draft initial study/mitigated negative declaration cypress draft is_mnd_rs.pdf · draft initial...

Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Upper Sacramento Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program

Cypress Avenue Bridge South Side Channel Habitat Project

River Mile 295

Redding, California

Shasta County CA

October 2017

Pond downstream of Cypress Avenue Bridge (2017) - Ben Taber, cbec, inc.

PREPARED BY: Western Shasta Resource Conservation District

6270 Parallel Road Anderson, California 96007

CEQA LEAD AGENCY: Western Shasta Resource Conservation District

Table of Contents

Mitigated Negative Declaration Acronyms and Abbreviations 1.0 Introduction Background Purpose of Document Regulatory Framework 2.0 Project Description Location and Environmental Setting Project Objectives Project Elements Construction Schedule and Sequencing Environmental Protection Measures 3.0 Environmental Checklist Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Determination Environmental Setting and Discussion of Impacts Aesthetics Agricultural and Forestry Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Wastes Hydrology Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population and Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems Mandatory Significance of Findings 4.0 List of Preparers and Participants 5.0 References and Citations Figures 1 Landownership within Project Area 2 Zoning within Project Area 3 General Plan Land Use within Project Area 4 FMMP Designations within Project Area 5 Cultural Study Area and Area of Potential Effect 6 Geotechnical and Soil Analysis Sampling Locations Tables 1 Regulatory Framework 2 Landownership within Project Area 3 Construction Schedule and Sequencing 4 Environmental Protection Measures 5 Map Units within Project Area

Appendices A Preliminary Site Plans B Draft Biological Resources Evaluation C Draft Botanical Resources Evaluation D WOUS within Project Area E Tree Inventory Memo F Cultural Resource Concurrence Memo G Map Units within Project Area H Preliminary No Rise Letter

1

DATE: October 16, 2017

Based upon the conclusions set forth in the Initial Study, the CEQA Lead Agency finds that the proposed Project, which includes measures and mitigations designed to minimize environmental impacts, would not result in significant adverse effects on the environment.

The CEQA Lead Agency has prepared this Mitigated Negative Declaration (14 CCR 15070 et seq). A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (MMP) will be provided with adoption of Final MND (14 CCR 10574). Project Title: Cypress Avenue Bridge South - Side Channel Habitat Project Project Proponent: Western Shasta Resource Conservation District Lead Agency: Western Shasta Resource Conservation District Public Review Period: A 30-day public review period will begin on October 16, 2017. Written comments must be submitted to the Lead Agency no later than until 5 PM on November 14, 2017.

A 20-day public review period has been requested. If approved by State Clearinghouse, end date for public comments would change to 5 PM on November 4, 2017.

Public Meeting/ Hearing: An informal public outreach meeting will be held on Mon October 30, 2017 from 5:30 – 8 PM, at City of Redding Community Room, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001.

A formal public hearing for Use Permit approval will be held on Tues November 14, 2017 during Redding Planning Commission Regular Meeting to start at 4 PM, at Council Chambers, 777 Cypress Avenue, Redding, CA 96001.

Available Material: A copy of the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and supporting material are available at the WSRCD office (6270 Parallel Road, Anderson, CA 96007) and Shasta County Clerk (1643 Market St, Redding, CA 96001).

A copy of the IS/MND is available online at http://www.westernshastarcd.org/Home/ A copy of the IS/MND will be posted to State Clearinghouse: http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

http://www.westernshastarcd.org/Home/

http://www.ceqanet.ca.gov/

2

Contact for Public Comments: Written comments on the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration may be addressed to: Western Shasta Resource Conservation District, 6270 Parallel Road, Anderson CA 96007, Attn: Harmony Gugino, Project Manager. (530) 365-7332 x. 206.

Comments may also be sent by email to [email protected]

Project Location: Cypress Avenue Bridge South - Side Channel Habitat Project ("Project") is located at RM 295 immediately downstream of the Cypress Avenue Bridge, within the City of Redding’s Henderson Open Space (HOS), a recreational area that is maintained in a relatively natural state with some unpaved pedestrian trails and recreational opportunities. The total project area encompasses 55 acres on public and private property adjacent to the Sacramento River. Project Description: Under existing conditions, several existing ponds within the HOS are disconnected from the main stem Sacramento River. The Project proposes to create year-round cold-water rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids, with a potential spawning gravel component, while maintaining access along the riverward side of Henderson Open Space. The Project includes the following major features (see attached exhibit of project overview):

Excavation of up to 4.5 acres to connect existing pond features and creation of approx. 3,000 linear feet of perennial side channel habitat.

Installation of two bridge crossings and one culvert across new side channel. Installation of one pedestrian recreation trail (approx. 2,000 linear feet) along east bank of new side

channel. Placement of up to 7,500 CY of sorted spawning gravel along river left of the main stem Sacramento

River; derived from side channel excavation or imported material.

Findings And Determination: The WSRCD has prepared an Initial Study (IS) for this project, and has determined from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (i.e. environmental commitments, conservation measures, and project-specific avoidance and minimization) the Project would have a less-than-significant or no impact as related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/ water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential project impacts to a level of less-than-significant in regards to hazards and hazardous materials.

