city, county, district, authority , or public corporation, or any agency thereof." If paleontological resources are identified within a given project area, the lead agency must consider those resources when evaluating project impacts. The level of consideration may vary with the importance of the resource in question.
CULTURAL SETTING Ethnographic Context The project area is located in the ethnographic territory of the Penutian-speaking Nisenan people. Also called the Southern Maidu, the Nisenan people inhabited the Yuba, Bear, and American River drainages, as well as the lower drainages along the Feather River (Beals, 1933; Heizer, 1978:387; Wilson and Towne, 1978; Moratto, 1984:290). Prior to the 19th century, the Nisenan inhabited the Lake Natoma State Recreation Area (SRA) and the descendants of some of the Nisenan still reside in the area. While archaeologists have not clearly defined the northern boundary of the Nisenan, the eastern boundary is the crest of the Sierra, and the southern boundary was near Lake Natoma SRA (Heiner, 1978:387; EDAW, 2003:10). The landscape the Nisenan inhabited varied greatly from east to west from the plains of the Sacramento River near sea level to the 10,000 ft (3048 m) peaks cresting the Sierra Mountains; intermittent and perennial streams bisected both areas. They established permanent settlements on ridges, knolls, or terraces above streams (Matz, 1980:4). In the Folsom area, the Nisenan would have inhabited foothills and oak woodland habitat, as well as grasslands adjacent to the rivers and creeks. The region would have supported abundant game, waterfowl, fish, and plant resources (Heiner, 1978:387).
Historical Context Much of the project area lies in the historic land grant of Rancho Rio de los Americanos, which consisted of eight leagues or approximately 35,000 acres (14,164 ha) (Thompson and West, 1880 :184; Beck and Haase, 1977:28; Barrows , 1999). Captain Joseph Libbey Folsom founded the town of Granite City in
AES 3-28 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 58 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
1855 on the river bluffs above the site of Negro Bar (Thompson and West, 1960:300). During the survey of the township, Folsom died. To honor him, his heirs renamed the city "Folsom" in 1856 (Castaneda et al., 1984:59; Barrows, 1999; Thompson and West, 1894; EDAW, 2003:13).
The City of Folsom grew with the increased need for supply, freight, and passenger transportation; this was especially true with the discovery of gold at Sutter's Mill and the opening of the Comstock silver ore mines in Nevada . The city developed four main industries : mining , transportation , correctional facilities, and hydroelectric development (Maniery and Syda, 1991:27). However, the city is most notable for gold discoveries in late 1848 , and the placer mining and dredging , which continued in the town until the 1960's (Wilson, 1992:4).
The project area lies within the "Old Folsom Historic District." With regard to this project, the Area of Potential Effects (APE) includes the Folsom Powerhouse (State Historic Landmark (SHL] 702), which is also on the National Register of Historic Places (1979:7433), and the Terminal of California's First Passenger Railroad (State Registered Landmark [SRLJ 558), as well as the American River Placer Mining District. The latter is a conceptualized area defined from historic records. It encompasses the general area mined using water taken from the south fork of the American River by the Natoma Water and Mining Company, including thousands of acres of cobble tailings piles generated from the process. In addition to dredging and other forms of mining remnants, it includes mining camps and other occupation areas, Euro-American, African American, and Chinese.
NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION In a letter dated April 25, 2011, AES requested the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) search it's Sacred Lands Inventory File and submit a list of local Native American contacts that might have information regarding the project area. The NAHC responded to the request on May 5, 2011 with the results of the Sacred Lands File and Native American contacts. The Sacred Lands File search did not indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Tribal representatives identified by the NAHC as persons or organizations whom might have knowledge of cultural sites in the project area were sent letters requesting information regarding any known cultural resources in the project area. To date, tribal representatives from the Shingle Springs Rancheria and the United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria requested to be consulted as the project progresses.
RECORDS SEARCH AND LITERATURE REVIEW Reports and maps were reviewed, a cultural resources records search from the North Central Information Center (NCIC) was examined, the NAHC was consulted, and a reconnaissance survey of the APE was completed to identify issues relating to the undertaking's potential effects. The direct APE includes cultural resources within a 10 ft (-3 m) radius of the bikeway alignment. The indirect APE includes cultural resources within a 0.25 mi (0.40 km) records search area . The NCIC records indicate that there are 14 cultural resources within the direct APE. There are 70 cultural resources located within the indirect APE. These resources date to prehistoric and historical periods. Prehistoric resource in the direct APE include two bedrock mortar sites, one with a single bedrock mortar feature with 5 cupules, and a second with 22 bedrock mortars and multiple cupules. Historic sites in the direct APE include the American River Placer Mining District, Old Folsom Historic District, the Folsom Powerhouse and Old Folsom Powerhouse,
AES 3-29 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 59 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
the Bakker Home (a one-story Craftsman style cottage dated to 1920); two historic refuse pits (one associated with Folsom's Chinese community), the remnants of a mid-19th century granite quarry operated by the Meredith Brothers , and three historic bridges (Rainbow Bridge, Folsom Historic Steel Truss Bridge , and Riley Ravine Bridge).
FIELD SURVEY On May 2, 2011 , an AES archaeologist conducted a Phase I reconnaissance survey of the project area. The archaeologist surveyed the project alignment and conducted a survey 10 ft (3 m) in each of the cardinal directions radiating out from the alignment (when possible). The survey began at the southwestern most point of the APE and continued to its most northwestern terminus . Data collection was accomplished using a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, compass; photographs, notes and sketch maps.
Surface visibility was very good (95 percent) on the graded/paved portions of the APE; however, surface visibility was around 40 percent in heavily vegetated areas , such as the side slopes and terraces. The results of the survey indicated a scattering of potentially historic artifacts on the surface throughout the alignment and the presence of the Folsom State Powerhouse and its associated structures along the alignment. Artifacts and potential artifacts are noted in the Cultural Resources Study (AES, 2011).
PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES REGULATORY SETTING The California Environmental Quality Act provides protection for unique paleontological resources and unique geologic features, and requires that planners consider impacts to such resources in the project review process. The Act distinguishes between ubiquitous fossils that are of little scientific consequence, and those, which are of some importance by providing protection for the latter. White CEQA does not precisely define unique paleontological resources , criteria established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) provide guidance . The SVP defines a significant paleontological resource as one that meets one or more of the following criteria (SVP, 1995):
n Provides important information shedding light on evolutionary trends and/or helping to relate living organisms to extinct organisms; • provides important information regarding the development of biological communities; n demonstrates unusual circumstances in the history of life; • represents a rare taxon or a rare or unique occurrence , is in short supply and in danger of being destroyed or depleted; • has a special and particular quality , such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or n provides important information used to correlate strata for which it may be difficult to obtain other types of age dates.
The California Environmental Quality Act similarly fails to define precisely a unique geologic feature. For the purpose of this analysis, a unique geologic feature is a resource or formation that:
AES 3-30 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 60 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
• Is the best example locally or regionally; n embodies distinct characteristics of a geologic principal that is exclusive locally or regionally; n provides a key piece of geologic information important in geology or geologic history; • is a type locality of a geologic feature; • contains a mineral not known to occur elsewhere locally or regionally; or is a common teaching tool.
PALEONTOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Paleontological Summary Geologic reports suggest that paleontologists have found land vertebrate fossils in other locations along the Sierran foothills in fine-grained deposits of the Laguna Formation, and as such, there is the potential for fossils in and around Lake Natoma at the outcrops of the Laguna Formation (Geotechnical Consultants, 2003:G-10). Quaternary Riverbank formations also occur within the lower valley of the American River, downstream of the Folsom Dam. In areas where there are fine-grained deposits, there is the potential for vertebrate fossils (Geotechnical Consultants, 2003: G-10).
Field survey confirmed information provided by the United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service, and by geologic reports; as such, a low to moderate potential exists for paleontological resources within the project area.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A-D - Cultural Resources Significant impacts to cultural resources typically occur when important sites, features , or artifacts are lost, damaged, or destroyed without appropriate mitigation such as recordation or data recovery. Displacement or destruction of these resources will result in the loss of important information and connections to past events, people and cultures. The City of Folsom, and in particular, its Historic District and American River Placer Mining District contain extensive cultural resources, including Native American archaeological sites and historical sites associated with early Euro-American, African-American, and Chinese settlements, mining , agriculture, and hydroelectric power. Native American archaeological sites in the project area include lithic procurement and processing sites. Historic sites in the project area include the Folsom Powerhouse, three historic bridges, 190' century homes, the remnants of mining operations, and the remnants of Chinese settlers. If The City of Folsom chooses the preferred bikeway alignment, it can avoid or mitigate impacts to these cultural resources and any paleontological resources through monitoring and appropriate remedial measures if necessary. The alternative segment, which proposes a tunnel under Riley Street, has the potential for significant impacts.
As discussed above, there are a few cultural resources located within and adjacent to the proposed project's right-of-way. Moreover, the records search and archival research indicate that the region is sensitive for prehistoric, historical, and paleontological resources. Project implementation could affect indirectly or directly known cultural resources and has the potential to affect unknown buried archaeological resources, as archaeological sites may be present with no surface manifestation. However, mitigation measures presented below could reduce impacts to known and unknown cultural
AES 3-31 City of Folsom Lake Netome Bike Trail September 2011 Inifial Study
Staff Report Page No. 61 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
resources to a less than significant level. Other cumulative projects would be required to conform to the appropriate regulatory frameworks, including local preservation ordinances, CEQA, and/or Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Adherence to these regulatory frameworks should insure that potential impacts to cultural resources are less than significant with mitigation. The proposed project would also comply with these requirements. Accordingly, no cumulatively significant impacts to cultural resources would occur. With implementation of Mitigation Measure C-1, impacts to Cultural Resources would be reduced to less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES C-1 Impacts to cultural resources in and around the project alignment can be minimized or avoided through monitoring by qualified personnel. Archaeological monitoring will protect recognized cultural resources and those buried, or covered by modern infrastructure. Should monitoring reveal that significant impacts are likely to occur or are occurring, the City should consult interested parties as appropriate (SHPO, NAHC, Historic Landmarks Foundation, etc.) and then take either remedial action or cause remedial action to be taken, including requiring that construction of the bikeway be altered or halted.
As there is a moderate to high potential for inadvertent archaeological or historical discoveries, an archaeological monitor shall be present for all ground moving and/or ground penetrating activities. Grading through the site should be done in approximate 6 in. (15.2 cm) levels; monitors will inspect the cut surface after each pass of the grader or other earth-moving equipment; all features and objects identified by the monitor as requiring recordation or recovery will be plotted using GPS units and photographed in situ. The monitors will be authorized to halt work for up to one working day or such longer time as may be agreed upon between monitors and the site manager to record and recover features and objects; recovered material and data will be recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation recording forms and curated under 36 CFR 79 or otherwise applicable standards; and monitoring will be terminated when the monitor(s) agree that all cultural or paleontological deposits have been removed, or when grading has reached the design depth specified in the project plan.
In addition to these measures, special attention should be paid to avoiding damage to cultural resources that are NRHP or CRHR listed or eligible, and/or are recognized California Points of Historical Interest or Landmarks. Additionally, project planners should take care not to cause any alterations to cultural resources or features located within the historic district. The Riley Ravine Bridge, for example, should not have a bike path painted upon its surface, or any other features added that might diminish its integrity.
If human remains, paleontological specimens, or previously unknown historic and/or prehistoric artifacts or features are unearthed during project implementation, the construction team shall suspend work immediately within a 50 m (164.04 ft) radius. The suspension of work will allow a Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist or a paleontologist to determine whether the cultural constituent or paleontological resource represents a potentially significant discovery. The archaeologist or paleontologist will then make recommendations for measures necessary to protect the find and/or undertake data recovery, excavation, analysis, and curation of materials, as appropriate.
AES 3-32 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 62 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With GEOLOGY & SOILS Significant Significant No Mitigation Impact impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury , or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake q q ® q Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known Fault? b) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury , or death q q 0 q involving strong seismic ground shaking? c) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury, or death ® q q q involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss , injury, or death q q ® q involving landslides? e) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? [] ® q q f) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project , and q ® q q potentially result in on- or off site landslide, lateral spreading , subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? g) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial q q ® q risks to life or property? h) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems q q q where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
REGULATORY SETTING National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System The USEPA is the permitting authority under the Clean Water Act (CWA) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) for potential impacts regarding erosion and sediment control. A NPDES Construction General Permit (General Permit ) is required when construction activities disturb more than one acre of land. The General Permit requires the development and implementation of an effective Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP ) that describes Best Management Practices (BMPs ) that are to be implemented during construction activities . The goal of the SWPPP is to limit soil erosion, the release of sediment laden storm water, and other construction related pollutants into surface waters during temporary construction activities . Mass grading and excavation activities associated with the project must comply with the requirements of the NPDES permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff associated with Construction Activity (Order No. 99-08-DWQ ). Refer to the Hydrology and Water Quality section for a more comprehensive discussion of the regulatory framework for water quality as it relates to the project.
AES 3-33 City of Folsom Lake Netama Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 63 of 138 3.0 E=valuation of Environmental Impacts
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act was passed in 1972; it prohibits the placement of structures intended for human occupancy from being built across active fault traces in California. The Act requires delineation of zones (Aiquist-Priolo z ones) along active faults in order to address seismic concerns as they relate to public safety and project design. The Act only addresses the hazards of surface fault rupture and is not intended to regulate activities relating to other earthquake hazards such as liquefaction, landslides, or tsunamis. Cities and counties are required to regulate development projects within Alquist-Priolo zones.
Seismic Hazards Mapping Act This Seismic Hazards Mapping Act requires cities, county, and local permitting agencies to regulate urbanization development and redevelopment projects within seismic hazard zones that have been delineated by the State Geologist. Before a development permit can be granted to a proposed project located near a seismic hazard zone, a geotechnical investigation of the site must be conducted and appropriate mitigation measures incorporated into the project design. A regional fault map is presented as Figure 3-5.
City General Plan The General Plan, adopted in 1993, does not contain any geology or soils goals or policies.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Topography The project site is located on level terrain adjacent to Lake Natoma, with elevations of 170 feet above mean sea level (amsl) rising very slightly from north to south to approximately 190 feet amsl at the intersection of Folsom Boulevard and Leidesdorff Street. The only steep slopes or gradients located along or adjacent to the project site are the southern banks of Lake Natoma, which drop to an elevation of approximately 125 feet amsl, depending on the current water level.
Soils Soils Surveys A summary of the soil characteristics for the major map units found on the project site is provided in Table 3-4.
Expansive Soils The potential for soils to demonstrate expansive properties is primarily dependent upon clay content. Clay particles can swell by absorbing large amounts of water relative to their volume, such as during periods of heavy rains, and the ground can rise several inches (JCP, 2001). Conversely, when these particles dry out, they shrink. As shown in Table 3-5, a majority of the soil map units located on the project site (66 percent) are considered moderately expansive. Soil map unit 243 covers approximately 33 percent (5.1 acres) of the project site and has not been rated for soil expansiveness.
AES 3-34 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 64 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental impacts
TABLE 3-4 PROJECT SITE SOILS Map Unit Symbai Map Unit Name Soil Properties 108 Argonaut-Auburn- These soils are considered moderately Urban land expansive soils and range from mildly to complex, 3 to 8 moderately susceptible to sheet and rill percent slo es erosion. 194 Red Bluff-Urban These soils are classified as moderately land complex, 0 to expansive soils and are mildly susceptible to 5 percent slopes sheet and rill erosion. 243 Xerolls, 30 to 70 These soils are not rated for soil percent slopes expansiveness or susceptibility to sheet and rill erosion Source: NRCS, 2011.
Soil Erosion Soil erosion involves the removal of the soil materials from the ground surface and the transportation of soil materials resulting in deposition in a remote location. Mechanisms of soil erosion include natural phenomena such as stormwater runoff and wind, as well as human activities, such as changes in drainage patterns and removal of vegetation. Factors that influence soil erosion include physical properties of the soil, topography (slope), annual precipitation, and peak rainfall intensity. As shown in Table 3-5, soil map units located on the project site have mild to moderate potentials for sheet and rill erosion.
Seismicity Active Faults According to the Alquist-Priolo Act, active faults are defined as those that have shown seismic activity within the past 11,000 years, which are classified as Holocene faults by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (CGS, 2007). The USGS definition, adopted by the California Geological Survey (CGS), defines active faults as faults showing signs of activity up to the beginning of the Quaternary age (1.6 million years ago). There are no major faults which transect the immediate vicinity of the project site. Bear Mountain fault zone is located approximately eight miles east of the project site. There is also the Midland Fault, which is situated in Solano County, approximately 37 miles from the project site. The Midland Fault is believed to be capable of producing an earthquake. However, both the Bear Mountain and Midland faults have not been active historic time (GSA, 2005).
Surface Rupture Surface ruptures occur when movement along both sides of faults, which are located deep underground, produces enough energy to cause a fracture on the surface. The Alquist-Priolo Act limits development on lands within a potential fault rupture zone. The project site is not within a potential fault rupture zone as the nearest fault is located eight miles east of the site.