Less Than Significant Impact. Project impacts would be individually limited and cumulatively

considerable impacts of would be less than significant. As a program, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Sacramento Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program has demonstrated less than significant cumulative impacts within the Programmatic EA, and this individual project would not increase potential for further impacts above a cumulatively significant level.

mailto:[email protected]

LOCATION: c:\Work\Projects\17-1025_south_cypress_restoration\400_technical_data\403_cad_data\_DWGS\production\SITE_PLAN.dwg PLOT:10/4/2017OF

JOB NUMBER

DATE

SHEET

REVI

SIO

N N

OTE

S

DOCU

MEN

T RE

LEAS

EDE

SIGN

ED

DRAW

N

REVI

EWED

APPR

OVE

D

USE

OF

DOCU

MEN

TSTH

IS D

OCU

MEN

T, IN

CLU

DIN

GTH

E IN

CORP

ORA

TED

DESI

GNS,

IS A

N IN

STRU

MEN

TO

F SE

RVIC

E FO

R TH

ISPR

OJE

CT A

ND

SHAL

L N

OT

BEU

SED

FOR

ANY

OTH

ERPR

OJE

CT W

ITHO

UT

THE

WRI

TTEN

AU

THO

RIZA

TIO

NO

F cb

ec, i

nc.

CLIE

NT:

PREP

ARED

BY:

A B C D E

1

2

3

4

0 200 300 FT

1" = 100'

100

WE

ST

ER

N S

HA

ST

A R

CD

A

ND

U

.S

. B

UR

EA

U O

F

RE

CL

AM

AT

IO

N

52

SEP 2017

17-1025

REDD

ING

SITE

PLA

NAN

D EN

HAN

CEM

ENT

PRO

JECT

SIDE

CHA

NN

EL R

ESTO

RATI

ON

CYPR

ESS

AVEN

UE

SOU

THCA

LIFO

RNIA

----

----

----

----

SITE

PLA

NS

C3

LEGEND

OVERHEAD POWER LINE

UNDERGROUND POWER LINE

UTILITY POLE

WATER PIPE

WATER HYDRANT

COUNTY PROPERTY LINE

SURVEYED PROPERTY LINE

GRADING EXTENTS

EXISTING TRAIL

PROPOSED TRAIL

EXISTING BUILDING

EXISTING CONCRETE

ELDERBERRY SHRUB

ELDERBERRY BUFFER (20')

FEMA 100-YR FLOOD HAZARD EXTENTS

FEMA 100-YR FLOODWAY

STAGING AREA

EXISTING TREE

EXISTING STORM WATER PIPE

POTENTIAL OFF-CHANNEL GRADING AREA

OHP

UGP

SW

Acronyms and Abbreviations

APE Area of Potential Effect ARA Aggregate Resource Area CARB California Air Resources Board CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFS Cubic Feet per Second CO Carbon monoxide Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CVPIA Central Valley Project Improvement Act DPS Distinct Population Segment EA Environmental Assessment EFH Essential Fish Habitat EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact GHG Greenhous Gas GO General Office GWY Greenway HOS Henderson Open Space IS Initial Study Leq Equivalent Continuous Sound Pressure Leve Lmax Maximum Sound Level LOS Level of Service MM Mitigation Measure mph Miles per hour MRZ Mineral Resource Zone NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places NOx Nitrogen oxide NSVAB Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin OS Open Space PCP Pentachlorophenol PM10 Particulate matter 10 micrometers or less in diameter RBDD Red Bluff Diversion Dam Reclamation United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region RM river mile RS-2 Single Family Residential ROG Reactive organic gas SCAQMD Shasta County Air Quality Management District SHPO California State Historic Preservation Office SO2 Sulfur dioxide TCP tetrachlorophenol TEQ toxic equivalence quotient USGS United States Geological Society USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service VELB Valley elderberry longhorn beetle VOC Volatile organic compounds Water Board State Water Resources Control Board, Central Valley Water Quality Resources Control Board WHO World Health Organization WOUS Waters of the United States WSE Water Surface Elevation WSRCD Western Shasta Resource Conservation District

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background

Central Valley Project Improvement Act

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA), section 3406 (b)(13) directs the Department of The Interior to develop and implement a continuing program for the purpose of restoring and replenishing, as needed, salmonid spawning gravel lost due to the construction and operation of Central Valley Project dams and other actions that have reduced the availability of spawning gravel and rearing habitat along a 28 mile stretch of the upper Sacramento River, from Keswick Dam to Red Bluff Diversion Dam (RBDD). Floodplain and side channel habitats serve as important refuge and rearing areas for salmonids. However, the number and quality of these habitats has been reduced in the upper Sacramento River as a result of activities such as channel modifications, levees, and other development.

Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan

In 2014, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) released the Central Valley Salmon and Steelhead Recovery Plan, which identifies two salmonid conservation principles: 1) recovery cannot be achieved without sufficient habitat; 2) species with restricted spatial distribution are at a higher risk of extinction from catastrophic environmental events. The goal of the Recovery Plan is to recover the Endangered Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU), Threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU, and Threatened California Central Valley steelhead Distinct Population Segment (DPS).

Upper Sacramento River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program

Since 2014, the Upper Sacramento River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program has identified thirteen (13) potential projects for implementation in Shasta County; which are recurrently prioritized with input from a technical advisory committee1.

1.2 Purpose of Document

The Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (WSRCD) is both a project proponent and the local Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). In accordance with CEQA (CA PRC §21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR §15000 et seq.), this Initial Study (IS) has been prepared for the proposed Cypress Avenue Bridge South Side Channel Habitat Project (Project).

1 The CVPIA(b)(13) Sacramento River Restoration Team (SRRT), an interagency group formed to provide technical support in the development of future spawning gravel projects in the Upper Sacramento River. The SRRT is comprised of representatives from Reclamation, WSRCD, California Department of Water Resources (DWR), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), CDFW, Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Pacific States Marine Fisheries Service, Glenn Colusa Irrigation District (CGID), Sacramento River Conservation Area Forum (SRCAF), Shasta County and the City of Redding.

Previous Environmental Documentation

The United States Department of the Interior Bureau of Reclamation Mid Pacific Region (Reclamation) is both a project proponent and the Lead Agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Programmatic EA/FONSI: In November 2015, a corresponding Programmatic Environmental Assessment (EA) was prepared pursuant to NEPA. The Programmatic EA provided assessment for thirteen (13) potential projects2 identified for implementation (Reclamation, 2015a). The Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) was adopted on February 10, 2016. Reclamation concluded that “the proposed action to create new side channels, modify existing side channels, and place gravel and instream habitat structure is not a major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment” (Reclamation, 2015b). This determination was further supported with the environmental commitments described in the Programmatic EA. The Programmatic EA (including ‘Environmental Commitments’) and appendices are herein

incorporated by reference, in accordance with CEQA (14 CCR §15150 et seq.)

Programmatic Biological Assessment: Reclamation also prepared Biological Resource Assessments (BA) for Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation (Reclamation, 2015c; Reclamation 2016). Both the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) provided concurrence documents (NMFS, 2015; USFWS 2016).

The Programmatic BAs (including ‘Conservation Measures’) and appendices are herein

incorporated by reference, in accordance with CEQA (14 CCR §15150 et seq.)

Initial Study

Under CEQA, state and local agencies are encouraged to use a FONSI prepared pursuant to NEPA rather than preparing a new CEQA environmental document for the purpose of saving time and funds if the NEPA document is prepared before the CEQA document would otherwise be completed, and if the NEPA document complies with the provisions of CEQA guidelines (CA PRC §15221 et seq.). However, because of various differences between CEQA and NEPA requirements, the CEQA lead agency must determine if supplemental analysis is needed. WSRCD has prepared this Initial Study as supplemental analysis for the following: Further study of potential impacts to biological resources (i.e. specific focus on State special-

status species, including recently designated as candidate species). Further study of potential impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. Further study of potential impacts to other resources, based on progress of Project design. Inclusion of mitigation measures if needed (CEQA CA PRC § § 21081.6).

2 Note: Within the Programmatic EA, ‘project’ is sometimes used to reference all 13 potential projects. Within this IS/MND, ‘Project’ is used only in reference to the Cypress Avenue Bridge South Side Channel Habitat Project.

1.3 Regulatory Framework

In addition to CEQA and the NEPA, the proposed project is subject to a variety of federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies, including those provided in Table 1. Table 1 – Regulatory Framework Law/Regulation Agency Endangered Species Act Magnuson‐Stevens Fishery Conservation and

Management Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

NMFS

Endangered Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

USFWS

National Historic Preservation Act Section 106

CA State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)

Clean Water Act Section 404 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)

Clean Water Act Section 401 California Environmental Quality Act

State Water Resources Control Board/Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board)

Clean Water Act Section 402

Water Board

California Endangered Species Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act

CA Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW)

Fish and Game Code

CDFW

Shasta County Air Quality Management District Shasta County General Plan

Shasta County

City of Redding 2000-2020 General Plan Code of Ordinances California Environmental Quality Act

City of Redding

2.0 Project Description

2.1 Project Location and Environmental Setting

The Project area is located at river mile (RM) 295 immediately downstream of the Cypress Avenue Bridge, within the City of Redding Henderson Open Space (HOS), a recreational area that is maintained in a relatively natural state with some unpaved pedestrian trails and recreational opportunities. In addition to recreation, HOS is also accessed for public services3, including utility maintenance, law enforcement, vector control, invasive species treatment, and recreation services. The total project area encompasses 55 acres on public and private property adjacent to the Sacramento River (see Table 2, Figures 1– 3). Under existing conditions, the HOS includes several existing ponds that are disconnected from the main channel. The Project proposes to create year-round side channel habitat for salmonids, with a potential spawning gravel component, while maintaining access along the riverward side of HOS. Site Coordinates: 40°34'11.8"N, -122°22'23.7"W Zoning Designations: Open Space (OS) and General Office (GO) General Plan Designations: Greenway (GWY) and General Office (GO). Township, Range, Section/Baseline: T31N, R5W, S1; T31N, R4W, S6/Mount Diablo Meridian USGS Quads: Enterprise, Redding FEMA Designation: Regulatory Floodway Zone, Flood Hazard Zone AE (1% annual chance flood

hazard) Driving Directions: From I-5, take exit 677 from I-5 S. Continue on E Cypress Ave. Turn left onto

Hartnell Ave. Continue on Hartnell Ave. Turn right onto Parkview Ave. Turn right onto Henderson Rd. Access to Henderson Open Space is on the left at gate.