AES 3-35 City of Folsom take Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 65 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Seismic Shaking Intensity: the Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale The Modified Mercalli Intensity ( MMI) scale (Table 3-5) is a common measure of earthquake effects due to ground shaking intensity. The MMI values for intensity range from I (earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total), and intensities ranging from IV to XI could cause moderate to significant structural damage. According to the probabilistic seismic hazards map, the project site has a potential ground motion during a strong seismic event ( average peak ground acceleration) of 0.129 percent of the force of gravity (CGS, 2011). This equates to a MMI intensity rating of moderate (VII).
Liquefaction When subjected to energy associated with the shaking intensity of a considerably sized earthquake (MMI VIII and above), certain soils when saturated with water may lose their solid structure and act as liquids. Soils comprised of sand and sandy loams, in areas with high groundwater tables or rainfall, are subject to liquefaction. Ground subject to liquefaction may sink or pull apart. Liquefaction may lead to lateral spreading, where slopes even out, changing the topography of the area. Due to the site's proximity to Lake Natoma and potential for high water table, the project site has the potential to experience topsoil liquefaction during periods of strong seismic shaking and water saturation.
Landslides Areas susceptible to landslides are comprised of weak soils on sloping terrain. Landslides can be induced by weather, such as heavy rains, or strong seismic shaking events. Most of the project site is relatively flat (0 to 8 percent slopes) and is not conducive to landslides. The banks along the north side of Leidesdorff Street transitioning to Riley Street within Segment 3 and the slopes within Segment 4 are comprised of steeper slopes and have a higher susceptibility to landslides.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A-d, and F-G - Seismic Shaking and Expansiveness The project site is not located within an Aiquist-Priolo Act Earthquake Fault Zone and there are no known potential fault rupture hazards on the project site. The project site has the potential to experience topsoil liquefaction during periods of strong seismic shaking and water saturation and the southern portion of the project site contains soil map units that are classified as moderately expansive. Implementation of the Proposed Project would not result in the development of new habitable structures or otherwise result in substantial adverse effects including the risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Impacts associated with seismicity, liquefaction, and expansive soils are less than significant.
AES 3-36 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 66 of 138 3,0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
TABLE 3-5 MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY SCALE
I. Not felt except by a very few persons under especially favorable < 0.0015g circumstances. !I. Felt only by a few persons at rest , especially on upper floors on buildings . < 0.0015g Delicately suspended objects may swing. IlL Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings , but many < 0.001 5g persons do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing cars may rock slightly. Vibration similar to the passing of a truck . Duration estimated. IV. During the day felt indoors by many , outdoors by few. At night , some 0.015g-0.02g awakened . Dishes, windows , doors disturbed; walls make cracking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building . Standing motorcars rocked noticeably. V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened . Some dishes, windows, etc., 0.03g-0.04g broken; a few instances of cracked plaster ; unstable objects overturned. Disturbances of trees , poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop. Vi. Felt by all , many frightened and run outdoors . Some heavy furniture moved ; a 0.06g-0.07g few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight. VII. Everybody runs outdoors . Damage negligible in buildings of good design and 0.10g-0.15g construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures ; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving cars. Vill. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary 0.25g-0.30g substantial buildings, with partial collapse ; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures . Fall of chimneys , factory stacks, columns, monuments, and walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts . Changes in well water. Persons driving cars disturbed. IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures ; well-designed frame 0.50g-0.55g structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings , with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations. Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken. X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed ; most masonry and frame > 0.60g structures destroyed with foundations ; ground badly cracked . Rails bent. Landslides considerable from riverbanks and steep slopes . Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped ) over banks. XI. Few, if any, masonry structures remain standing . Bridges destroyed . Broad > 0.60g fissures in ground . Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft round . Rails bent greatly. xtl. Damage total . Practically all works of construction are damaged greatly or > 0.60g destroyed . Waves seen on ground surface . Lines of sight and level are distorted . Objects are thrown upward into the air. Note:' g is gravity = 98 meters per second squared. Source: Bolt, 1988.
AES 3-37 City of Folsom Lake Netama Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 67 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Question E - Erosion Soils underlying the project site are Argonaut-Auburn-Urban land complex (108), Red Bluff-Urban land complex (194), and Xerolls (243) which have a moderate potential for erosion (NRCS, 2011). The greatest chance of impacts from erosion occurs during grading and construction activities. Erosion control measures are an integral component of the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) required under the Clean Water Act's National Pollutant Distribution Elimination System (NPDES) permit required for construction sites disturbing over one-acre of soil. With a total disturbance area greater than one acre, the City will be required to apply for coverage under NPOES permitting system. To comply with the State's NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit), a Notice of Intent will be filed with the Central Valley Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) and a SWPPP will be prepared prior to construction. A copy of the SWPPP must be current and remain on the project site. The CVRWQCB requires that all construction sites have adequate control measures to prevent the discharge of sediment and other pollutants to streams or rivers. With the incorporation of the provisions of the NPDES and the CVRWQCB requirements and Mitigation Measure GS-1, impacts from the construction of the Proposed Project on soil erosion would be Tess than significant.
Question H - Wastewater Treatment The Proposed Project does not include development of septic facilities or alternative wastewater treatment options. No impact to soils would occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project has a low probability of exposing people and structures to seismic related hazards. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1, the Proposed Project's impact on soils would be reduced to less than significant. Therefore, the cumulative impacts are less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES GS-1 Erosion control measures shall be required prior to and throughout the rainy season. Erosion and water quality control measures identified in the SWPPP could include but not be limited to the following:
1. Temporary erosion control measures (such as silt fences, staked straw bales, and temporary revegetation) shall be employed for disturbed areas . No disturbed surfaces will be left without erosion control measures in place during the winter and spring months. 2. Sediment shall be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures. 3. A spill prevention and countermeasure plan shall be developed that will identify proper storage, collection, and disposal measures for potential pollutants (such as fuel, fertilizers, pesticides, etc.) used on-site. The plan will also require the proper storage, handling, use, and disposal of petroleum products. 4. Construction activities shall be scheduled to minimize land disturbance during peak runoff periods and to the immediate area required for construction. Soil conservation practices
ACS 3-38 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 68 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
shall be completed during the fall or late winter to reduce erosion during spring runoff. Existing vegetation will be retained where possible. To the extent feasible, grading activities shall be limited to the immediate area required for construction. 5. Surface water runoff shall be controlled by directing flowing water away from critical areas and by reducing runoff velocity. Diversion structures such as terraces, dikes, and ditches shall collect and direct runoff water around vulnerable areas to prepared drainage outlets. Surface roughening, berms, check dams, hay bales, or similar devices shall be used to reduce runoff velocity and erosion. 6. Sediment shall be contained when conditions are too extreme for treatment by surface protection. Temporary sediment traps, filter fabric fences, inlet protectors, vegetative filters and buffers, or settling basins shall be used to detain runoff water long enough for sediment particles to settle out. Store, cover, and isolate construction materials, including topsoil and chemicals, to prevent runoff losses and contamination of groundwater. 7. Topsoil removed during construction shall be carefully stored and treated as an important resource. Berms shall be placed around topsoil stockpiles to prevent runoff during storm events. 8. Establish fuel and vehicle maintenance areas away from all drainage courses and design these areas to control runoff. 9. Disturbed areas will be re-vegetated after completion of construction activities.
10. All necessary permits and approvals shall be obtained. 11. Provide sanitary facilities for construction workers.
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant Greenhouse Gas Emissions Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the q q 0 q environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of q q ® q greenhouse gases?
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Climate change i s a global phenomenon attributable to the sum of all human activities and natural processes. The Governor's Office of Planning and Research recommends quantification of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, assessment of the significance of any impact on climate change, and identification of mitigation or alternatives that would reduce GHG emissions. Climate change has the potential to reduce the snow packs in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, and increase the intensity of wildfires and storms intensity.
AES 3-39 City ofFoisom take Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 69 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
REGULATORY BACKGROUND The following regulatory background gives context to the issues of climate change and importance to reducing GHG in California:
Assembly Bill 32 Signed by the California State Governor on September 27, 2006, Assemble Bill (AB) 32 codifies a key requirement of Executive Order (EO) 5-3-05, specifically the requirement to reduce statewide GHG emissions to year 1990 levels by the year 2020. AS 32 tasks CARB with monitoring state sources of GHGs and designing emission reduction measures to comply with the law's emission reduction requirements.
AS 32 required that CARS prepare a comprehensive "scoping plan" that identifies all strategies necessary to fully achieve the required 2020 emissions reductions. In early December 2008, CARB released its scoping plan to the public and on December 12, 2008, the CARB board approved the scoping plan.
The scoping plan calls for an achievable reduction in California's carbon footprint. Reduction of GHGs emissions to 1990 levels are proposed, which equates to cutting approximately 30 percent from estimated GHG emission levels projected in 2020, or about 15 percent from today's levels. The scoping plan relies on existing technologies and improving energy efficiency to achieve the 30 percent reduction in GHG emission levels by 2020. The scoping plan provides the following key recommendation to reduce GHG emissions:
n Expand and strengthen existing energy efficiency programs as well as building and appliance standards; n Achieve a statewide renewable energy mix of 33 percent; n Develop a California cap-and-trade program that links with other Western Climate Initiative partner programs to create a regional market system; n Establish targets for transportation-related GHG emissions for regions throughout California, and pursuing policies and incentives to achieve those targets; n Adopt and implement measures pursuant to existing State laws and policies, including California's clean car standards, goods movement measures, and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard.
Senate Bill 97 Signed by the Governor on August 24, 2007, Senate Bill (SB) 97 required that the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR) prepare CEQA guidelines for evaluating the effects of GHG emissions and for mitigating such effects. The Natural Resources Agency adopted these guidelines on December 31, 2009.
CEQA Guidelines In accordance with 5897, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHGs on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the
AES 3-40 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 70 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments will become effective on March 18, 2010. The amendments to the CEQA Guidelines provide the following direction for consideration of climate change impacts in a CEQA document:
n The determination of significance of GHG emissions calls for a careful judgment by the lead agency; A model or methodology shall be used to quantify GHG emissions resulting from a CEQA project; • Significance may rely on qualitative analysis or performance based standards; n The CEQA document shall discuss regional and/or local GHG reduction plans; n A CEQA document shall analyze GHG emissions if they are cumulatively considerable;
n A description of the effects of climate change on the environment shall be included in CEQA documents; • A CEQA document shall contain mitigation measures, which feasibly reduce GHG emissions. GHG analysis in a CEQA document may be Tiered or Streamlined; • Creating targeted fees, including a public goods charge on water use, fees on high global warming potential gases, and a fee to fund the administrative costs of the State's long term commitment to AG 32 implementation. City General Plan The City of Folsom General Plan, adopted in 1993, does not contain any climate change goals or policies.
SMAQMD Climate Change Guidelines In December 2009, the SMAQMD provided guidance for analyzing climate change impacts in its 2009 CEQA Guidance document. The SMAQMD revised its climate change section of its CEQA Guidance document in April 2011.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and B - Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Proposed Project would directly generate GHGs during the construction phase. However, because of the size and short duration of construction the Proposed Project would not conflict with any existing climate action plan, policy, or regulations nor significantly impact the environment. Operation of the proposed project would not emit GHG. It should be noted that operation of the Proposed Project is anticipated to reduce GHG emissions in the vicinity of the proposed project over the lifetime of the project, because bicycle transit will be facilitated as opposed to auto transit. The overall project-related GHG emissions are anticipated to be less than zero; therefore, no impact to climate change would occur.
Cumulative
By its very nature impacts from GHG emissions are cumulative , because project-related GHG emissions add to global climate change. However, due to the nature of the Proposed Project , operational reductions
AES 3-41 City of Folsom Lake Neloma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 71 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
in GHG emissions are anticipated to be greater than construction GHG emissions over the lifetime of the project; therefore, cumulative GHG impacts from the Proposed Project would be beneficial because bicycle based transit would be accommodated.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant HAZARDS & HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Mitigation Impact impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal q ® q q of hazardous materials? b) Create a sign ificant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and ® q q accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handles hazardous or acutely hazardous materials , substances, or waste within q ® q q 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 q q q 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 q q q 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 q q q working within the project area? g] Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency q q q evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where q ® q q wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
AES 3-42 Crly of Folsom Lake Nalome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 72 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
REGULATORY SETTING Comprehensive Environmental Response , Compensation, and Liability Act The primary federal laws regulating hazard wastes/materials are the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation , and Liability Act (CERCLA ) of 1980 and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA ) of 1976. The purpose of CERCLA is to ensure sites that have records of hazardous materials release , storage , and generation and are considered a threat to human health and the environment are cleaned up to a level that is considered safe . RCRA provides "cradle to grave" regulations that ensure hazardous wastes are handled , transported , and disposed according to state, federal , and local laws. These "cradle to grave" regulations provide hazardous materials generators a system of tracking hazardous materials use , storage, and transportation for RCRA compliance.
California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6 . 11, division 20 , of the Health and Safety Code section 25404 et .seq. created the Unified Hazardous Waste and Hazardous Materials Management Regulation Program (Unified Program). The regulations to implement this program are located in title 27 of the California Code of Regulations. The Unified Program is a merger of the administration of the six previously existing programs specified in Health and Safety Code section 25404 (c) and in section 15100 et seq of title 27 of the California Code of Regulations . The six program elements and related laws are:
1. Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory - Health and Safety Code division 20, article 1, section 15500 et seq; and title 19 of the of the California Code of Regulations, sections 2620 - 2734 , also known as the `right-to-know' or `hazardous materials inventory' programs. 2. California Accident Release Prevention (CaIARP) Program -- Health and Safety Code division 20, article 2, section 15531 et seq ; and title 19 of the California Code of Regulations , sections 2735.1 -2785.1. 3. Underground Tank Program -- Health and Safety Code division 20, chapter 6.7, section 25280 et seq; and title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, section 2620 et seq. 4. Aboveground Storage Tank Program - Health and Safety Code division 20, chapter 6 .67, section 25270.5 (c); and by reference federal regulations in part 112 of title 40 of the CFR. 5. Hazardous Waste Generator Program and Hazardous Waste qnsite Treatment activities - Health and Safety Code division 20, chapter 6.5; and title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, division 4.5. 6. Hazardous Materials Management Plan and Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement requirements - California Fire Code title 24 , part 9, sections 8001 .3.2 and 8001.3.3.
Department of Toxic Substances Control The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DISC) regulates the generation , transportation, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous chemical waste within the state . Through the "cradle-to- grave" regulatory system; generators of hazardous chemicals and hazardous waste are required to handle it in a manner that protects human health and the environment . Persons who generate, transport,
AES 3-43 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 73 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
or offer for transport, treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste generally must have an EPA Identification Number, which is used to identify the hazardous waste handler and to track the waste from its point of origin to its final disposal.
Most hazardous waste falls into two types in California: waste regulated by the federal government under RCRA and waste that is only regulated by California law; waste regulated by California law alone is known as "non-RCRA" or "California-only" waste. All hazardous waste (RCRA and non-RCRA) in California is regulated under state statutes and regulations.
The DTSC is required to maintain information on hazardous materials and hazardous waste generators in the state . The Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites (Cortese ) List is a planning document used by State and local agencies and developers to comply with the CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites and sites that generate hazardous waste. Government Code section 65962 .5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA) to develop an updated Cortese List annually. DTSC is responsible for a portion of the information contained in the Cortese List. Other State and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information for the Cortese List.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Through the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act in 1970, OSHA was obligated to prepare and enforce occupational health and safety regulations with the goal of providing employees a safe working environment. OSHA regulations apply to the work place and cover activities ranging from confined space entry to toxic chemical exposure. OSHA regulates workplace exposure to hazardous chemicals and activities through regulations governing work place procedures and equipment.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to -Know Act (EPCRA) The EPCRA (42 U.S.C. 11001 et seq) provides for emergency planning and notification that enables states and communities to prepare and respond to emergency releases of hazardous substances in Subtitle A; imposes the reporting requirements in Subtitle B; and, along with other provisions, imposes civil, criminal, and administrative penalties for reporting violations. Sacramento County requires a Hazardous Materials Business Plan be submitted by businesses that handle a hazardous material, or a mixture containing a hazardous material , in quantities equal to or greater than:
1. 500 pounds of a solid. 2. 55 gallons of a liquid. 3. 200 cubic feet of a compressed gas at standard temperature and pressure 4. The federal Threshold Planning Quantity (TPQ) for Extremely Hazardous Substances 5. Radioactive materials in quantities for which an Emergency Plan is required as per Parts 30, 40, or 70, Chapter 1 of Title 10 of Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (Sacramento County, 2011).
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is located in a highly developed region within the City of Folsom. Hazardous materials are not found on or in the immediate vicinity of the site, although adjacent businesses and industrial facilities may possess various amounts of hazardous materials.
AES 3-44 City ofFolsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 74 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and B - Hazardous Materials During grading and construction it is anticipated that limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances, such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and hydraulic fluid, would be brought and stored on-site. As with any liquid and solid, during handling and transfer from one container to another, the potential for an accidental release exists. The accidental release could pose both a hazard to construction employees as well as the environment. No hazardous materials are associated with operation of the Proposed Project. With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-1 through HM-5, impacts associated with hazardous materials handling during construction would be less than significant.