Table 2 – Landownership within Project Area APN Ownership Ownership Type N/A CA State Lands Commission Public

107-500-008 City of Redding Public




107-400-001 Beeman Family Trust Private

107-500-009 Beeman Family Trust Private

3 City of Redding Parks and Recreation, City of Redding Police Department, Shasta County Mosquito Vector Control,

PG&E, and volunteers. 4 APN 107-500-026 was formerly recorded as two parcels (APN 107-500-016, APN 170-500-023).

107500012000

107500026000

107500010000

107500009000

107400001000

107500008000


Reference Location:

LegendProject AreaParcelsChannel CutPotential Additional Grading

Map Description:This map displays the property ownership ofparcels within, or partially within the proposedSouth Cypress Avenue Bridge Side ChannelProject area. The map also shows the proposedarea of the new side channel within the projectarea.

±

Date: 10/4/20170 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

Landownership within Project Area

OS

SC

GO

GC

RS-3.5

RS-3 GC

OS-SP

RS-2

OS

LO

GC

GO-PDGO

LO-PD

OS

GC-SP

RM-6-PD

RM-12

OS


Reference Location:

LegendProject Area

ZONINGGOOSChannel CutPotential Additional Grading

Map Description:This map displays the City of Redding Zoning within, or partially within the proposed South Cypress Avenue Bridge Side Channel Project area. The map also shows the proposed area of the new side channel within the project area.

±

Date: 10/4/20170 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

Zoning within Project Area

GWY

GO

GWY

SC

GC

2 to 3.5GC

GO

GWY GC

LO

3.5 to 6

GO

LO

GO

PK

PK

6 to 10

PK

6 to 10


Reference Location:

LegendProject AreaChannel CutPotential Additional Grading

General Plan Land Use TypeGOGWY

Map Description:This map displays the City of Redding General Plan Land Use within the proposed South Cypress Avenue Bridge Side Channel Project area. The map also shows the proposed area of the new side channel within the project area.

±

Date: 10/4/20170 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

General Plan Land Use within Project Area

2.2 Project Objectives

CEQA Guidelines require that the Lead Agency provide a statement of objectives sought by the proposed project. The information in this section addresses this requirement by providing information as to why the WSRCD is considering the proposed project. The objective of the Project is to increase and improve Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning and rearing conditions by replenishing spawning gravel and establishing additional side-channel habitat. The need for the action derives from the declines of naturally spawned salmonid stocks due in part to loss of spawning and rearing habitat through curtailment of gravel recruitment due to blockage of the river channel by dams and the alteration in flow patterns. The Project is an important component of the Upper Sacramento River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program because of its location along the Sacramento River, within the uppermost accessible reaches to salmonids, where winter-run Chinook salmon are most likely to spawn. The lack of side channel habitat within these reaches has limited the amount of suitable rearing habitat available to emergent juvenile salmon (i.e. shaded riverine habitat where water velocity and depth are less than that of the main channel). The Project has been identified as a priority for implementation in 2017.

2.3 Project Elements

The following Project description is provided with preliminary designs, and incorporates the following design objectives (see Appendix A – Site Plans). Maximize habitat suitability for salmonids; Minimize disturbance to existing habitat/vegetation; Maintain flood neutrality; Maintain public access; No conflict with municipal codes or general plan; Adherence to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (refer to Sections 1.2 and 2.5). Staging and Access: Staging will occur in up to three locations dependent on need. Equipment will be staged overnight and during weekends at the southernmost staging area, while material will be staged, sorted, and stockpiled at one or both of the more northern staging areas. These areas are relatively flat and have minimal vegetation beyond grasses and forbs. Selected staging areas are also most convenient for the access routes along which heavy equipment will travel. In most cases these access routes consist of existing trails. In other areas they follow the path of excavation so as to minimize the project impacts. Access routes will be the minimum allowable width to enable passage of excavators, loaders, and off-road dump trucks. No tree removal is planned for access; however some trees may be limbed to a certain height in order to prevent further damage from heavy equipment. Side Channels: The Project will connect existing ponds and low-lying areas within HOS to the Sacramento River to create a continuous flowing cold-water side channel enhanced by existing and

added habitat complexity (e.g. overhanging riparian vegetation, in-water large woody material). The channel will be designed to function at lowest allowable flows of 3,250 cubic feet per second (cfs) in the main stem river. The channel inlet will be located just downstream of the City of Redding’s proposed Kayak Launch Project and main outlet would be located approx. 3,000 linear feet downstream. The channel will also reconnect to the river via a culvert approximately halfway between the upstream and downstream extent of the channel. Excavation and grading for the channel would encompass up to approximately 4.5 acres, with channel depths of between 0.5’ to 4’ deep, depending on flows. Crossing Features: Two pedestrian bridges along the excavated channel will also be built in order to maintain access, public safety, and enhance existing recreational opportunities. One culvert (e.g. open bottom arch) would be installed to replace three existing culverts which are plugged with sediment (see Appendix A – Site Plans). North Bridge: This crossing will be designed as a steel truss span bridge that will provide primary

access for 4WD service vehicles (up to 80,000 lbs) and secondary access for pedestrian crossing, as well as 5’ clearance board from low chord during summer flows (15,000 cfs). Deck railings of up to 46” will be part of the design. The bridge deck will be approx. 12’ wide x 66’ long with sloped earthen ramps (8.3% or 20:1 slope).