Question C - Proximity to Schools The project would be located within one-quarter mile of the Folsom Montessori School (0.20 miles) and the American River Montessori School (0.25 miles). With the implementation of Mitigation Measures HM-1 through HM-5, the Proposed Project's impact on schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site would be less than significant.
Question D -- Hazardous Materials Site The Proposed Project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. As such, no impacts would occur that would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment.
Questions E and F - Airport Hazards The nearest airport to the project site is the Sacramento Mather Airport, located approximately nine miles southwest from the City of Folsom. As such , no impacts would occur that would result in safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area.
Question G - Emergency Response Plans Construction activity may cause temporary delays in traffic. Such delays would be typical for a construction project of this nature and would not be expected to interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. As such, no impacts would occur. Potential traffic impacts are discussed further in the Traffic/Transportation section.
Question H - Wildfires Equipment used during grading and construction activities may create sparks, which could ignite dry grass on the project site. The Proposed Project is located in a developed area within the City of Folsom and is within the vicinity of minimal grassland and woodland. This risk, similar to that found at other construction sites, is considered potentially significant. Mitigation Measures HM-4 and HM-5 will reduce impacts associated with fire hazards to less than significant. Cumulative Impacts Development of the project in combination with other similar projects has the potential to increase the risk for accidental release of hazardous materials onto the roadway. Each individual project would require an
AE5 3-45 City of Folsom Lake Natrona Bike Trait September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 75 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
evaluation as to potential hazardous materials risks and threat to public safety including risks associated with transportation/use/disposal of hazardous materials, accidental release of hazardous materials into the environment, hazards to sensitive receptors ( including schools), and listed hazardous materials sites that could affect environmental conditions along roadway alignments . Each related project would be required to follow local, state , and federal laws pertaining to hazards and hazardous materials . Through compliance with these laws, cumulative projects would minimize future cumulative impacts . Therefore, through full compliance with local , state, and federal laws pertaining to hazardous materials, cumulative impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
MITIGATION MEASURES HM-1 To reduce the potential for accidental releases , fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids shall be transferred directly from a service truck to construction equipment tanks and shall not otherwise be stored on site.
HM-2 Personnel shall follow written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPS) for filling and servicing construction equipment and vehicles . The SOPS , which are designed to reduce the potential for incidents involving hazardous materials , shall include the following:
A. Refueling shall be conducted only with approved pumps, hoses , and nozzles; B. Catch pans shall be placed under equipment to catch potential spills during servicing; C. All disconnected hoses shall be placed in containers to collect residual fuel from the hose; 0. Vehicle engines shall be shut down during refueling; E. No smoking , open flames, or welding shall be allowed in refueling or service areas; F. Refueling shall be performed away from bodies of water to prevent contamination of water in the event of a leak or spill; G. Service trucks shall be provided with fire extinguishers and spill containment equipment, such as absorbents; H. Should a spill contaminate soil, the soil shall be put into containers and disposed of in accordance with local , State , and Federal regulations; 1. All containers used to store hazardous materials shall be inspected at least once per week for signs of leaking or failure . All maintenance and refueling areas shall be inspected monthly . Results of inspections shall be recorded in a logbook that would be maintained on site; and J. The amount of hazardous materials used in project construction and operation shall be consistently kept at the lowest volumes needed.
HM-3 If suspected soil contamination is encountered during excavation and grading activities, all work shall be halted and a qualified individual, in consultation with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), shall determine the appropriate course of action.
HM-4 During construction , staging areas, welding areas , or areas slated for development using spark- producing equipment shall be cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that could serve as fire fuel. To the extent feasible, the contractor shall keep these areas clear of combustible materials in order to maintain a firebreak.
AES 3-46 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 76 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
HM-5 Any construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester shall be equipped with an arrester in good working order . This includes , but is not limited to , vehicles, heavy equipment, and chainsaws,
Less Than Potentially Less Than ignificant With No HYDROLOGY & WATER QUALITY Significant S Significant Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge ® q q q 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 q q q N 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 the site or area , including through the alteration of the course of a q ® q q stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area , including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or q N q q amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the q ® capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage q q systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? q ® q q g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood hazard Boundary or Flood N q q q Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? - h) Place within a 100 year flood hazard area structures that q q q N 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 q q q N result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami , or mudflow? q q N q
REGULATORY SETTING Please refer to the discussion of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System and the State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Board in the Geology and Soils Section of this IS.
AES 3-47 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 77 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Surface Water Lake Natoma is adjacent to the northwestern and northeastern segment of the proposed trail alignment. (Segment 1 and 4) This lake is a regulating reservoir for water releases from Folsom Lake , and is flanked by Nimbus Dam to the west and Folsom Dam to the east . Water is released as needed from this reservoir via the Nimbus Dam into the American River to the west. Flow and water levels within Lake Natoma adjacent to the project site is seasonal and dependent upon annual rainfall.
Water Quality The quality of local surface water from Folsom Lake and the American River is considered excellent for both irrigation and municipal and industrial purposes . As presented in the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Fourth Edition, the existing beneficial uses relating the Folsom Dam to the American River are as follows (CVRWQCB, 2009):
• Municipal and Domestic Supply; n Agricultural Supply; n Industrial Service Supply n Hydropower generation; • Industrial Processes; n Water Contact, Canoeing and Rafting, and Other Non-Contact Recreational purposes; • Warm and cold freshwater habitat; • Warm and Cold Migratory Routes; n Warm and Cold Spawning habitat; and • Wildlife habitat. Specific water quality objectives for Folsom Lake and the American River within the vicinity of the project site are summarized below in Table 3-6.
Drainage and Flooding The project area typically drains northwest towards Lake Natoma . The soils on the project site range from very slow to slow infiltration rates and corresponding moderate to high runoff potential when saturated . The Folsom City FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM ) last revised January 6, 1982 indicates that the portions of the project site near the southern ends of the Folsom Crossing Bridge and the Rainbow Bridge are located in "Zone B" flood zone designations . FEMA defines this designation as "Areas between limits of the 100 -year flood and 500-year flood ; or certain areas subject to 100-year flooding with average depths less than one foot or where the contributing drainage area is less than one square mile; or areas protected by levees from the base flood " (FEMA, 1982). The remaining portions of the project area are categorized as "Zone C", which is defined as "Areas of minimal flooding " (FEMA, 1982).
AES 3-48 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 78 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental impacts
TABLE 3-6 GROUNDWATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
Bacteria In groundwaters designated for domestic or municipal supply (MUN), the most probable number of coliform organisms over any seven -day period shall be less than 2 .2/100 ml.
Chemical Groundwaters shall not contain chemical constituents in concentrations that adversely affect Constituents beneficial uses . At a minimum , groundwaters designated for use as MUN shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) specified in the provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations , incorporated into the Basin Plan. Radioactivity At a minimum , groundwaters designated for use as MUN shall not contain concentrations of radionuclides in excess of the MCLs specified in Table 4 of Section 64443 of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, incorporated into the Basin Plan. Toxicity Groundwaters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that produce detrimental physiological responses in human , plant, animal , or aquatic life associated with designated beneficial use(s). The objective applies regardless of whether the toxicity is causes by a single substance or the interactive effect of multiple substances. Tastes and Groundwaters shall not contain taste- or odor-producing substances in concentrations that cause Odors nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. Source : CVRWQce, 2009.
Dam Failure If the earthen dikes an the south side of Folsom Dam were to fail, the project site and the immediate vicinity would become inundated within a short period of time. Failure of the Mormon Island dike also has the potential to significantly flood the project site depending on the degree of failure of the dike. However, failure of the Folsom Dam or any of the dikes surrounding Folsom Lake is based on extremely remote conditions. The dam is rated to provide flood control for up to a 60-year storm, with recent improvements in 2008 allowing it to safely pass a 200-year storm at 450,000 cubic feet per second peak flow (SAFCA, 2008).
Groundwater Groundwater recharge in the project area occurs generally through infiltration from Lake Natoma, Lake Folsom, and the American River. In general, groundwater levels in the project area remained constant until the 1940's, then declined through the middle of the century at a rate of approximately one foot per year. The close proximity of the project site to Lake Natoma indicates that groundwater recharge has been able to keep up with withdrawals in recent history.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and F - Water Quality Construction equipment and materials have the potential to leak , thereby discharging pollutants into stormwater. Construction site pollutants include particulate matter, sediment, oils and greases, concrete, paints, and adhesives. Discharge of these pollutants could result in contamination of area drainages and tributaries to Lake Natoma, causing an exceedance of water quality objectives . Because grading and earth moving activities associated with the components of the Proposed Project have the potential to
AE5 3-49 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Tram September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 79 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
result. in soil erosion , siltation , and contamination of stormwater , this is considered a potentially significant impact.
As stated above, to comply with the State's NPDES General Permit, a Notice of Intent will be filed with the CVRWQCB, and a SWPPP will be prepared prior to construction. A copy of the SWPPP must be current and remain on the project site. As required by Mitigation Measure GS-1 in the Geology and Soils section , the SWPPP shall identify the best management practices (BMPs) that will be used to reduce the potential for surface water contamination from construction activities to a less-than-significant level.
Question B- Groundwater The minimal increase in impermeable surface area resulting from the construction of a paved bike/pedestrian trail would not impact groundwater re-charge rates, as runoff would drain to Lake Natoma where recharge would occur and there would not be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level. No impact would occur.
Question C, D, and E- Drainage and Stormwater The Proposed Project would consist of the development of a paved bikelpedestrian trail over existing unpaved trails and roadway systems with minor construction activities associated with the relocation of a sidewalk and grading of the trail along Segment 4. The existing drainage pattern of the site or area would remain the same and there would not be a substantial increase in the surface area that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Anticipated runoff from the proposed trial and parking areas would drain to Lake Natoma but would not result in a substantial source of polluted runoff. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure GS-1, impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Questions G, H, and I - Flood Hazards The Proposed Project does not involve construction of any habitable structures and would not impede or redirect flood flows nor would it expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding. No impact would occur.
Question J - Inundation The project is not located in an area with the potential for seiches, tsunamis , or mudflow. Therefore, impacts from the inundation by tsunami, mudflow, or seiche are less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts As discussed above, the Proposed Project includes project features which reduce potential impacts associated with water quality, drainage, and flooding. With the implementation of project features detailed in Section 2.0 and Mitigation Measure GS-1, the Proposed Project's contribution to cumulative impacts related to water quality and hydrology are would be less than significant.
MITIGATION MEASURES Implement Mitigation Measure GS-1.
AES 3-50 City of Folsom take Natoma Bike Trait September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 80 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant LAND USE & PLANNING Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project; a) Physically divide an established community? q q q 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 q q ® q 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 q q q ::O:l plan or natural community conservation plan?
REGULATORY SETTING City General Plan The City General Plan, adopted in 1993, is the guiding document for development in the City, which includes the project site. Relevant goals and policies, contained within the City's General Plan related to air quality are provided below.
Policies: Policy 1.6: Folsom's historic district shall be enhanced and maintained through the improvement of public facilities.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Land uses within the proposed bike trail corridor consist of an existing paved bike trail, roadways sidewalks and shoulders of roadways that extend through commercial, recreation and open space land adjacent to the American River and Folsom Historic District. Land uses immediately adjacent to the project site mainly consist of commercial, recreational, and historic uses . The American River and Lake Natoma are immediately adjacent to the northeastern and north western segments of the Proposed Project. Residences are located south of the project site beyond the Historic District. On- and off-street parking is available along the project corridor.
The City General Plan (1993) includes policies which encourage the development of bicycle trails and the connection of Folsom City bicycle trails with outside bicycle trails. The Proposed Project would be the final segment of the American River bike trail and is identified as a proposed project in Folsom's 2002 Master Bikeway Plan. The project site is designated as recreation in the City's Parks and Recreation Master Plan.
AES 3-61 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 81 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
IMPACT DISCUSSION Question A - Physically Divide a Community The Proposed Project would be bounded by the Folsom Historic District to the south and Lake Natoma and the American River to the north. As such, the Proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. No impact would occur.
Question B - Consistency with Land Use Plans The Proposed Project would be generally consistent with all applicable General Plan policies. The Proposed Project would enhance recreational facilities adjacent to the American River, Lake Natoma, and the Folsom Historical District, which is consistent with General Plan policy 1.6 which promotes the enhancement and maintenance of the Historic District and the 2002 Master Bikeway Plan, which specifically provides for the Proposed Project. The project is also consistent with the recreation designation of the project area in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. No impactwould occur.
Question C - Habitat and Natural Community Conservation Plans There are no applicable habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans for the project area. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts Because the Proposed Project would not result in land use conflicts or inconsistencies with adopted land use plans, the project would not contribute to significant cumulative land use impacts , No impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No Significant Significant MINERAL RESOURCES Mitigation Impact Im act Impact p Incorporated 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 q q q 19 residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local q q q general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
AES 3-52 City of Folsom Lake Natome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 82 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
REGULATORY SETTING The California Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) is part of the California PRC, Division 2, Chapter 9, Sections 2710, et seq. SMARA requires classification and designation of land into Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) according to the mineral potential of that area . Sections 2761 (a) and (b) and 2790 of SMARA provides a framework for classification designations that are administered by the California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG), and the State Mining and Geology Board.
Natural resources can include geologic deposits of valuable minerals used in various manufacturing processes and the production of construction materials. SMARA was enacted to limit new development in areas with significant mineral deposits and requires the state geologist to classify lands within California based on mineral resource availability. The classifications are categorized by MRZs, according to the presence or absence of significant mineral resources. The classification process disregards the existing land use or land ownership and is based solely on subsurface geology. The primary goal of classifying MRZs is to ensure local governments recognize the mineral potential of the land before making land use decisions that preclude mining of the geological resource.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City of Folsom includes areas mapped as closed gold mines by the State of California under the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMRA). The purpose of the mapping program under SMRA is to ensure that significant mineral resources can be protected from premature and/or incompatible development and will be available for extraction. Within the project area , there are no mineral resource zones. (SBCWD & WRASBC, 2004b).
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and B -- Mineral Resources Construction of the Proposed Project would consist of minimal grading activities within a previously disturbed area . The Proposed Project would not result in the loss of the availability of a known mineral resource that would be of local or regional value. No impacts to mineral resources would occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project would not impact mineral resources; therefore, the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts to mineral resources. No impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
AES 3-53 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 83 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant With No NOISE Significant Significant M itigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in q ® q the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of q q ® q excessive groundborne vibration noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels q q q existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity q q q above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been q adopted within two miles of a public airport or q 0 public use airport , would the project expose El people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people q q q residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
REGULATORY SETTING California Environmental Quality Act CEQA requires a no-build versus build analysis to assess whether a proposed project would have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise impact under CEQA , then the act dictates that mitigation measures must be incorporated into the project unless such measures are not feasible.
City of Folsom Ordinance Ordinance 8.42.060 - Noise sources associated with construction , provided such activities do not take place before 7 a.m. or after 6 p.m. on any day except Saturday or Sunday, or before 8 a.m. or after 5 p.m. on Saturday or Sunday
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Ambient Noise Level The ambient noise level is defined as the existing range of noise levels from all sources near and far. A similar term is background noise level , which usually refers to the ambient noise level that is present when any intermittent noise sources are absent . Noise exposure contours or noise contours are lines
AES 3-54 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 84 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts drawn about a noise source representing constant levels of noise exposure. Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) or Day-Night Average Sound Level (Ldn) contours are frequently utilized to graphically portray community noise exposure. The CNEL is calculated from hourly Noise Equivalence Level (Leq) values, after adding a "penalty" to the noise levels measured during the evening (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) periods. The penalty for evening hours is a factor of 3, which is equivalent to 4.77 decibels (dB). The penalty for nighttime hours is a factor of 10, which is equivalent to 10 dB. To calculate the Ldn, the evening penalty is omitted. The Leq is used to describe noise over a specified period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. Table 3-7 shows typical noise level in A-weighted decibels (dBA).
TABLE 3-7 TYPICAL A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVELS OF COMMON NOISE SOURCES ;^= , -: Vii,,, ';..:. :. ^.• ,
120 Jet aircraft take-off at 100 feet. 110 Riveting machine at operator's position. 100 Rail Transit at 50 mph 88 Shop tools 80 Rail Transit At-Grade at 50 mph 76 City Bus Idling 75 Food Blender 73 Lawn Mower 63 Cloth Washer 62 Air Conditioner (outdoor) 55 Air Conditioner (indoor) 48 Refrigerator 40 Background level within a residence. 30 Soft whisper at 2 feet. 20 Interior of recording studio. Source: Federal Transportation Administration (FTA), 2006.
Construction Noise The primary noise source during construction of a project is from the operation of construction equipment. Typical construction equipment noise levels are shown in Table 3-8.
Affected Environment Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and industrial land uses (Caltrans, 2009). A sensitive receptor is defined as any living entity or aggregate of entities whose comfort, health, or well being could be impaired or endangered by the existence of noise.