South Bridge: This crossing will be designed as a steel truss span bridge that will provide primary

access for pedestrian crossing and secondary access for service vehicles (up to 10,000 lbs), as well as 7’ clearance board from low chord during summer flows (15,000 cfs). Deck railings of up to 46” will be part of the design. The bridge deck will be approx. 8’ wide x 50’ long with sloped earthen ramps (≤5% or 20:1 slope).

Recreational Trail: To enhance existing and planned trail features for HOS, the Project will add a walking trail along the east bank of the new side channel. The trail will be approx. 8’ wide and up to 2,200’ long. Length of new trail will be dependent on private landowner permission for contiguous trail. ADA compliance will be incorporated to the extent practicable (5% slope, 2% cross-slope, and trail material considerations). Spawning Gravel Placement (potential): Up to 7,500 cubic yards of excavated gravel may be placed within the main stem Sacramento River (river left) for spawning habitat. It is anticipated that a portion of augmented gravels would be mobilized under high flows and transported downstream to areas where they can also provide fisheries benefits. This Project element will be further evaluated for feasibility prior to moving forward with implementation.

2.4 Construction Schedule and Sequencing

Per the Programmatic EA, in-stream work is restricted to specific windows in specific locations (i.e. zones) along the upper Sacramento River. These work windows were developed with consideration of the spatial and temporal distribution of spawning winter-run and spring-run Chinook salmon, steelhead, and green sturgeon. The Project is located within Zone 2 (RM 300.5 to RM 280) and allows in-water work from October 1 to May 15 (Reclamation, 2015a). Construction of the Project is anticipated to commence in the winter of 2017-18. While the schedule may be modified due to weather and dates of Project approval, estimated construction schedule and sequencing for major Project activities is provided in Table 3. Table 3 – Construction Schedule and Sequencing Construction Phase Estimated Start Estimated Duration Site Prep Clean up/trash removal December 4 2 days Vegetation clearance (mechanical/burn) December 4 7 days Prepare staging area December 4 3 days Engineer staking December 7 2 days Delivery of equipment/materials December 7 2 days Install BMPs December 8 1 day Construction Excavate/ grade channels December 11 30 days Screen/sort gravel December 11 30 days Placement of spawning gravel December 18 14 days Install culvert December 18 1 day Habitat enhancement features (large woody material, basking features)

January 2 3 days

Grade ramps January 8 10 days Excavate for bridge foundations January 12 1 Day Each Pour concrete foundations (and cure) January 22 14 days Delivery of prefab bridge span February 5 1 Day Attach bridge span to foundations (bolting) February 6 2 days Construct trail February 6 10 days Planting/re-vegetation February 20 3 days Final grading February 20 1 day Site Close Install/remove BMPs February 21 3 days Clean up/trash removal February 21 3 days Transport remaining equipment/ material offsite February 21 3 days

2.5 Environmental Protection Measures

The following ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ are incorporated as part of the Project description (see Table 4). In the case of inconsistency between this document and subsequent permits and approvals from regulating agencies, the permits and approvals will prevail.

Table 4 – Environmental Protection Measures Avoidance and Minimization Reference Measure GEN – 1 No pets of any kind will be permitted on the construction site.

GEN – 2 No firearms (except for Federal, State, or local law enforcement officers and security personnel) of any kind will be permitted on the construction site.

BIO – 1 A qualified biologist (biological monitor) shall regularly inspect construction-related activities to ensure that no unnecessary disturbance to special-status species and / or their associated habitats occurs. The biological monitor shall have the authority to stop all activities that may result in such disturbance until appropriate corrective measures have been completed. The biologist shall report any unauthorized take to CDFW, USFWS and / or NMFS immediately.

BIO – 2 Green sturgeon, Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon: During side channel work, a gravel berm, or other appropriate measures will be constructed at both the upstream and downstream ends to isolate the Project area from the main channel, keeping fish from moving into the work area, and minimizing mobilization of sediment downstream. Qualified biologists shall use techniques to gently encourage fish to leave any watered side channel areas prior to creating berms. If fish remain, NMFS and CDFW shall be contacted for consultation on how to proceed.

BIO – 3 Western Pond Turtle: Prior to work in aquatic habitats, water bodies shall be surveyed by a qualified biologist to determine if any western pond turtles are present. If any individuals of these species are found, a qualified and permitted biologist shall determine and implement appropriate relocation procedures in consultation with CDFW.

BIO – 4 Western Pond Turtle: Project designs shall incorporate western pond turtle basking structures to enhance future habitat suitability for this species.

BIO – 5 Yellow-breasted Chat, Loggerhead Shrike and Yellow Warbler: Vegetation removal shall not occur between February 1st and August 31st if feasible. If tree removal, vegetation clearing, or the onset of potentially disturbing construction activities must occur during the nesting season for songbird and raptor species (February 1 through August 31), a nesting survey within the project area and within a 50-foot radius of the project area (as access allows), shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the initiation of the onset of these activities. If active avian nests are found to be present, tree removal, vegetation clearing and the onset of potentially disturbing construction activities shall be suspended until a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW and / or the USFWS, can establish an appropriate protective buffer area to minimize impacts to the nesting birds. No construction activities shall commence within the

buffer area until the qualified biologist determines that the young birds have fledged or the nest is no longer active.