Land use in the project area consists mainly of commercial and recreational uses with some residential development. Figure 3 shows the proposed alignment of the Proposed Project. Sensitive noise
AES 3-55 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 85 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
receptors in the vicinity of the Proposed Project consist of the Lake Natoma Inn located adjacent to Segment 2 and residences located approximately 300 feet southeast of Segment 3 and 4 . Commercial land uses are not considered sensitive noise receptors. Since the vicinity surrounding the project site is mainly commercial an ambient daytime noise level of 65 dBA is assumed.
TABLE 3-8 TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS FOR CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
All Other Equipment > 5 HP 85 Auger Drill Rig 85 Backhoe 80 Boring Jack Power Unit 80 Compactor (ground) 80 Dozer 85 Drill Rig Truck 84 Dump Truck 84 Front End Loader 80 Horizontal Boring Hydro. Jack 80 Paver 85 Roller 85 Source: FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model, 2006.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A, C and D - Ambient Noise Construction Construction of the project would create a minimal short-term source of noise. Implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 would reduce any short-term construction impacts below noise policy levels cited within the General Plan polices identified above. Folsom's Ordinance 8.42.060 limits construction activities to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6 :00 p.m. Monday through Friday and from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturdays. Temporary noise sources on the project site would be limited to construction activities involving vehicles and equipment. The nature of the project involves construction equipment to be continuously in motion and not located in a single stationary setting over the span of the project. Equipment required for grading and paving of the Proposed Project generally does not result in significant levels of groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels, nor would the project create a substantial increase in ambient noise levels. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 construction related noise impacts would be be less than significant.
Operations Operation of the Proposed Project would not introduce any new significant sources of noise. No impacts would occur.
AES 3-56 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 86 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Questions B - Vibration Construction Construction of the Proposed Project would not use impact equipment (jackhammers , vibrating compactors , etc.), which can create excessive vibration that can be perceived by sensitive receptors within 100 feet of use . Therefore , a less than significant impact would occur due to construction vibration.
Operations Operation of the Proposed Project would not introduce any new significant sources of vibration. No impacts would occur.
Questions E and F - Airport Noise The Proposed Project is not located in the vicinity of a public airport or private airstrip. No impacts will occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project would not place a noise source in the vicinity of noise sensitive receptors or increase traffic on roadways the Proposed Project would not contribute to adverse cumulative impacts associated with the ambient noise level. This is considered a less than significant cumulative impact.
MITIGATION MEASURES N-4 In accordance with the City 's Noise Ordinance , construction activities shall be limited to occur only between the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday , and between the hours of 8.00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday.
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No POPULATION Significant With Significant Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and q q q businesses) or indirectly (e.g., through the extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement q q q housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement q q q housing elsewhere?
AES 3-57 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 87 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
SETTING Folsom is located in the southeastern Sacramento Valley of Northern California . Folsom had an estimated population of 72 ,590 in 2008. As of the 2000 census , Folsom had 51,884 people , 17,196 households , and 12 , 518 families. Homes in the project area consist mostly of single -family and multi- family residential.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Question A - Population Growth The Proposed Project would not provide new housing or additional infrastructure that could induce substantial population growth within the area. No impactwould occur.
Questions B and C - Population Displacement Implementation of the Proposed Project would not displace existing housing or people. No impacts would occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project would not induce population growth or displace existing housing or people; therefore , the project would not contribute to cumulative impacts associated with population growth. No impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than PUBLIC SERVICES Significant With Significant No Impact Mitigation Impact Impact Incorporated Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities , 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 time or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? q q q b) Police Protection? q q q c) Schools? q q q d) Parks? q q q e) Other public facilities? q q q
AES 3-58 City of Folsom Lake Netama Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 88 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
SETTING Fire ProtectionlEmergency Medical Service The City of Folsom Fire Department provides primary fire protection and emergency medical services to the study area. Service in the City is provided by four fire stations located throughout the City. The Folsom Fire Department has proposed a fifth fire station to be located in the Empire Ranch subdivision of Folsom.
Emergency medical transport within the study area is provided by TLC and First Response Ambulance, which serves the City of Folsom. TLC and Angel Medflight Worldwide Air Ambulance provides aero medical transportation to the project vicinity, with air ambulance services located at Sacramento international Airport, approximately 34 miles away.
The nearest medical center to the project area is located at 223 Fargo Way, in Folsom, approximately 0.9 miles to the southeast of the project site. The Kindred Hospital- Sacramento includes an intensive care unit and pulmonary care.
Law Enforcement The Folsom Police Department is the chief law enforcement agency for traffic- and criminal - related issues. Area offices are located at 46 Natoma Street adjacent to City Hall. The Folsom Police Department has a staff of approximately 110 employees. The project site and the lands surrounding the project site are under the jurisdiction of the Folsom Police Department.
Schools The project area is located within the Folsom Cordova Unified School District. The closest schools to the project site are Folsom Montessori School (0.20 miles), American River Montessori School (0.25 miles), Sutter Middle School ( 0.35 miles ), and Folsom Lake High School (0.50 miles). Parks See discussion of existing local park facilities under Recreation.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A - E - Public Services Implementation of the project would not alter or restrict public service routes, or increase the potential demand for public services. New structures would be built adjacent to existing roadways. The Proposed Project would enhance the City's existing recreation facilities through the creation of a bike trail which would enhance community access to the American River, Lake Natoma, and the Folsom Historical District. No impacts would occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project would not impact the public services along the project corridor in the cumulative condition; therefore, no impact would occur.
AES 3-59 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 89 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No With Significant RECREATION Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial q q q physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ® q q q recreational facilities that might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
SETTING Parks and Recreation Facilities One state park; Folsom Power House Historic State Park (FPHHSP) is located near the project site. The FPHHSP is located adjacent to Riley Street and Greenback Lane east of Scott Street. The site provides historical preservation of the first electricity generation facility in the Folsom Lake area. The park is managed by the California State Parks Department and tours are conducted throughout the week by special reservations, Lake Natoma and the American River are water recreation areas, located north of the Proposed Project. Recreational activities include swimming, boating, and fishing. The Proposed Project entails expansion of the American River Bike Trail which extends from Folsom to Sacramento, terminating at the confluence of the American and Sacramento rivers.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and B - Recreational Facilities The Proposed Project would not result in population growth that would increase the use of regional parks and other recreational facilities. The environmental effects of project-related construction activities are identified within other sections of this document. The Proposed Project would enhance recreational activities and facilities in the project area and would not have an adverse physical effect on the recreational environment. No impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project is a recreation facility and would not cause an increase in demand for regional parks or other recreational facilities so as to cause substantial physical deterioration or adverse physical effect on the environment when considered in the cumulative context. No cumulative impact would occur.
AES 3-60 City ofFolaom Lake Natoma Hike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 90 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No Significant With Significant TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system , taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and q q q relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections , streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program , including , but not limited q to level-of-service standards and travel demand q q measures , or other standards 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 q q q location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design q feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous q q intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? q ® q q f) Conflict with adopted policies , plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus q q q turnouts, bicycle racks)?
SETTING The Proposed Project is aligned east/west along Folsom Boulevard , Leidesdorff Street , Riley Street and Greenback Lane in the Historic District of Folsom, California. Leidesdorff Street is an east/west roadway, which currently operates as a two -lane roadway with 0 to 4-foot outside shoulders and no median and Riley Street transitioning to Greenback Lane is a two lane undivided roadway with 0 to 4-foot outside shoulders . The Rainbow Bridge on Greenback Lane is a two-lane bridge which traverses the American River. There is one signalized intersection at Riley Street and Scott Street . The affected roadways carry a variety of vehicles whose destinations include Lake Natoma , numerous existing residential neighborhoods , and Historic District shops and restaurants . Portions of the American River Bike Trail currently run along Folsom Boulevard and Greenback Lane.
AES 3-61 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 91 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental impacts
City General Plan The City General Plan, adopted in 1993, is the guiding document for development in the City, which includes the project site. Relevant goals and policies, contained within the City's General Plan related to transportation are provided below.
Policies Policy 17:1: The City shall plan for an integrated circulation system which provides for travel by private vehicles, commercial vehicle routes, a public transportation system and for pedestrian and bicycle routes.
Policy 17.10: The City should develop and maintain a bikeways and pedestrian master plan that links residential developments with sources of employment , public open spaces, parks , schools, neighborhood shipping areas, the central commercial district , other major recreational destinations, and adjoining communities.
1. The City should ensure that new residential developments incorporate pedestrian and bicycle paths or routs when there are nearby schools, parks, public open spaces, sources of employment or other destinations for such travel. Such paths or routes should be designed so that schools and parks are accessible to area residents. Pedestrian/bicycle over- or under-crossings may be provided when necessary to cross arterial roads or expressways. 2. The existing bicycle and pedestrian paths along the American River shall be preserved. 3. The City should establish and maintain an internal pathway system that links parks sources of employment and public open spaces using rights-of-way and parkways. 4. Where on-street bikeways are not feasible, the City should provide for Class I off-street bikeways 5. The City should endeavor to provide routes paralleling the major arterial routes for long distance bicycle travel. 6. The City should endeavor to provide routes for recreational travel, providing access to important recreational areas of the City, including Folsom Lake.
Policy 31.9 The City should encourage bicycle usage through the development and maintenance of a safe and comprehensive bikeway system which includes: 1. The provision of securely anchored bicycle racks. 2. Sidewalks in residential development with protective curbing and adequate lighting.
City Master Bike Plan The City developed a Master Bikeway Plan (Plan) in 2002. The Plan includes goals and objective with regards to construction and maintenance of bicycle pathways, planning, public participation, design, safety and education, and integrating all bike pathways. The Proposed Project is noted in the Plan.
AES 3-62 City of Folsom Lake Netoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 92 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A and B - Trai c/Level of Service Construction Construction worker and material delivery trips during the construction phase would be approximately 15 trips per day, which would be less than one percent of the existing traffic and includes trips from the export of 200 cubic yards of excavated material the addition of worker, soil hauling, and material delivery trips would not substantially increase the existing traffic load and capacity or cause an exceedance of the existing LOS during the construction phase of the Proposed Project. A less than significant impact would occur to the existing roadways and intersection in the vicinity of the Proposed Project.
Operation The Proposed Project would not increase the traffic volumes in the vicinity of the Proposed Project; therefore, the Proposed Project would not cause an exceedance of the existing LOS on any roadway or intersection in the vicinity of the Proposed Project during operation. No impact would occur.
Question C - Air Traffic Patterns The Proposed Project would have no impact on air traffic patterns.
Question D - Traffic Hazards Construction of the Proposed Project would not alter existing roadways or traffic stop control in the vicinity of the project; therefore, no impact would occur.
Question E -- Emergency Access During construction of the Proposed Project at least one lane will remain open at all locations at all times. Traffic will be free flowing throughout the construction period. During construction, traffic control measures, such as flaggers, lane change and caution signage, and closure of one lane only between the hours of 9:30 and 3:00 pm will be implemented. Access to all points along Leidesdorff Street and Greenback Lane would be maintained via the Rainbow Bridge from the east or Leidesdorff Street from the west; however, emergency access may be slowed due to increased traffic from lane closure, including lane closures during the construction of the alternative route. Implementation of Mitigation Measure TR- I would reduce traffic delays, which would result in a less than significant impact to emergency services during construction of the Proposed Project. Operation of the Proposed Project would not result in decrease traffic access along any roadway in the vicinity of the Proposed Project; therefore, a less than significant impact to emergency access would occur during operation of the Proposed Project.
Question F -- Alternative Transportation Plans The addition of bicycle lanes is identified in the City's General Plan (Policy 17.13) and the Proposed Project is specifically identified as a proposed project in Folsom's 2002 Plan; therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with the implementation of alternative transportation plans. The Proposed Project would have no impact on alternative transportation plans.
AES 3-63 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trarl September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 93 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Cumulative Impacts It is not anticipated that other development projects would occur within the project corridor during construction of the Proposed Project; therefore, as stated above in Question A and B, construction of the Proposed Project would have a less than significant cumulative impact on transportation in the vicinity of the project site. Operation of the Project would not increase traffic on roadways in the vicinity of the project site; therefore , no cumulative impact would Occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES TR -1 A traffic control plan (TCP) shall be prepared and submitted to the City's Transportation Department for approval at least one month prior to beginning construction of the Proposed Project. The TCP shall include measures that require adequate emergency access during all construction phases, including the alternative route if selected.
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than No With Significant UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the q q applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? q
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of q q q existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of q q 19 existing facilities, the construction of which could El cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and q q q resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the q q q 10 project's projected demand in addition to the rovider's existin commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid q q q waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal , state, and local statutes and q q q regulations related to solid waste.
AES 3-64 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 94 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
SETTING
WATER SUPPLIERS AND SUPPLY One water supplier serves the project area: the City of Folsom Department of Public Works. The City of Folsom water supply comes from Folsom Lake.
SOLID WASTE COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL Solid waste disposal collection within the project area is currently provided under City of Folsom. Solid waste is disposed of at the Sacramento County Kiefer Landfill, a permitted landfill serving Sacramento County. The landfill is located on Kiefer Boulevard, southeast of Grant Line Road. The landfill is owned and operated by the County of Sacramento.
WASTEWATER COLLECTION AND TREATMENT The City of Folsom Wastewater Division cleans , repairs and maintains the 267 miles of pipeline and 9 lift stations in the City. Wastewater is ultimately discharged into the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District interceptor sewer system and treated by the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, located in Elk Grove.
IMPACT DISCUSSION Questions A - G - Utilities and Services Water, Wastewater, and Solid Waste The Proposed Project would not generate significant quantities of solid waste. The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in potable water demand or waste water processing. Construction of the Proposed Project would not require additional storm water drainage facilities or the expansion of existing facilities. The Proposed Project would not significantly increase use of potable water nor generate significant amounts of wastewater. No significant impact would occur.
Cumulative Impacts The Proposed Project would not create growth in the area which would cause a need for additional water, wastewater, solid waste or utilities; therefore, no cumulative impact would occur.
MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation required.
AES 3-65 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 lnitiai Study
Staff Report Page No. 95 of 138 3.0 Evaluation of Environmental Impacts
Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than MANDATORY FINDINGS OF No Significant With Significant SIGNIFICANCE Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporated a) Does the project 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 plan or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited , but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with 11 0 q El the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects , and the effects of probably future projects)?
c) Does the project have environment effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human q ® q 11 beings, either directly or indirectly?
Questions A and C
As discussed in the previous sections, the Proposed Project would not degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce habitats or species, or eliminate important examples of the major cultural periods of the State. In addition, the Proposed Project would not contribute environmental effects that have substantial adverse effects on human beings. When appropriate, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce all potential impacts to a less than significant level.
Ques tion B Cumulative impacts and indirect effects for each resource area have been considered within the analysis of each resource area . When appropriate, mitigation measures have been provided to reduce all potential impacts to a less than significant level.
MITIGATION MEASURES See Mitigation Measures AQ-1, BR -1 through 3, C-1, GS-1, HM-1 through 5, HAY-1, N-1, and TR-1.
City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 96 of 138 SECTION 4.0
SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION
Staff Report Page No. 97 of 138 4.0 SIGNIFICANCE DETERMINATION
On the basis of the environmental evaluation presented in Section 3.0:
El I find that the Proposed Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
® I find that although the Proposed Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project design and project-specific mitigation measures described in Section 3 .0 have been agreed to by the project proponent . A NEGATIVE DECLARATION is recommended to be adopted.
q I find that the Proposed Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Signature Date
City of Folsom Printed Name Lead Agency
AES 4-1 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 98 of 138 S ECTION 5.0
CONSULTATION AND PREPARERS
Staff Report Page No. 99 of 138 5.0 LIST OF PREPARERS
5.1 CITY OF FOLSOM - LEAD AGENCY
Jim Konopka , Trail Development Coordinator
5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
ANALYTICAL ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Principal : David Zweig Project Manager : Chris Stabenfeldt Technical Staff: Trent Wilson, Erin Quinn, Michelle Kaye, Chad Steinwand Graphics: Dana Hirschberg Glenn Mayfield
AES 5-1 City of Folsom Lake Netome Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 100 of 138 SECTION 6.0 REFERENCES
Staff Report Page No. 101 of 138 6.0 REFERENCES
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), 1999. 36 CFR Part 800. Protection of Historic Properties with Recommended Approach for Consultation on Recovery of Significant Information from Archaeological Sites. Final Rule and Notice. Federal Register 5118 , 64 FR27071-87.
Adams, George R., 1978. National Register of Historic Places Inventory - Nomination Form (Primary Number P-34-2339 ). Form on file, North Central Information Center , Sacramento, California. Analytical Environmental Services (AES) June 2011 Biological Resources Assessment Report Analytical Environmental Services (AES) June 2011 Cultural Resources Study Report Arbuckle , Jim, 1979. Survey of California State Historical Landmarks, qld Folsom Powerhouse, Primary Number P-34-2339 . Record on file, North Central Information Center , Sacramento, California. Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act, 1974 . Archaeological and Historical Preservation Act, electronic document , http:llwww. nps.govlarcheology/tools/Laws/AHPA.htm, accessed June 10, 2011. Archaeological Resources Protection Act, 1979 . Archaeological Resources Protection Act, http:llwww.nps.gov/archeologyttools/Laws/ARPA.htm, last accessed June 10, 2011.