BIO – 6 Other Nesting Raptors: The avoidance and minimization measures identified for yellow-breasted chat, loggerhead shrike and yellow warbler will adequately mitigate for any potential impacts to other nesting raptors. Nests are not to be disturbed or removed as a result of construction activities per CDFW.

BIO – 7 Other Nesting Migratory Birds: The avoidance and minimization measures identified for yellow-breasted chat, loggerhead shrike and yellow warbler will adequately mitigate for any potential impacts to other nesting migratory birds.

BIO – 8 Riffle Sculpin, Pacific Lamprey, River Lamprey, Hardhead, Fall- / Late-fall run Chinook Salmon: The avoidance and minimization measures identified for Green Sturgeon, Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon and Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and adequately mitigate for any potential impacts to the riffle sculpin, Pacific lamprey, river lamprey, hardhead and Central Valley fall-run and late fall-run Chinook salmon.

BIO – 9 Pallid Bat: Prior to any construction work, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist to ensure that pallid bats are not roosting within the areas to be disturbed. If pallid bats are found to be roosting within the area to be disturbed, construction activities shall be suspended until a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, can establish appropriate measures to minimize impacts to pallid bats.

BIO – 10 Ringtail: Prior to construction, a qualified biologist will inspect the area to be disturbed to determine if ringtail denning is occurring. If ringtail denning is found to be occurring, construction activities should be suspended until a qualified biologist, in consultation with CDFW, can establish appropriate measures to minimize impacts to ringtail.

BIO – 11 Western Red Bat: All vegetation clearing within potential western red bat roosting habitat (woody riparian habitat), shall occur between August 31 and May 1, in order to minimize the likelihood of injuring or killing juvenile bats during the period when they are still unable to fly.

BIO – 12 Natural Communities: Disturbing riparian habitat within the Project area shall be avoided, where possible.

BIO – 13 Natural Communities: All disturbed riparian areas shall be revegetated following the completion of construction activities.

BIO – 14 Natural Communities: Disturbance to instream habitats shall be minimized.

Environmental Commitments (Reclamation, 2015a) Reference Measure GEN – 3 A litter control program would be instituted. The contractor would provide closed

garbage containers for the disposal of all food-related trash items. All garbage would be removed daily.

AIR – 1 Reasonably available control measures would be implemented at each project site, including, but not limited to, watering dirt roads and construction areas and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 mph.

AIR – 2 Hauling of gravel outside of the project sites would be limited to Monday through Friday, except holidays, from 7 am to 5 pm.

AIR – 3 A Fugitive Dust Permit will be obtained from the SCAQMD for each Project area.

AIR – 4 All construction equipment will be maintained in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications. To the extent feasible, the use of diesel construction equipment meeting the California Air Resources Board’s 1996 or newer certification standard for off‐road heavy‐duty diesel engines will be maximized. If required by the SCAQMD, verify that owners or operators of vehicles are registered with the California Air Resources Board Diesel Off‐Road On‐Line Reporting System (DOORS) program: (www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/ordiesel/ordiesel.htm). The DOORS program assists fleet owners in reporting their off‐road diesel vehicle inventories to reduce vehicle emissions, as required by the In‐Use Off‐Road Diesel Regulation. If required by the SCAQMD, verify that owners or operators of portable engines and certain other types of equipment are registered under the California Air Resources Board’s Statewide Portable Equipment Registration Program in order to operate their equipment throughout California without having to obtain individual permits from local air districts (www.arb.ca.gov/portable/portable.htm).

BIO – 15 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Shrubs within 100 feet of the project site would be surrounded with orange fencing at a 20-foot radius and flagged prior to construction.

BIO – 16 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Elderberry shrubs within 100 feet of the Project area shall be surrounded with orange fencing at a 20 foot radius from the dripline of the shrub and flagged prior to construction. Signs shall be erected every 50 feet along the edge of the fencing with the following information: “This area is habitat of the Valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Violators are subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.” The signs shall be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet and maintained for the duration of construction.

BIO – 16 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: The contractor would ensure that dust control measures (e.g., watering) are implemented in the vicinity of any elderberry shrub within 100 feet of construction activities.

BIO – 17 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: Temporary stockpiling of excavated or imported material would occur only in approved construction staging areas and outside of the established driplines of elderberry shrubs. Excess excavated soil would be used on site or disposed of at a regional landfill or other appropriate facility.

BIO – 18 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle: A USFWS approved biologist would conduct environmental awareness training to instruct construction personnel crews working in the vicinity of the identified shrubs about the status of VELB and the need to protect its elderberry host plant. The training and supporting materials would include identification of special status species, required practices before the start of construction, general measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the proposed project, and penalties for noncompliance. Upon completion of training, construction personnel would sign a form stating that they have attended the training and understand all the

http://www.arb.ca.gov/portable/portable.htm

conservation measures. Training would be conducted in English and other languages, as appropriate. Proof of this instruction would be kept on file with the contractor. Reclamation would provide USFWS with a copy of the training materials and copies of the signed forms.

BIO – 19 Standard precautions would be employed by the construction contractor to prevent the accidental release of fuel, oil, lubricant, or other hazardous materials.

BIO – 20 Salmonids: Added gravel would be uncrushed, rounded “natural river rock” with no sharp edges, and the distribution of particle size would be in accordance with recommendations of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program.