Arizona-Sonora Desert Museum, 2006 -2009 . Animal Fact Sheet : Pallid Bat. Tucson, Arizona . Available at, http:11www.desertmuseum.org/kids/batsiPallid`/*20bat. php. Accessed on April 14, 2011.
Baker, Cindy, John Dougherty , and Tracy Bakic, 2003 . Cultural Resources Investigation of the 1108 Sutter Street Property , Folsom, Sacramento County, California . Report prepared by PAR Environmental Services, Inc., Sacramento, California for D &S Development , Inc., Rancho Cordova, California . Report on file, North Central Information Center , Sacramento, California (#4507).
Bakic, Tracy, 2003 . State of California -- The Resources Agency- Department of Parks and Recreation, Primary Record, Primary Number P-34-927 , Trinomial CA-SAC-678H . Record on file, North Central Information Center, Sacramento, California.
Barbour, M. G. and Major J., 1988 . Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant Society Sacramento, California.
Barrows, H. Wray . 1999 . A History of Folsom, California 1850-1900. First edition , Fourth printing, Sacramento, California.
Beals, R.L.1 933. Ethnology of the Nisenan . University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 31(6): 335-410.
Beardsley, R.K., 1948 . Cultural Sequences in Central California Archaeology . American Antiquity 14(1):1-28.
AES 6-1 City of Folsom Lake Natama Bike Tmd September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 102 of 138 6.0 References
Beardsley, R.K., 1954. Temporal and Areal Relationships in Central California Archaeology. University of California Archaeological Survey Reports, 24, 25.
Beck, Warren A., and Ynez D. Haase. 1977. Historical Atlas of California. University of Oklahoma Press, Norman, Oklahoma.
Bennyhoff, J.A., 1977. Ethnogeography of the Plains Miwok. University of California, Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publication 5 , Davis, California.
Bennyhoff, J.A., and D.A. Fredrickson, 1994. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology, edited by R.E. Hughes. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, Berkeley, California.
Bennyhoff, J.A, and R.E. Hughes, 1987. Shelf Bead and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers, Vol. 64(2). American Museum of Natural History, New York, New York.
Berg, J., 2001. State of California -- The Resources Agency- Department of Parks and Recreation, Primary Record, Primary Number P-34-441, Trinomial CA-SAC-414. Record on file, North Central Information Center, Sacramento, California.
Berg, J., and M. Darcangelo, 2001. Slate of California - The Resources Agency- Department of Parks and Recreation, Primary Record, Primary Number P-34-862, Trinomial CA-SAC-661. Record on file, North Central Information Center, Sacramento, California.
Bever, Michael. 2002. Archaeological Survey Report and Records Search Review for Friant Cell Site, Fresno County, California. Report on file, Southern San Joaquin Valley Information Center, Bakersfield State University, Bakersfield.
Bolt, Bruce A., 1988. Earthquakes. W. H. Freeman and Company, New York.
California Air Resource Board (GARB), 2011, Attainment standards and violation criteria. Available online at: http:11www.arb.ca.gov/research/aagslaags2.pdf. Viewed on June, 2011.
California Air Resource Board (CARE), 2011a, Air Monitoring Data. Available online at: http://www.arb.ca.goy/adam/. Viewed on June, 2011.
Castaneda, A., R. Docken, E. Pitti, C. Idle, and J. Wells. 1984. Natomas Company, 1851-1984. Manuscript on file, Sacramento Archives and Museum Collection Center, Sacramento, California.
California Geological Survey (CGS). 2011. Peak Ground Acceleration: California. Available online at: http:llwww.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/Pages/Index.aspx. Accessed June, 2011.
Caltrans, 2009. Technical Noise Supplement, November 2009. Available online at: http:llwww.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/tens_complete.pdf. Accessed June, 2011.
AES 6-2 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 103 of 138 6.0 References
California Native Plant Society (CLAPS), 2011. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Available at: http:llwww.cnps.org/inventory. Dated April 14, 2011. Accessed on April 14, 2011.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), 2009. Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Fourth Edition. California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Available online at: http:llwww_swrcb.ca.gov/rwgcb5/water issues/basin plans/sacsjr.pdf. Accessed June, 2011.
City of Folsom, 1993. City of Folsom General Plan, developed in 1993.
City of Folsom, 2002. Master Bike Plan. Available online at: http://www.folsom.ca.us/depts/parks n recreation/bike trails/bikeway master lan.as . Viewed In June 2011.
Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2005. The Birds of North America. Accessed from: http:flbna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA. Accessed on April 14, 2011.
EDAW, Inc. 2003. Cultural Resources Inventory and Site Assessment for the: Lake Natoma State Recreation Area, Sacramento County, California, Report prepared by EDAW, Sacramento, California for State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, California. Record on file, North Central Information Center, Sacramento, California
Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, and D. Wheye, 1988. The Birder's Handbook. Simon and Schuster, New York, New York.Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi.
EPA, 20111. Emergency Planning and Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA). Environmental Protection Agency. Available online at: htt :t/www.e a. ovla riculturellcra.html. Accessed June, 2011.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 2006. Roadway Construction Noise Model, Users Guide. Available online at: http://www.fhwa-dot.gov/environrnent/noise/construction noiselrcnmlrcnm. df. Viewed June, 2011.
Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 2006. U.S. Department of Transportation, Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, 2006. Available online at: http://www.fta.dot-cloyidocumentsIFTA Noise and Vibration Manual. pd. Viewed on: June, 2011.
Folsom Lake SRA, 2007. General Plan/Resource Management Plan: Vol I. Preliminary Plan - November 2007. Folsom Lake State Recreation Area & Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park. Available online at: http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page id-22322. Accessed June 2011.
Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. 2003. Environmental Conditions, Geology, Folsom Lake State Recreation Area. Geotechnical Consultants, Inc. based in San Francisco, California. Electronic document, http://www.parks.ca.govfpages/500/files/Geology.pdf, accessed June 10, 2011.
AES 6-3 City of Folsom take Nato ma Bike Treil September 2011 Initial Study
Staff Report Page No. 104 of 138 ATTACHMENT 4
Public Review Comments and Responses
Staff Report Page No. 105 of 138 LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL PROJECT SECTION 1: PUBLIC REVIEW COMMENTS
This Response to Comments document has been prepared to address comments received by the City of Folsom (City/Lead Agency) on the Initial Study (IS) for the Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project (Proposed Project). The IS was published by the State Clearinghouse on November 25, 2011, initiating a 30-day public review period. Five comment letters were received on the Proposed Project (Refer to Table 1). The bracketed comment letters are provided on the following pages and the responses are included in Section 2 of this Response to Comments document. These responses to comments received on the IS together with Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program will be incorporated into the public record for the Approved Project.
TABLE 1 PERSONS, ORGANIZATIONS , AND PUBLIC AGENCIES COMMENTING IN WRITING
I Jim Micheaels, Senior Park and Recreation California Department of Parks and Recreation 11121(2011 Specialist 2 Warren V. Truitt, President Save the American River Association 11123/2011 3 Laurette J. Laurent Private Citizen 1112312011
4 Stephen Green, Immediate Past President Lake Natoma Heights Neighborhood None Association Provided 5 James Herota, Staff Environmental Central Valley Flood Protection Board 1112312011 Scientist
Analytical EnvironmentaI Services City ofFolsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Responses to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 106 of 138 Comment Letter 1
State of California • Natural Resources Agency Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Ruth Coleman, Director Gold Fields District 7806 Folsom Auburn Road Folsom, CA 95630
November 21, 2011
Jim Konopka, Trails Coordinator Parks and Recreation Department City of Folsom 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA 95630
Dear Mr. Konapka,
This letter is to express the comments, concerns and recommendations of the Gold. Fields District of California State. Parks regarding the Initial, Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration the City of Folsom prepared for the lake Natoma Bike Trail Project (SCH #1993052087).. Much of the project would occur in areas under the City's jurisdiction, however portions of the proposed bike path would be constructed on both State and Federal lands that are managed by State Parks as part of the Folsom Powerhouse. 1 -1 State Historic Park (FPS HP). California State: Parks is supportive of the goal of'the project toconnect the paved bike. path from.the existing terminus behind the... Lake Natoma Inn to the Historic. Truss,:Brldge. State Parks has coordinated and collaborated with the City of Folsom over many:years on different Ideas regarding a connection of the paved bike. path between these two points. Most recently, State Pants staff did a site; visit with yourself and the consulting engineer on August 11 2011.
Unfortunately, State.Parks does not believe that the project description in. the. Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration- (ISIMND) provides sufficient detail and information to make the determinations. regarding impacts to:certain resources in; the 1-2 environmental document including cultural resources, land use and. planning; recreation: and transportation/traffic. State Parks. also has. some.specifia recommendations` regarding aspects of the project that would occur on :lands we own andlor manage.
The IS/MND does riot adequately describe the, relationsh€p of. project to ' Folsom. Powerhouse State Historic Park (FPSHP) and State Parks respor sit ilit€es.in reviewing 1-3 and approving those portions of the project that occur.on the.'FPSHP. Portions:of' Segments.3 and 4 will. occur on State and Federal property that is part of the FPSHP.
The property ownership and easements in the project area are not described in the IS/MND. Portions of Riley Street in the area of the project are located on State and Federal land for which the. City has_ obtained easements from the State and. Federal government for the roadway, including a 1969 Agreement and Easement between the 1-A City and State regarding portions of Riley Street adjacent to. the Fo€som Powerhouse. This agreement and easement has specific agreements and conditions which may be applicable to this project. The City has other easements with the State for portions of existing paved trails which are also within the project.area and may be part of the
Staff Report Page No. 107 of 138 project. Clearly identifying property ownership and easements within the project area 1-4 Cont. may help clarify the roles and responsibilities of the agencies Involved-
The land use and planning portion of the ISIMND (pages 3 - 51-52) does not identify the full regulatory setting. Those portions of the project that occur within the FPSHP property are subject to the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area/Folsom Powerhouse 1-5 State Historic Park General Plan and not the City of Folsom General Plan, The lS/MND should recognize the FPSHP General Plan, identify the goals policies and guidelines In the Plan that are applicable to this project and then determine the consistency of the project and to these policies.
The recreation section of the IS/MND (page 3 - 60.) states that Folsom Powerhouse SHP is located near the project site. We believe the project is located an portions of the 1-6 FPSHP and this needs to be clearly Identified in the environmental review. _
The cultural resources section of the IS/MND (pages 3 - 25-32) does not fully describe the regulatory setting or State Parks role and responsibilities in making determinations with regards to cultural resources for those portions of the project that occur within the FHSHP. California Public Resources Code (PRC) 5024.5 Identifies State agencies as 1-7 the responsible entity for historic features and resources on State lands. Executive Order W-26-92 provides additional direction with regards to protection and planning for historic resources on State lands.
State Parks has specific policies and procedures for complying with.. PRC 5.024 and' Executive Order W-2692. This Includes implementation of a Memorandum of- 'Understanding that California State Parks has with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). This MOU requires that a State Parks.. Cultural Resources . Specialist evaluate the impacts to cultural resources on. State, Park property and moire the -final. determinations regarding Impacts to historic resources. For the portions of the project 1-8 on. State lands, State Parks would consult with SHPO as needed. We: can review'the work of the City's consultants. as. part. of the basis of our determinations, but. a State Parks-Cultural Resources Specialist needs to make the final determinations: The City will need to work through the U.S. Bureau of.Reclamation regarding fhe required consultatlon with SHP.Q.for the portion, of the project occurring on Federal land:.
Portions of the project occur on lands designated as a. State. Historic Park. Public Resources Code 5019.59 provides direction regarding the management and protection of historical units within the ' California State Park system . such, as FPSHP. This section of the PRO. includes a discussion of the primary historic zone of these park units and the 1 -9 types of facilities that are to . be.provided within the primary historic zone. In addition to the General Plan for FPSHP and PRC 5024 and. other-applicable State and federal laws, the language in PRC 5019.59 will inform State Parks determinations and decisions with regards to those portions of the project located within FPSHP.
The ISIMND makes the determination that impacts to cultural resources would be. less than significant with mitigation incorporated. State Parks does. not believe that there is sufficient information regarding the project, including the extent of construction activities 1-10 and impacts that may be required for the alternate tunnel route of Segment 3. As we discussed in the August 11 site visit, the eastern end of the tunnel would require excavation of approximately 15 feet in depth from the existing ground surface In order to
Staff Report Page No. 108 of 138 accommodate the facility. The feasibility of connecting the bike path from this depth to the Truss Bridge at appropriate grades within the footprint of the existing paved bike path along the east side of Riley Street is not clear and will require additional engineering and planning. This additional planning is necessary to clearly understand the potential impacts to the remnant of the canal on the west side of Riley Street (including the debris screen and forebay of the FPHSP) and the rock wall and other 1 -10 features on the east side of Riley Street that are part of the canal and historic sawmill Cont. that formerly occupied the site. These features are part of the FPSHP. The extent of the specific impacts on historic resources and fabric would inform State Parks decision on whether or not this alternate tunnel route is acceptable. Our recommendation regarding this alternate option is to conduct additional engineering and planning to fully understand the scope of the facility required and in order to make appropriate and informed determinations regarding the impacts to cultural resources.
The ISIMND does not appear to be entirely consistent with the findings and conclusions of Cultural Resources Study (page 43) prepared for the City regarding this project. That study indicates that in order for a finding of no adverse . effect" the tunnel option under Riley Street would need to be dismissed . We concur with the finding of this. study that More research is required , as well as a final determination on the alignment, before a determination can be . made as to whether the project will meet the criterion of -adverse effect.". `State Parks has concerns about the potential impacts of Segment 3 on .the historic resources of the FPSHP, particularly the tunnel option. We believe additional planning and design work are needed in order to clearly understand the potential impacts of the various alternatives 'proposed in the JSIMND.: State F. arks- wc uld like to work closely with the City staff and' consultants In further planning and design of the project and have our cultural. resources staff involved in the cultural resources review.
Segment 3 of fine proposed trail would cross the entrance to the Folsom Powerhouse parking lot. There is no discussion in the IS/MNI of how this crossing of the proposed bike path and the: entrance to the parking lot off. Riley Street would. be configured,. or controlled:. The entrance to the parking: lot off of Riley Street Is: a short steep spur (from the street down to the parking lot with little or no. acceleration or deceleration lanes and problematic sight limes for those entering or exitig the parking lot. Riley Street can be extremely busy and congested at times and the speed of t€afFic in both directions on this: portion' of the roadway can make entering and exiting the. parking lqt challenging without having the additional element of a bike path crossing at this lacatieo as well. The 1-12 proposed bike path could carry a lot of bicycle traffic and.ate,Prts.has.concerns. a . that without the appropriate design and configuration this crossing could present a danger for bike patty users. State Parks believes this intersection ;needs. additional planning and design work in order to determine If an acceptable crossing Is possible arxi prior! o determining if there are no impacts with regards to transportation and'traffc as the ISIMND currently states (pages 3 fi1-64). It:may be possible to design a. safe and acceptable bike path crossing of the entrance to. the Powerhouse parking lot, 'and: it may be that the. option to take the trail under Rainbow Bridge is. the best alternative, but. additional planning and design are: required in order to make these determinations.. -
State Parks has some Initial thoughts and questions regarding the design of this intersection. We presume there would be stop. signs for the bike path traffic on either 1-13 side of the entrance road to the Powerhouse parking. lot, but this. isn't specified in the project description. In order to provide a safe intersection some Ideas to consider might
Staff Report Page No. 109 of 138 be providing a right hand pocket turn lane for the approach to the parking lot entrance or additional acceleration and deceleration lanes for traffic entering and exiting the parking lot along the south bound lane of Riley Street, With the additions of the bike 1-13 path crossing, should northbound traffic continue to be allowed to make a left hand turn Cont. into the parking lot or should this be restricted through a raised curb or barrier along the center of this section of Riley Street? State Parks would like to work with City staff and consultants on the design of this intersection. -
Figure.3 of the ISIMND (page 2 - 4) identifies the existing trail bridge across the canal to the traffic signal and cross walk at Riley and Scott Streets as part of the project. In our August 11 site visit we discussed some modifications to the bridge and landing area at the signal that may be necessary or desirable for this signal crossing to be a viable crossing of Riley Street for the trail. There is no discussion in the project description narrative of any proposed changes to the existing trail bridge and cross walk. Some of the ideas we. discussed in the site visit include replacing the existing trail bridge, both to reduce the steep grade of the existing bridge and to accommodate a potential move of the crosswalk from the existing location. to the north. side of the. intersection. Moving the 1-14 cross walk to the north side of the. intersection would. eliminate the need for bike traffic to cross both Riley and Scott Streets in making this connection. We also discussed the possibility of providing a larger landing area at the. signal to better accommodate. bike path traffic.. Given the potential challenges of the under Rainbow Bridge and the: "tunnel" options, State Parks would like to see improvements to the trail bridge,. traffic signal and' cross walk at Riley and Scott. Streets as a. separate alternative for the-bike path alignment. We think additional planning and design are needed for this option and ' €ook forward to working with City staff and consultants in developing this' alternative further,
State Parks appreciates that the City is taking the.lead .in 'developing this important connection for the gap in the paved bike path between the Folsom. Boulevard Budge. and the Historic Truss Bridge: State Parks would like to work closely with City staff and: consultants on the additional planning arid design we. believe Is, necessary in order to adequately analyze impacts to resources and to develop an option which best meets 1-15 the project objectives.. State Parks also needs to be closely involved in the cultural resources Impact analysis and. ensuring our requirements and procedures are met: State Parks` request and recommendation is that the City not: move forward With finalizing this .ISIMND and a decision regarding the Lake Nato ma Bike Path Project until this additional planning, design, analysis and; consultation-are completed.
Thank you for considering. these comments.: If you have`questions regarding this letter please contact me ati916PeN-O51
Sincerely;
Jim Micheaels Senior Park and Recreation Specialist
CC Dan Osanna, State Historian III, Northern. Service Center Mike Finnegan, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Staff Report Page No. 110 of 138 Comment Letter 2 Save the American River Association 4441 Auburn Blvd., Suite H • Sacramento, CA 95841-4139 916-482 -2551 n E-mail: iiifi^@SARAriveruvtch.org • urto t.SARAriverwatch.org CELEBRATING 50 YEARS • 1961 - 2011
2011 Board of Directors November 23, 2011 Officers Warren Truitt, Preidenl Clyde Macdonald, Vice Pres. Mary Beth Metcalf, Treasurer Mr. Jim Konopka Alan Wade. immed_ Past Pres. Department of Parks and Recreation Elko Guenter, Secretary City of Folsom Directors 50 Natoma Street Frank Cirilt. Pres. Emeritus Folsom, CA 95630 Bill Davis , September 2011 Stephen Green Re: Initial Study City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Burt Hodges Jim Mogan Dear Mr. Konopka, George Nyberg Felix Smith Save The American River Association was founded in 1961 to establish the American River Parkway. SARA has continued to serve as past 60. years. The following Volunteers & staff guardians of the American River and Parkway these Betsy Weiland, vol. Coor,a. comments on this project serve this role. Sara Stephen% Office Mgr. to INTRODUCTION,'1 1' PURPOSE OF STUDY 11vIsory Council . with the Mike Arnold The City of Folsom prepared the Initial Study (IS). in accordance Dan Bather California Enyixonmentati Quali Act (C EQA). A cant : of the IS, according to CBQA, ,requ1rea the; aty, to seek the views of nterested: persons anal 2-1. Deborah Bawl: viro Information in this Initial 'Baygell agenaes, on the content of .the en nmental P te Katie There are: time limits an this process .man4ated by state law, in this case a Rick Bettis Study. Lea Brooke 36-day review period.: Wayne Chubb This document failed to'Inform the public axed affected agencies of the starting and, Dave Clark 4 Maine Clark ending dates of the rev iew ..fin fad nowhere 6 , dais document does the Initial Study Negative Uedaratirn inform the- blc that theCity of Pvlsom^(City) 114 Collin ilia o the environmental At Fn:iias isseelcsig; accord rn to lam, coo me its on t ode cy document, and by. what date those bo ents mttttbe z eived for response tty.the. 2-2 Guy Galante lieves "LV Bill Griffith City, and where and towhom those comments should be it. - SARA be facilitate public dpatio i Jane Hagedorn qty has failed to meet its obligation under CEQA;to and should re-c rcul.ate..the initial Study/Negative Declaration with " floe critical Bob Hanna the. public's opportunity to frilly Cagle Hurd missing information, thereby restarting Jim Jones participate in the environmental review process. Txn.Keenan Gary Kukkda The Initial Study states that it would support a Mitigated Negative Declaration as Pam Lapinski defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 1.0701 and a Categorical Exclusion for Joseph Larzalere NEPA compliance in.accordance with 40 CFR 150.4. Later in the IS, refer to 2.6 Dave Lydick PERMITS AND APPROVALS NEEDED, pages 2-11, 2.12, where. the Bureau of. 2-3 Randy Smith Reclamation is listed as an approving agency who may conduct environmental Ron Stork review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) before Ron Suter implementation of the proposed project. Stephanie Taylor avid Thesell ands Villa lore Lets Winternit2
Guardians of the American River and Parkway since 1961 Staff Report Page No. 111 of 138 As described below, portions of this project are also part of the proposed Lake Natoma Waterfront and Access Trail project which have already been identified as requiring environmental review pursuant to NEFA, as well as CEQA. Please define the 2-4 Categorical Exclusion for NEPA compliance as it relates to the proposed project described in this Initial Study?
25.1 PROJECT COMPONENTS
Segment 1, the initial segment of the sed project, must be removed from this Initial Study/ Negative Declaration. This inisegment includes portions of the Lake Natoma Waterfront and Access Trail project, which will undergo. Its own environmental analysis in accordance with CEQA and NEPA. Specific design components , of Segment 1 as it relates to the proposed Lake Natoma Waterfront and: Access Trail project, such.as the portion of the proposed multi-use trail r arc-UT. alongside Gold Lake Drive on Bureau of 2-5 Reclamation land, have not been studior potentially cant en ironmental impacts and ADA regulatory requirements. The Folsoin City cWl on November8 2011, under Old Business; 8b. art the Meeting. Agenda, directed staff are this State and Federal review- therebY recognizing p the inad of the Pm documentt to fully and adequately assess the environmental Impacts of Segment 1 as described in the Initial Studyl Negative Declaration. Thank you for your kind and courteous attention to our comments .: We look forward to your response to our questions and ooncerxis-
C. SARA Board Folsom City. Clerk Matt See,, U.S.. ureau df Reclamation Jim Hcheaels, California State Parks
Staff Report Page No. 112 of 138 Comment Letter 3
Initial Study Bike Trail (5 segments) City of Folsom Lead Agency Published Intention of Negative Declaration September, 2011
COMMENTS with regard to Intent to Adopt Negative Declaration (obviating EIR process because of 3-1 insignificant impact on environment on federal conservation forest, a State Historical feature, and illegally narrow city "streets" which provide inadequate emergency access.)
During 2007 and 2008, the city expended over $4 million of residents' tax monies to remove from the Folsom Corporation Yard an old landfill, in order to declare a "laindfill clean closure".allowing full 3-2 development of the city land abutting the federal land operated by CA State Parks.
Both Reclamation (USBR) and CA State Parks made considerable efforts to convince the city to .remove all encroachments of garbage, debris, waste, oil, diesel, :and other harmful products. from this park land devoted uinder law to the conservation and preservation of this wild.. environment below Folsom darn. The correspondence between the owners and operators of the land with the city was 3-3 considerable- During the clean closure period CA State Parks informed the following oversight agencies of the encroachments: Environmental Management. Department, County of Sacramento;. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board; lntegr#uted. Waste Management Board.
CA State Parks informed the city in the attached letter from the. Gold Fields District Superintendent: "State Park staff hasnoticed what appears to be landfill type debris in a number of locations along the length of the boundary of the Corp, Yard and federal.land. The debris includes- old steel pipes, 5gallon containers, :old aerosol cans, machinery parts, concrete and asphalt fiberglass cloth, corrugated. fiberglass material, part of a utility pole and'steel tanks. This debris is just what we have observed on the:.surface. It appears that debris deposited on the Corp Yard site extends onto the federal lands in. a number oflocations and may extend beneath the surface. There are 61s -portions ofa larger diameter steel pipeline visible on the ground surface in several locations which appears to, extendfrom the Corporation. Yard well onto: the federal :lands: It.is our understanding that this old pipeline may be associated with the former City sewage treatment facility on the Corporation Yard site. In addition to the more recent landfill type debris. and pipeline, it is possible that there may be pieces ofequipmentfrom historic mining activity also in the area.
State Parks is concerned about the, health and safety o,]` park visittors and the protection of natural and 3-4 cultural resources. "
"The WorkPlan does not address the debris that State Parks staffhas observed along tlie entire boundary. we would like to seethe areas of debris and the sewage pipeline, Which are not addressed in the current Clean Closure Work Plan, either included in the current Work Plan o "State Park staff Fas noticed what appears to be landfill type debris in a number of locations along the length of the boundary of the Corp Yard and federal land. The debris. includes old steel pipes, 5 gallon containers, old aerosol cans, rnachineiy parts, concrete -and asphalt, fiberglass 016th, corrugated fiberglass material, part of a utility pole and steel tanks. This debris isjust what eve have observed on the surface. It appears that debris deposited on the Corp Yard site extends onto the federal lands in a number of locations and may extend beneath the surface. There are also portions of a larger diameter steel .pipeline. visible on. the ground surface in several locations which appears to extend from the Corporation Yard well onto the federal lands. It is our understanding that this old pipeline may be associated with the former City sewage treatmentfacility
Staff Report Page No. 113 of 138 on the Corporation Yard site. In addition to the more recent landfill type debris and pipeline; it is possible that there may be pieces of equipmentfrom historic mining activity also in the area. 3-4 Cant. r receive a commitmentfrom the city that these areas will be assessed, the debris removed... "or receive a commitmentfrom the city that these areas will he assessed, the debris removed...
COMMENT: illegal encroachments require remediation.: A. Whereas the largest encroachment is a huge mound directly off the city garage and oil/diesel storage areas, and whereas it is obviously intentionally created by dumping from the much higher elevation of the city corporation yard onto the federal land about 30 feet lower, it is obvious the dumping was wiltfiil and occurred from the higher elevation onto. the riparian land far below. B. According to past city staff the city regularly and routinely dumped its.hazardous waste and garbage onto the federal land. Site inspection verifies this to be true. 3-5 C. Following the June-21, 2007, fire on the corporation yard, the city stayed behind the advancing fire line, allowing the fire to burn into the federal forest behind the corporation yard. This revealed to open. sight the extent of the contaminants dumped from the corporation yard: onto the federal land, creating a very large extension of the corporation yard.
These facts lead to a conclusion that the city has a need to remediate. its historical encroachment onto federal lands.
COMMENT Refusal to allow even visual ins pection: During this period .the city refused Reclamation staff access to this portion of the corporation yard , even though the sole purpose was 3-6 observation, not testing access. This exclusion is typical of the . city's. approach: what's. ours is ours, what's yours is ours, and. we don't need. EIRs.
COMMENT Unfit steward of environment : This is the same city which willfully allowed raw sewage to flow into the, American River for three. days and had dozens of raw sewage spills onto sensitive lands- It continues to demonstrate destructive tendencies toward the natural environment as 3-7 seen by this Neg Dec Initial Study on federal and State Park lands. With regard to this 2011 Initial. Study and publication of Intent to Declare Negative Declaration'of environmental impact the city underscores its nature as enemy of the environment.
COMMENT City created dan .erous illegal access: Points to SP. This I.S. For a:trail on, federal and State Park owned lands , demonstrates another extremely .darngerous practice .:of the city, -- xnmely. the city creates illegal access : points into the State Park. The opening at the corporation yard. down at Young. Wo Circle is a prime example of misfeasance . Without federal authorization, the city paved a path through the corporation yard, directly linking Young Wo Circle (Residential :Zone) with the federal 3-8 land/State Park The natural result has been at -least one arson fire per year by people engaged in illegal activities on city and federal land which they reached right off Folsom -Blvd. 'in: the Lake Natorria Shores neighborhood. Escaping felons, theft rings, drug dealers. all have a perfect place to escape- pursuit by leaving 6 lane Folsom Blvd . and accessing the federal forest land at the corporation yard opening at Young Wo Circle.
COMMENT City violates own land laws. The city's own laws mandate large masonry walls between all Residential Zone land and Non-Residential Zones. But the city continues to violate its own laws. This is true .at places along the city -federal boundary. This Initial study declares "No 3-9 impact", but there are huge risks associated with the city allowing more access to federal lands especially at night . Given the presence .of 24 liquor licenses in this city area of the bike trail , it is clear what types of Commercial Zone uses will spill over into the federal land/State.. Park where the SP
Staff Report Page No. 114 of 138 3-9Co Rangers cannot even gain access in case of crime or fire. Cont.
COMMENT Creation and exacerbation of safety access problems. No evacuation routes below a dam next to a forest. The city has an obligation to abide by its own laws governing Commercial Zone and the roads serving them. It has an obligation to stay off neighboring properties and controlling its own uses pursuant to laws. It is dangerous to allow this city as presently operated,.any greater access to 3-10 federal conservation lands and/or State Park. The city's own misfeasance creates significant. dangers to the health and safety of park users, Commercial Zone users, and the thousands who pour in for the alcohol-laden "Folsom Live.
COMMENT Overcrowding and inability of emergency and service personnel to access. Overcrowding and overusage have. a negative impact on conservation areas, particularly when there are 24 liquor licenses nearby. No statistics are cited by the city with regard to number of anticipated additional visitors, impact of the Commercial Zone, damage to federal habitat and critters, and the ever present danger of fire. The city does not even nnexnti.on that thistrail is proposed to occupy a. cliff 3-11 behind Gold Lake 'alley', They declare a. Neg Dec on a cliff which has a horizontal component of 38 feet from Gold Lake to the existing trail, and a vertical drop of more than 50 feet Reasonable minds recoil from this, but this is the original home of Neg. Does.
Submitted electronically to [email protected],us November 23, 201.1. by Laurette 1. Laurent
Staff Report Page No. 115 of 138 Comment Letter 4
LAKE NATOMA HEIGHTS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSN. (Representing owners of 400 homes)
4429 Las Encinitas Dr. Fair.Oaks , CA 95628 November 24, 2011
Jim Konopka Dept. of Parks and Recreation City of Folsom 50 Natoma St. Folsom , CA 95630
RE: Comment on Initial Study, City of Folsom. Lake Natoma Bike Trail, September 2011
The Lake Natoma Heights Neighborhood Association is.the largest Neighborhood/Homeowner Association in Fair Oaks. Our homes are situated on the bluffs above Lake Natoma.
The City of Folsom has a long history of failing toccomply with the law in the planning process and construction of development projects. This' document is yet another example of that failure. 4-1 The California Environment Quality Act requires that .this document contain specific. information, including the listing of the time frame when the public may comment on the validity of. facts . in the. document. No such information is included.
If the City of Folsom proceeds with any aspect of this development, our Neighborhood Association Will file a legal action.
A printed copy of this letter was mailed on the above date.
Sincerely,
Stephen Green Immediate Past President
Cc: Matt See, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Jim Michaels , California Dept. of Parks and Recreation
Staff Report Page No. 116 of 138 Comment Letter 5
STATE OF CALIFORNIA - CALIFORNIA NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G. BROWN JR,, GOVERNOR CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD 3310 El Camino Ave., Rm. 151 SACRAMENTO, CA 95821 (916)574-0609 FAX: (916) 574-0682 PERMITS: (916) 574-2380 FAX: (916) 574-0682
November 23, 2011
Mr. Jim Konopka City of Folsom 50 Natoma Street Folsom, California 95630
Subject: LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL SCH Number. 1993052087 Document Type: Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear Mr. Konopka: Staff of the Central Valley Flood Protection. Board (Board) has reviewed the subject document. and provides the following comments: The proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of the Centrall Valley Flood Protection Board. The Board is required to enforce standards for the construction, maintenance and protection of adopted flood control plans that will. protect. public: lands: from floods. The 5-1 jurisdiction of the Board includes the Central. Valley, including all tributaries and distributaries of. the Sacramento River and the San Joaquin River,: and designated floodways (Title'23 California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 2) A Board permit is required. prior to starting the work.within the Board's jurisdiction forthe following: • The placement, constructionj reconstruction, removal, or abandonment of;any 5-2 landscaping, culvert, bridge;. conduit, fence, projection,. fill, embankrrtent, building, structure, obstruction, encroachment, excavation, the pl anting,. or removal of vegetation, and any repair ormaintenance that. involves cutting Into the.levee (CCR Section 6) • Existing structures that predate permitting. or where it is necessary to establish the conditions normally imposed by permitting:' The circumstances include those where 5-3 responsibility for the encroachment has not been clearly established or ownership and use have been revised (CCR Section 6);
• Vegetation plantings will require the submission of detailed design drawings; identification of vegetation type; plant and. tree names (i.e. common. name and scientific name); total number of each type of plant and tree;, planting spacing and Irrigation. 5-4 method that will be utilized within the project area, a complete vegetative management plan for maintenance to prevent the interference with flood control, levee maintenance, inspection, and flood fight. procedures (CCR.Section 131).
Staff Report Page No. 117 of 138 Mr. Jim Konopka November 23, 2011 Page 2 of 2
Vegetation requirements in accordance with Title 23, Section 131 (c) states Vegetation must not interfere with the integrity of the adopted plan of flood control, or interfere with maintenance, inspection, and flood fight procedures."
The accumulation and establishment of woody vegetation that is not managed has a negative 5-5 impact on channel capacity and increases the potential for levee over topping. When a channel develops vegetation that then becomes habitat for wildlife, maintenance to initial baseline conditions becomes more difficult as the removal of vegetative growth is subject to federal and State agency requirements for on-site mitigation within the floodway. Hydraulic Impacts - Hydraulic impacts due to encroachments cop Id impede flood flows, reroute flood flows, and/or increase sediment accumulation. The HEIR should include mitigation measures for channel and levee improvements and maintenance to prevent. and/or reduce 5-6 hydraulic impacts. Off-site mitigation. outside of the State Plan of Flood Control should be used when mitigating for vegetation removed within the project location.