BIO – 21 Salmonids: Front loaders placing the gravel would have rubber wheels and would be moving slow enough for fish to avoid disturbed areas.

BIO – 22 Salmonids: Gravel would be washed and have a cleanliness value of 85 or higher, based on CalTrans Test #227, and the gravel would be completely free of oils, clay, debris, and organic material.

BIO – 23 Salmonids; Reasonable and prudent measures and EFH recommendations proposed by NMFS would be implemented by Reclamation.

BIO – 24 American Bald Eagle: A 660-foot buffer would be maintained for a single construction activity visible from the nest and within one mile of the nest (FWS 2007).

BIO – 25 American Bald Eagle: Sites located within a ½ mile of a known bald eagle nest would be completed between September and December.

BIO – 26 Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo: Vegetation removal would not occur between March 1st and August 31st. Prior to construction during the month of September, surveys would be completed for the presence of nesting birds. If WYBC are found, Reclamation would consult with USFWS on how to proceed.

BIO – 27 California Red-legged Frog: Qualified biologists would complete surveys for CRF at sites with deep-water pools with dense emergent vegetation.

BIO – 28 California Red-legged Frog: Surveys would be updated every two years and as new sites are selected that contain CRF frog habitat.

CULTURAL – 1 In the unlikely event that previously unidentified cultural resources are discovered as a result of this undertaking, the construction activities would cease and Reclamation Cultural Resource Staff would be notified and consulted on how to proceed. Reclamation would follow the procedures for post-review discoveries on Federal lands as described in the regulations at 36 CFR § 800.13. Work may not continue in the area of the discovery until Reclamation issues a notice to proceed.

CULTURAL – 2 In the event that human remains are identified during the course of the proposed project, all construction activities would cease and a Reclamation Archaeologist would be consulted on how to proceed. Note that all human remains identified on lands owned by the Federal government are subject to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001). The procedures for dealing with the discovery of human remains on Federal lands are described in the regulations that implement NAGPRA, found at 43 CFR § 10, and

in Reclamation’s Directives and Standards for the Inadvertent Discovery of Human Remains on Reclamation Lands (LND 07-01). All work in the vicinity of the discovery would be halted and Reclamation’s Regional Archaeologist would be notified immediately. This notification would be followed by a written report within 48 hours. Project implementation in the vicinity of the discovery would not resume until Reclamation complies with the 43 CFR § 10 regulations and provides notification to proceed.

CULTURAL – 3 If human remains and associated materials are encountered during construction on non-Federal lands, work in that area would be halted and the Shasta County Coroner’s Office would be immediately contacted pursuant to Health and Human Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) would be notified within 24 hours of determination, as required by PRC Section 5097.

GEO/SOILS – 1 All disturbed soils within the project site would be stabilized to reduce erosion potential both during and following construction.

GEO/SOILS – 2 Planting, seeding with native species, and mulching would be used. Where suitable vegetation cannot reasonably be expected to become established non-erodible material would be used for such stabilization.

HAZ – 1 A Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasures Plan (SPCCP) would be developed prior to the onset of construction activities.

HAZ – 2 The SPCCP would include provisions for daily checks for leaks; hand-removal of external oil, grease, and mud; and the use of spill containment booms for refueling.

HAZ – 3 All construction equipment refueling and maintenance would be restricted to designated staging areas located away from streams and sensitive habitats.

HYDRO/WQ – 1 Turbidity would be monitored during instream work. Construction would be curtailed if turbidity exceeds permit criteria.

HYDRO/WQ – 2 All equipment working within the stream channel would be inspected daily for fuel, lubrication, and coolant leaks; and for leak potentials (e.g. cracked hoses, loose filling caps, stripped drain plugs); equipment must be free of fuel, lubrication, and coolant leaks.

HYDRO/WQ – 3 Vehicles or equipment would be washed only at approved off-site areas.

HYDRO/WQ – 4 All equipment would be cleaned prior to working within the stream channel.

HYDRO/WQ – 5 Equipment would be fueled and lubricated in designated staging areas located outside the stream channel and banks.

HYDRO/WQ – 6 Spill prevention kits would be kept near construction areas and workers will be trained on their use.

HYDRO/WQ – 7 Gravel would be processed as needed prior to being placed in the river.

NOISE – 1 Construction operations and associated activities would comply with the operational hours outlined in the City of Redding General Plan; construction operations are prohibited between the hours of 7 pm and 6 am, and 7 pm and 7

am from September 16 through May 14.

NOISE – 2 Noise control devices for construction equipment would be provided and maintained.

NOISE – 3 Transportation routes would be coordinated and equipment arranged to minimize disturbance to noise-sensitive uses.

NOISE – 4 A disturbance coordinator would be designated to respond to all public complaints.

REC – 1 Trails would be signed, cautioning users of the equipment. During times when there is repetitive trucks crossing the trails when gravel is being delivered, a flag person wearing OSHA-approved vests and using the “Stop/Slow” paddle may be present.

REC – 2 Designs for gravel augmentation would ensure a continuous navigable river channel at least one foot deep and the 30 feet wide at 3,250 cfs.

TRANSP – 1 Construction would be limited to weekdays, except holidays, during normal work hours.