The permit application and Title 23: CCR can be found on the Central Valley Flood Protection Board's website at http://www.cvfpb.ca.o vl. Contact your local, federal and State agencies; as other permits may apply. 5-7 If you have any questions, please contact me by phone at (916) 574-0651, or via email at iherota agwater.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
James Herota. Staff Environmental Scientist Flood Projects Improvement Branch cc: Governor's Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, California. 95814
Staff Report Page No. 118 of 138 Response to Comments
LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL PROJECT SECTION 2: RESPONSES COMMENTS
The following responses are provided to address the comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Proposed City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project.
Letter 1 - California Department of Parks and Recreation
Response to Comment 1-01 The commenter summarizes the project, states that the Gold Fields District of California State Parks (State Parks) is supportive of the goal of the project, and summarizes coordination efforts between the City and the agency. Comment noted. In response to the comments received on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), the City met with State Parks as well as with the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) on November 30, 2011 to address the Proposed Project as described within the IS/MND and associated comments received by the City. As a result of several meetings between the City and State Parks, the City decided to reduce the extent of development as proposed within the IS/MND to minimize development on State Parks lands and remove project components from Reclamation lands. Accordingly, the City reduced the extent of develop of Segments I and 3, and removed Segment 4 and the Alternative Route from consideration (Approved Project). According to State Parks, the reduction in the extent of the proposed development of the project would alley the concerns presented in the comment letter dated November 21, 2011 . Exhibit A of the Findings presents the approved project that would be developed by the City. The minor alterations to the Approved Project along two small sections of Segments 2 and 3 include a path along Decatur Street from Segment 2 (Leidesdorff Street) in lieu of the forked path of Segment I on the east side of Folsom Boulevard and directing bicycle/pedestrian traffic to cross the western crosswalk across Riley Street and then the southern crosswalk across Scott Street to join the existing bike trail that traverses adjacent to the southern lane of Riley Street.
Response to Comment 1-02 The commenter states that State Parks believes the IS/MND does not provide sufficient detail to make determinations regarding the impacts to certain resources including cultural resources, land use and planning, recreation, and transportation traffic and that State Parks has specific recommendations regarding the aspects of the project that would occur on lands owned and/or managed by State Parks. Taking into consideration the reduced size of the project as discussed under the response to Comment 1- 01, the IS/MND adequate addresses current resource conditions and the potential impacts associated with development of the Approved Project. A Cultural Resources Study was conducted to assess the potential
Analytical Environmental Services 1 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Responses to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 119 of 138 Response to Comments
impacts associated with development of the Proposed Project. With the reduced scope of the project, potential cultural resources impacts were adequately addressed in the IS/MND. Development activities would occur entirely on City lands. The small portion of the Approved Project that would utilize the historic bridge would not require development activities. As discussed under Land Use and Planning in Section 3.2 of the IS/MND, the Proposed Project would be generally consistent with all applicable City General Plan policies and the Parks and Recreation Master Plan. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation. In addition, by excluding the potential Alternative Route, traffic impacts would be reduced to less-than-significant impacts for the Approved Project compared to the Proposed Project assessed within the ISIMND. The City feels that with the elimination of the pathways that would traverse undeveloped State Parks and Reclamation lands, the ISIMND adequate addressed the potential impacts of the Approved Project and no further action is required. The City has responded to State Parks recommendations where presented in the prevailing comments.
Response to Comment 1-03 The commenter states that the IS/MND does note adequately describe the relationship of the project to State Parks and the responsibilities State Parks would have in reviewing and approving Segments 3 and 4 that would occur on State and Federal property that is part of State Parks. The description of the Proposed Project adequately describes the project as traversing through the Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park in various section of the document. This is highlighted in the description of the project location presented in Section 2.2 of the IS/MND and description of Segment 3 presented in Section 2.5.1 of the IS/MND. The new development associated with the bike trail that would have been developed on State Parks lands has been removed from the Approved Project and the City anticipates that the removal of these pathways from the project addresses the concerns of State Parks presented in the comment.
Response to Comment 1-04 The commenter states that the ISIMND should clearly identify property ownership and easements within the project area, which may help clarify the roles and responsibilities of the agencies involved in the Proposed Project. With the alteration of the Proposed Project, all development activities associated with the Approved Project would be conducted on City lands and right-of-ways. The ISIMND adequately describes the land use and planning considerations to assess the potential impacts associated with the development of the Approved Project, which was reduced in development intensity compared to the Proposed Project in response to the concerns provided by State Parks.
Response to Comment 1-05 The commenter states that the Land Use and Planning discussion in Section 3.2 of the IS/MND does not identify the full regulatory section and should address the Folsom Lake State Recreation Area/Folsom Powerhouse State Historic Park General Plan (State Parks General Plan). Comment noted and the Approved Project would be consistent with the State Parks General Plan. In particular, guideline
AnalyticaI Environ mentaI Services 2 City ofl•olsom Lake Naloina Bike Trail Projecr March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 120 of 138 Response to Comments
Powerhouse- 15 of the State Parks General Plan states that State Parks should work with the City of Folsom to complete a Class 1 trail from the Lake Natoina Crossing Bridge to the Historic Truss Bridge.
Response to Comment 1-06 The commenter states that although the Recreation setting discussion in Section 3.2 of the ISIM.ND states that the Folsom Power House Historic State Park (FPHHSP) is located near the project site; it is actually located within the project site of Segment 3. Comment noted and the reduced Segment 3 of the Approved Project designates the existing paved trail that traverses through the FPHHSP as a component of the Bike Trail and accordingly the Approved Project is more accurately described as occurring within the FPI-I1i.SP.
Response to Comment 1-07 The commenter states that the cultural resources section of the ISIMND does not fully describe the regulatory setting or State Parks roles and responsibilities in making determinations with regards to cultural resources within State Parks lands- The commenter further states that State Parks is identified as the responsible agency on State lands in accordance with Public Resource Code (PRC} 5024.5 and Executive Order W-26-92, which provides additional direction with regards to protection and planning for historic resources on State lands. Comments noted and the City understands that the State is responsible for cultural resource protection on State lands. A Cultural Resource Study was conducted on behalf of the City in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and, in accordance with CEQA requirements, adequately assesses the potential for the Approved Project to adversely impact cultural resources. With the removal of the Alternative Route from consideration and change in segment development, minimal impacts to cultural resources are anticipated. The Approved Project is consistent with the State Parks requirements for historic resource protection and mandated under Executive Order W-24-92.
Response to Comment 1-08 The commenter states that in accordance with the State Parks provisions for complying with Executive Order W-24-92, a State Parks Cultural Resources Specialist is required to evaluate the impacts to cultural resources on State Property and consult with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Comment noted and the IS/MND presents the City's determination required under CEQA that cultural resource impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. The City understands that State Parks would be required to complete further consultation and will provide a copy of the Cultural Resources Study prepared on behalf of the City to State Parks to facilitate consultation. As stated in the response to Comment 1-01, the Approved Project does not include development on Reclamation lands and therefore no further Reclamation action is required.
Response to Comment 1-09 The commenter summarizes the provisions of the PRC that provides direction regarding the management and protection of historical resources within the State Park system; however, no comment on the IS/MND
Analytical Environmental Services 3 City of Folsom Lake Naio+na Bike Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 121 of 138 Response to Comments
or the Proposed Project is provided. Comment noted and no response required. Cultural resources are addressed in Section 3.2 of the ISIMND and a Cultural Resources Study was prepared to assess the potential impacts of the Proposed Project in accordance with requirements established by CEQA and Section 106 of the NHPA.
Response to Comment 1-10 The commenter states that the IS/MND does not contain adequate detail concerning the Alternate Route to assess the potential impacts to cultural resources and provides recommendations concerning additional planning and engineering. As discussed in response to Comment 1-01, the Alternative Route has been removed from consideration and would not be developed as part of the Approved Project in response to the comments received from State Parks.
Response to Comment 1-11 The commenter again comments on the Alternative Route, stating that the ISIMND is inconsistent with the Cultural Resources Study. As discussed in response to Comment 1-01, the Alternative Route has been removed from consideration and would not be developed as part of the Approved Project in response to the comments received from State Parks.
Response to Comment 1-12 The commenter requests additional information requesting the crossing of Segment 3 and the Folsom Powerhouse parking lot, as potential safety conflicts between bicyclists/pedestrians and cars entering/exiting the Folsom Powerhouse parking lot could arise. As discussed in response to Comment 1-01, Segment 3 would not be extended to the Rainbow Bridge and would cross Riley Street prior to reaching the Folsom Powerhouse parking lot. Therefore, with the new configuration under the Approved Project, no safety issues between the Folsom Powerhouse parking and the bike trail would be experienced.
Response to Comment 1-13 The commenter presents recommendations concerning the design of the intersection of the bike trail along Segment 3 of the Proposed Project and the Folsom Powerhouse parking lot. As discussed above, this portion of Segment 3 is no longer under consideration and would not be developed.
Response to Comment 1-14 The commenter suggests additional improvements should be completed at the trail section crossing Riley Street. At this time, there are no improvements planned at the crossing of Riley Street to the connection of the existing trail east of Riley Street and north of Scott Street.
Response to Comment 1-15 The commenter states that State Parks is willing to work with the City on additional planning and design it considers necessary in accordance with the previous comments. As discussed in the response to
Analytical Environmental Services 4 City of Folsom Lake Natoma We Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 122 of 138 Response to Comments
Comment 1-01, based on the comments provided the Proposed Project was reduced in intensity and scope. Refer to the response to Comment 1-01 for additional details regarding the change in scope of the Proposed Project.
Letter 2 - Save the American River Association
Response to Comment 2-01 The commenter states that CEQA requires the City to seek the views of interested persons and agencies on the content and that there are time limits mandated by state law for review, which in the case of the IS/MND is 30 days. Comment noted and the City complied with CEQA requirements concerning the notice and release of the ISIMND for public review. The Notice of Intent was published in the local paper identifying the 30-day review period of October 26 to November 25, 2011. In addition, the ISIMND was published with the State Clearinghouse.
Response to Comment 2-02 The commenter states that the document does not comply with CEQA as the ISIMND does not inform the public of the comment period and thereby fails to facilitate public involvement in accordance with CEQA. The commenter does not accurately portray the requirements of CEQA. Section 15071 of the CEQA guidelines provides the required contents of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND). These required components are:
I - Brief description of the project, 2. Location of the project and name of project proponent, 3. Proposed finding that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, 4. Copy of the Initial Study, and 5. Mitigation measures.
The CEQA guidelines do not require the MND or the Initial Study to identify the public participation opportunity. When an ISIMND has been completed and may be approved by the Lead Agency, CEQA requires a Notice of Intent (NOI) to adopt the IS/MNI) be published and CEQA Guidelines Section 15072(g) establishes the required NDI contents, which include details concerning the public review process. The City developed and published a NDI, which provides all the information required by CEQA concerning the public review period. Accordingly, the ISIMND and NDI prepared and released by the City comply with CEQA requirements-
Response to Comment 2-03 The commenter states that the IS states that it would support a MND under C.EQA and a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the components of the Proposed Project located on Reclamation lands and that Reclamation is listed as an approving agency that
Analytical Environmental Services 5 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 - Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 123 of 138 Response to Comments
may conduct environmental review under NEPA_ The commenter does not provide a comment regarding the Proposed Project or the ISIMND and no further response is required.
Response to Comment 2-04 The commenter states that portions of the project are also within the proposed Lake Natoma Waterfront and Access Trail project, which have already been identified as requiring environmental review under CEQA and NEPA and requests that the City define the CE for NEPA compliance as it relates to the Proposed Project described in the IS.
Response to Comment 2-05 The commenter reiterates that portions of Segment I are located within a separate project being proposed by the City, the Lake Natoma Waterfront and Access Trail project and that these components have not been fully studied, referencing a City Council decision of November 8, 2011 to direct staff to begin environmental review of the Lake Natoma Waterfront and Access Trail project. Comment noted and the portion of Segment I that overlaps with the Lake Natoma Waterfront and Access Trail project has been removed from the Approved Project.
Letter 3 - Laurette J. Laurent
Response to Comment 3-01 The commenter provides a subject line stating that the letter provides comments on the Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration. The commenter further states that Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is not being prepared because of the insignificant impacts on Federal conservation forest land, a State historical feature, and illegally narrow City streets which provide inadequate emergency access. Comment noted and as discussed in Section 3.2 of the IS/MND, impacts to forest and historic resources are considered less than significant; however, not "insignificant" as stated by the commenter. Implementation of the Approved Project would not result in decrease roadway width and would therefore not result in inadequate emergency access.
Response to Comment 3-02 The commenter references City expenditures to declare a "landfill closure" at a City corporation site. This comment does not address the Proposed Project or the IS/MND and therefore no further response is necessary. The commenter further addresses the "landfill closure" and states that Reclamation and State Parks has made considerable efforts to convince the City to remove encroachments of harmful products from park land below Folsom dam. This comment does not address the Proposed Project or the 1SIMND and therefore no further response is necessary.
Analytical Euvironmen(AI Services 6 City of Folsom Lake Naroma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 124 of 138 Response to Comments
Response to Comment 3-04 The commenter references a State Parks letter regarding debris at the boundary of a City corporation yard and Federal lands. This comment does not address the Proposed Project or the IS/MND and therefore no further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 3-05 The commenter states that illegal encroachments by the City regarding disposal of refuse onto Federal land requires remediation. This comment does not address the Proposed Project or the IS/MND and therefore no further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 3-06 The commenter provides comments on operations at the City's corporation yards, stating an opinion that the City's approach to environmental review is to not develop EIRs. Based on CEQA guidelines and the minimal impact as assessed within Section 3.2 of the ISIMND, an EIR is not required and the environmental documentation prepared on behalf of the City meets all CEQA requirements.
Response to Comment 3-07 The commenter provides an opinion as to the City's attitude toward the environment, referencing the development of an IS/MND. This comment does not address the Proposed Project or the contents or analysis methodologies of the ISIMND and therefore no further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 3-08 The commenter states that the IS/MND creates illegal access points into the State Park and again references the issues with the City's corporation yard. As discussed in Section 2.0 of the ISIMND, the Proposed Project includes tying into the existing pathways along State Parks property or development along existing roadways. Implementation of the Approved Project would not result in illegal access points into State Park property. The proposed issues concerning the City's corporation yard do not correlate to the Proposed Project or Approved Project and therefore no further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 3-09 The commenter states that the City violates its own laws regarding the mandate to construct large masonry walls between all Residential Zone land and Non-Residential Zone land and states that although the IS declares no impact, there are risks associated with the City allowing more access to Federal lands, especially at night. The commenter continues stating that given the presence of 24 liquor licenses in the City area of the bike trail, it is clear that commercial zone uses will spill over into Federal and State Parks lands and State Parks rangers would not be able to gain access in case of crime or fire. The comment regarding masonry walls does not apply to the Proposed Project or Approved project as the land uses immediately adjacent to the project site mainly consist of commercial, recreational, and historic uses. As shown in Figure 3 of the ISIMND, the Proposed Project does not provide additional access points into Federal or State Parks lands. In addition, as discussed in response to Comment 1-05, the State Parks
AnaiyiieaI Environmental Services 7 City of Folsom Lake Naeoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 125 of 138 Response to Comments
General Plan for the region includes a guideline to develop the Proposed Project. The correlation of commercial development of Federal and State Parks land between City liquor licenses and the Proposed Project is unsubstantiated , as all development on Federal or State Parks would require consistency with associated planning documents and approval from the lead Federal and State agencies , which would be assessed in corresponding CEQA or NEPA environmental review.
Response to Comment 3-10 The commenter references no evacuation routes below a dam next to a forest. The commenter states that the City has an obligation to stay off neighboring properties , noting that there is a danger with the City allowing greater access to Federal conservation lands and/or State Parks lands. The commenter states that the City's own misfeasance creates signi ficant dangers to the health and safety of park uses, commercial zone uses, and thousands of visitors - As stated previously, implementation of the Approved Project (or the Proposed Project as assessed in the ISIMND ) would not increase access to Federal or State Parks lands. The other issues within the comment do not address the Proposed Project or the contents or analysis methodologies of the IS/NIND and therefore no further response is necessary.
Response to Comment 3-11 The commenter states that overcrowding and over usage have a negative impact on conservation areas. The commenter references the number of liquor licenses nearby and further states that the City does not cite statistics regarding the number of anticipated additional visitors , impacts of the Commercial Zone, damage to Federal habitat and species, and fire danger. The commenter further states that no mention of the cliff adjacent to the project site is provided . The connection of the bike trail gap is not anticipated to "generate" significant new visitors to the region as no new habitable facilities would be developed to generate visitors. Land use, habitat and species, and fire-related impacts are adequately addressed in the IS as required by CEQA. The results of the IS within the IS/MND indicate all impacts are readily mitigatable and an EIR is not required . The Approved Project would follow the existing transportation facilities along the approved pathway and therefore no impacts related to the cliffs would be experienced.
Letter 4 - Lake Natoma
Response to Comment 4-01 The Commenter states that the document is a failure because CEQA requires that the document contain a listing of the time frame when the public may comment on the validity of the facts in the document and no such information is included in the Initial Study and that the Neighborhood Association will file a legal action if the City proceeds with any aspect of the development of the project. The issue associated with the announcement of the public review period was previously addressed. Please refer to the response to Comment 2-2.
Analyticnf Environmental Services 8 City of Iolsom lake Natoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 126 of 138 Response to Comments
Letter 5- Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Response to Comment 5-1 The commenter states that the proposed project is within the jurisdiction of the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (Board), and that the Board is required to enforce standards for the construction, maintenance, and protection of adopted flood control plans that will protect public lands from flooding. The commenter also states that their jurisdiction includes the Central Valley including all tributaries, distributaries, and designated floodways of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River. Comment noted.
Response to Comment 5-2 The commenter states that a Board permit is required prior to starting work within its jurisdiction for the placement, construction, reconstruction, removal or abandonment of any landscaping, culvert, bridge, conduit, fence, projection, fill, embankment, building, structure, obstruction, encroachment, excavation, planting or removal of vegetation, and any repair or maintenance that requires cutting into the levee. Comment noted. As stated in Section 2.6 of the Initial Study(Negative Declaration, permits and approvals may be required from several organizations including, but not limited to, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, the California Department of Parks and Recreation, and the Bureau of Reclamation. As the project is located within the Board's jurisdiction, once the ISIMND is adopted, all necessary permits and approvals will be solicited and secured from state and local agencies prior to the commencement of construction.
Response to Comment 5-3 The commenter states that a Board permit is required prior to starting work within its jurisdiction for existing structures that predate permitting or where it is necessary to establish the conditions normally imposed by permitting, including those where responsibility for the encroachment has not been clearly established or ownership and use have been revised. Refer to response to Comment 5-2 regarding this issue.
Response to Comment 5-4 The commenter states that a Board permit is required prior to starting work within its jurisdiction for vegetation plantings. Additionally, the commenter states that as part of the permit, detailed design drawings, identification of vegetation types, the total number of each type of plant and tree, plant spacing and irrigation methods, and a complete vegetative management plan for maintenance to prevent interference with flood and levee management must be included- Refer to response to Comment 5-2 regarding this issue.
Response to Comment 5-5 The commenter states that vegetation must not interfere with the integrity of the adopted plan of flood control or interfere with maintenance, inspection, and flood fight procedures. The commenter states that
Analytical Environmental Services 9 City of Folsoin Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments
Staff Report Page No. 127 of 138 Response to Comments
the accumulation and establishment of woody vegetation that is not managed has a negative impact on channel capacity and increases the potential for levee over-topping. The commenter also states that when a channel develops vegetation that becomes habitat for wildlife, maintenance to initial baseline conditions becomes difficult as removal of vegetative growth is subject to Federal and state agency requirements for on-site mitigation within the floodway. Comments noted.
As stated in the Biological Resources section of the ISIMND, potential jurisdictional wetlands or other waters of the U.S. within the project site include two drainages and one manmade detention basin. These features may be subject to US Army Corp of Engineer jurisdiction. A Section 404 CWA permit, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification , and a Section 1600 Streambed Alternation Agreement would be required if the proposed project would result in an impact to these features. Because the proposed project is also in the jurisdiction of the Board, a permit and Title 23 CCR would also be solicited . These permits, along with Mitigation Measures BR-I through BR-3 described in the ISIMND, will ensure that any impact caused by the Approved Project would be less than significant.
Response to Comment 5-6 The commenter states that hydraulic impacts due to encroachments could impede flood flows, reroute flood flows, and/or increase sediment accumulation . The commenter recommends that the DEIR should include mitigation measures for channel and levee improvements and maintenance to prevent and/or reduce hydraulic impacts . The commenter states that off-site mitigation outside of the State Plan of Flood Control should be used when mitigating for vegetation removed within the project location . As stated in response to Comment 5-5, the City of Folsom will solicit and obtain all necessary permits from state and local agencies and follow the Mitigation Measures outlined in the IS /MND. These actions would ensure that all impacts due to construction of the proposed project to waters in the vicinity are less than significant.
Response to Comment 5-7 The commenter states that the Board ' s permit application and Title 23 CCR can be found on the Central Valley Flood Protection Board ' s website, and requests that other agencies be contacted as other permits may apply. Comments noted.
Analytical E nvironmental Services 10 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Response to Comments Staff Report Page No. 128 of 138 ATTACHMENT 5
Table I - Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Staff Report Page No. 129 of 138 LAKE NATOMA BIKE TRAIL PROJECT
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH 1993052087)
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Introduction
This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) has been prepared pursuant to Section 21081.6 of the California Public Resources Code. A MMRP is required for the Approved Project because the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) has identified potential adverse effects that will be reduced to less-than-significant levels through the implementation of mitigation measures. Due to the reduction in the size of the Approved Project compared to the Proposed Project analyzed in the IS/MND, Mitigation Measure GS-1 is no longer applicable as the total area of disturbance for construction would equal less than one acre. Therefore, the City has not included Mitigation Measure GS-1 within the MMRP.
The numbering of the individual mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence as found in the MND.
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
The MMRP, as outlined in the following table, describes mitigation timing, monitoring responsibilities, and compliance verification responsibility for all mitigation measures identified in the MND.
The City of Folsom (City) will be the primary agency responsible for implementing the mitigation measures. The City may choose to require the project contractor to implement specific mitigation measures prior to and/or during construction. In some cases, the City or other public agencies will implement measures.
The MMRP is presented in tabular form on the following pages. The components of the MMRP are described briefly below:
• Mitigation Measures : The mitigation measures are taken verbatim from the MND, in the same order that they appear in the MND.
• Mitigation Timing and Implementation : Identifies at which stage of the project mitigation must be completed and how it will be implemented.
• Monitoring and Enforcement Responsibility : Identifies the agency or department within the City responsible for mitigation monitoring and enforcement.
PEg I City ofFuIsam Lake Natoma Bike Trail March 2012 Mlligatron Monitoring and REporling Program Staff Report Page No. 130 of 138 • Verification: Identifies the initials of the responsible agency's representative and the date the representative verified implementation of the specific mitigation measure.
Analytical Environmental Services 2 Gold Run I April 2006 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporling Program Staff Report Page No. 131 of 138 TABLE I MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
Air Quality
Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to increase dust, NOx, and ROG emissions. City and project During Measure AQ-1 The following would control fugitive dust from the construction site and reduce NOx contractor. construction and ROG emissions from construction equipment: activities. n Water all exposed surfaces two times daily as appropriate. Exposed surfaces include, but are not limited to soil piles, graded areas, unpaved parking area, staging areas, and access roads. n Cover or maintain at least two feet of free board space on haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material on the site. Any haul trucks that would be traveling along freeways or major roadways should be covered. Use wet power vacuum street sweepers to remove any visible track out mud or dirt onto adjacent public roads at least once a day. Use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. n Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour, All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, parking lots to be paved should be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used, n Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to five minutes (required by California Code of Regulations, Title 13, sections 249(d)(3) and 2485). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrance to the site. Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer's specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.
Biological Resources
Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to impact nest sites for federally protected City and California Immediately Measure BR-1 migratory birds through noise and vibrations from construction equipment and Department of Fish prior to and and Game.
City or Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Pro Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Prog. increased human disturbance during construction activities. The Approved Project during has the potential to impact nest sites within trees if any are anticipated for removal, construction activities. The following mitigation measures are required to avoid impacts to nest sites for migratory birds and other birds of prey: n If any trees are anticipated for removal, they should be removed outside of the nesting season (October Ito February 1). If trees are anticipated for removal during the nesting season, a qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey within 10 days prior to their removal. If no birds are observed nesting within the trees anticipated for removal, then the biologist would document the results of the preconstruction survey in a letter to the CDFG and the City within 30 days following the survey. If an active nest is observed within a tree anticipated for removal, then the biologist should contact the City by phone or email within one day following the survey. A S0- foot buffer should be established around the tree until a biologist determines that the nest is no longer occupied. The biologist should consult with the CDFG if the 50-foot buffer is impractical. n A preconstruction survey should be conducted by a qualified biologist for nesting migratory birds and other birds of prey within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities that occur within the nesting season. The nesting season occurs from February 1 to October 1. The qualified biologist should document the results of the preconstruction survey in a letter to the CDFG and the City within 30 days following the survey. If no active nests are identified during the preconstruction survey, then no further mitigation is required. n If any active nests are identified during the preconstruction survey within the project site, a 100-foot buffer zone should be established around the nests. The biologist will delimit the buffer zone with construction tape or pin flags within 50 feet of the active nest and maintain the buffer zone until the end of the breeding season or until the young have fledged. Guidance from the CDFG will be requested for a reduced buffer zone if establishing a 50-foot buffer zone is impractical.
AES 4 City of Folsom Lake Nato ma Bike Trail Project March 2012 Mrligation Monrto, rng and Repnr+ing Program Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to impact roosting sites within trees if any are City and California Immediately Measure BR-2 anticipated for removal and during construction activities in the vicinity of the Department of Fish prior to and Game. Folsom Crossing Bridge. The following mitigation measures should be implemented construction. to avoid project-related impacts to roosting sites for pallid bats: n A qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey for roosting bats within 14 days prior to commencement of construction activities. The qualified biologist should document the results of the preconstruction survey in a letter to the CDFG and the City within 30 days following the survey. If no active roosts are identified during the preconstruction survey, then no further mitigation is recommended. n If any bats are found to occur within cavities of any trees proposed to be removed or beneath the Folsom Crossing Bridge and the overpass that crosses Folsom Boulevard, then the trees should not be removed and no construction activities should occur within 25 feet until the biologist can assure that the bats have vacated the structure or cavity. n If unavoidable impacts to bat roosting sites are identified, these impacts should be mitigated through the installation of roosting boxes on the project site. Five roasting boxes should be created for every roosting structure destroyed, The results should be documented in a letter report to the City and the CDFG within 30 days following the completion of the mitigation. Mitigation If any trees are proposed for removal or work is proposed beneath the drip line of city Immediately Measure BR-3 protected trees, then the following mitigation measures would be required: prior to construction. n An application should be submitted to and adopted by the City Council prior to commencement of construction activities in accordance with the City's General Plan. The application should include an application form, a justification statement, a site map, a preservation program, and an arborist report. The arborist report should be prepared by a certified arborist. The arborist report should include the botanical and common names of the trees by tree number; locations of the trees by tree numbers; diameters at breast height (DBH) by tree numbers, identifying whether the trees are single or multitrunked; protected zone radii by tree numbers; and condition of tree numbers based an the excellent, good, fair to good, fair, fair to poor, and poor tree rating system.
Cultural Resources
AF O 5 City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Proje- 1 '012 mitigation Monitoring and R'porting Prop Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to impact cultural resources . The following City, State Historic During Measure CR-1 mitigation measures should be implemented to avoid project -related impacts to Preservation Office, construction and Native American activities, cultural resources: Heritage Commission. n Impacts to cultural resources in and around the project alignment can be minimized or avoided through monitoring by qualified personnel. Archaeological monitoring will protect recognized cultural resources and those buried, or covered by modern infrastructure . Should monitoring reveal that significant impacts are likely to occur or are occurring , the City should consult interested parties as appropriate (SHPO, NAHC, Historic Landmarks Foundation, etc.) and then take either remedial action or cause remedial action to be taken, including requiring that construction of the bikeway be altered or halted. n As there is a moderate to high potential for inadvertent archaeological or historical discoveries , an archaeological monitor shall be present for all ground moving and/or ground penetrating activities . Grading through the site should be done in approximate 6 in. (15.2 cm) levels; monitors will inspect the cut surface after each pass of the grader or other earth-moving equipment; all features and objects identified by the monitor as requiring recordation or recovery will be plotted using GPS units and photographed in situ. The monitors will be authorized to halt work for up to one working day or such longer time as may be agreed upon between monitors and the site manager to record and recover features and objects; recovered material and data will be recorded on State of California Department of Parks and Recreation recording forms and curated under 36 CFR 79 or otherwise applicable standards ; and monitoring will be terminated when the monitor(s) agree that all cultural or paleontological deposits have been removed, or when grading has reached the design depth specified in the project plan. n In addition to these measures, special attention should be paid to avoiding damage to cultural resources that are NRHP or CRHR listed or eligible, and/or are recognized California Points of Histor ical Interest or Landmarks. Additionally, project planners should take care not to cause any alterations to cultural resources or features located within the historic district. The Riley Ravine Bridge , for example , should not have a bike path painted upon its surface, or any other features added that might diminish its integrity.
AES 6 City of Folsom Lakc Natoma Bike Trail Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program March 2012 n If human remains, paleontological specimens, or previously unknown historic and/or prehistoric artifacts or features are unearthed during project implementation, the construction team shall suspend work immediately within a 50 m (164.04 ft) radius. The suspension of work will allow a Secretary of Interior qualified archaeologist or a paleontologist to determine whether the cultural constituent or paleontological resource represents a potentially significant discovery. The archaeologist or paleontologist will then make recommendations for measures necessary to protect the find and/or undertake data recovery, excavation, analysis, and curation of materials, as appropriate. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to accidently release hazardous chemicals City and project During Measure HM-1 during construction including fuel, oil, and other fluids. The following mitigation contractor, construction activities. measure should be implemented to avoid accidental release of hazardous chemicals during construction: n To reduce the potential for accidental releases, fuel, oil, and hydraulic fluids shall be transferred directly from a service truck to construction equipment tanks and shall not otherwise be stared on site. Mitigation The following mitigation measures should be implemented to avoid project-related City and project During Measure HM-2 impacts by hazardous chemicals during construction: contractor. construction activities. n Personnel shall follow written Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for filling and servicing construction equipment and vehicles. The SOPs, which are designed to reduce the potential for incidents involving hazardous materials, shall include the following: A. Refueling shall be conducted only with approved pumps, hoses, and nozzles; B. Catch pans shall be placed under equipment to catch potential spills during servicing; C. All disconnected hoses shall be placed in containers to collect residual fuel from the hose; D. Vehicle engines shall be shut down during refueling; E. No smoking, open flames, or welding shall be allowed in refueling or service areas;
7 City of Folsom ,Lake Natoma Bike Trail Pro' 2012 ! rigarion Monitoring and Rrportmg Prog _ F. Refueling shall be performed away from bodies of water to prevent contamination of water in the event of a leak or spill; G. Service trucks shall be provided with fire extinguishers and spill containment equipment, such as absorbents; H. Should a spill contaminate soil, the soil shall be put into containers and disposed of in accordance with local, State, and Federal regulations; 1. All containers used to store hazardous materials shall be inspected at least once per week for signs of leaking or failure. All maintenance and refueling areas shall be inspected monthly. Results of inspections shall be recorded in a logbook that would be maintained on site; and J, The amount of hazardous materials used in project construction and operation shall be consistently kept at the lowest volumes needed. Mitigation The following mitigation measure should be implemented if contamination is City, project During contractor, and construction Measure HM-3 suspected- CVRWQCB. activities. M If suspected soil contamination is encountered during excavation and grading activities, all work shall be halted and a qualified individual, in consultation with the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB), shall determine the appropriate course of action. Mitigation The following mitigation measure will ensure construction related hazards are less City and project During contractor. construction Measure HM-4 than significant: activities. n During construction, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development using spark-producing equipment shall be cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that could serve as fire fuel. To the extent feasible, the contractor shall keep these areas clear of combustible materials in order to maintain a firebreak. Mitigation The following mitigation measure will ensure construction related hazards are less City and project During contractor. construction Measure HM-5 than significant: activities. n Any construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester shall be equipped with an arrester in good working order. This includes, but is not limited to, vehicles, heavy equipment, and chainsaws.
AES S City of Folsom Lake Natoma Bike TraiI Project Monitoring and Reporting Program March 2012 Miligatoon Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to impact hydrology and water City, project Immediately Measure quality at the project site during construction . To ensure impacts are less contractor and prior to and CVRWQCB. HYD.l than significant, the following mitigation measure should be implemented : during construction n Implement Mitigation Measure GS- I. activities. Noise Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to increase noise during construction. The City and project During Measure N-1 following mitigation measure should be implemented to ensure a less than significant contractor. construction impact: activities. n In accordance with the City's Noise Ordinance , construction activities shall be limited to occur only between the hours of 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday through Friday, and between the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 pm on Saturday and Sunday. 3.15 Transportation Mitigation The Approved Project has the potential to increase traffic during construction . The City and project Prior to project Measure TR-1 following mitigation measure should be implemented to ensure a less than significant contractor. construction activities. impact: n A traffic control plan (TCP) shall be prepared and submitted to the City's Transportation Department for approval at least one month prior to beginning construction of the Approved Project . The TCP shall include measures that require adequate emergency access during all construction phases, including the alternative route if selected.
p- 9 City or Folsom Lake Natoma Bike Trail Proi 2012 Mingarion Monitoring and Reporting Frog