Conservation Measures (Reclamation, 2015c; Reclamation, 2016) Reference Measure BIO – 29 Fisheries: All stream crossings will be designed to ensure that conditions are

maintained for effective upstream and downstream fish passage, at all times and under all flow conditions.

BIO – 30 Salmonids: Instream work that may cause turbidity within 200 ft upstream of active redds will be avoided if possible.

BIO – 31 Impacts to existing vegetation will be avoided to the extent practical.

HAZ – 4 Heavy equipment operating in the river will use biodegradable hydraulic fluid.

Levels of Significance: In evaluating the significance of the environmental effect of a project, the Lead Agency shall consider direct physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project and reasonably foreseeable indirect physical changes in the environment which may be caused by the project.

(1) A direct physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is caused by and immediately related to the project. Examples of direct physical changes in the environment are the dust, noise, and traffic of heavy equipment that would result from construction of a sewage treatment plant and possible odors from operation of the plant.

(2) An indirect physical change in the environment is a physical change in the environment which is not immediately related to the project, but which is caused indirectly by the project. If a direct physical change in the environment in turn causes another change in the environment, then the other change is an indirect physical change in the environment. For example, the construction of a new sewage treatment plant may facilitate population growth in the service area due to the increase in sewage treatment capacity and may lead to an increase in air pollution.

(3) An indirect physical change is to be considered only if that change is a reasonably foreseeable impact which may be caused by the project. A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.

3.1 AESTHETICS: Would the Project?

Potentially Significant

Impact

Less Than Significant

with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

X

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

X

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

X

Environmental Setting:

The Project will occur on both public and private lands along the upper Sacramento River (RM 295), which provides scenic views of the Upper Sacramento River. The upper Sacramento River is not designated as a ‘wild and scenic river’ (as defined by 16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.) (USFWS, 2017), and the City of Redding General Plan does not specifically define ‘aesthetics’ or ‘scenic vista’. However, the aesthetic quality of the Project Area and adjacent Upper Sacramento River is a valued characteristic of the community (City of Redding, 2000). The nearest designated State scenic highway (SHC, 2015) is State Route 151, located near Shasta Dam. In Redding, California, portions of SR Highways 44 and 299, as well as Interstate 5 are eligible for state scenic designation. The nearest designated County scenic highway is along Lake Boulevard/County Road A-18, within the Whiskeytown-Shasta-Trinity National Recreation Area (CalTrans, 2016).

Discussion:

a) Less Than Significant Impact. Most of the Project area is not well visible from a distance due to vegetation and terrain depending on the direction of view. The Project area is visible from the Cypress Avenue Bridge and adjacent buildings, as well as from the main stem Sacramento River. However, there are no known designated scenic vistas within or near the Project Area that would be impacted by Project activities. b) No Impact. The Project area is not located along a state scenic highway (CalTrans, 2016). There are no rock outcroppings and no historic buildings in the vicinity of the Project area. Limited removal of trees would not result in a substantial adverse change in the visual landscape of the open space. Furthermore, revegetation will occur as part of the Project.

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the Project area or surroundings. Any direct impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the sites and their surroundings from the proposed Project, including temporary visual construction impacts, would be considered short‐term and minor in intensity. Furthermore, the Project could be considered an enhancement to aesthetics as a result of habitat restoration goals. d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not create a substantial source of light or glare. Temporary lighting will be used during construction for security of construction equipment, but no permanent lighting is proposed as a part of this Project. However, it is reasonable to conclude that the City may provide future installation of permanent shielded lighting on or adjacent to the bridge features.

Mitigation:

None required. 3.2 AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the Project?


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

X

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? X

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 Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

X

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? X

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

X

Environmental Setting: The Project is located in an urban setting within the incorporated City of Redding, in central Shasta County. There are no agricultural operations within the Project area or vicinity. The City of Redding General Plan designations for the Project area are Greenway (GWY) and General Office (GO). The zoning designations for the Project area are Open Space (OS) and General Office (GO) (City of Redding, 2000).

Discussion:

a) No Impact. There is no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance in the proposed Project Area. Lands within the proposed Project Area are designated as either “Urban and Built up Land”, “Other Land”, and “Water” (see Figure 4) (DOC, 2016).

b) No Impact. The proposed Project Area is not located in existing zoning for agricultural use or a

Williamson Act contract (DOC, 2016). c) No Impact. The Project would not cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned

Timberland Production. The Project area does hold forest land (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), but does not hold timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104 (g)). The Project would not modify the landscape so that the area could no longer be defined as forest land.

d) No Impact. The Project would not result in the conversion of forest land to non‐forest land use. e) No Impact. The Project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which could

result in conversion of farmland to non‐agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.3 AIR QUALITY: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

X

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

X

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

X

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X


The proposed Project is located within the Shasta County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which is part of the Northern Sacramento Valley Air Basin (NSVAB) The SCAQMD is responsible for implementing emissions standards and other requirements of federal and state laws. Refer to pages 25-29 and 63 of the EA. Refer to page 2 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (AIR-1, AIR-2, AIR-3, AIR 4).

Discussion:

a ‐ c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would affect air quality through ground disturbance, the use of construction equipment, and worker commutes to and from the site. Given the localized nature of the project and the lack of long-term air quality impacts, the impacts would be temporary and contained within a small area. Fugitive dust would have the greatest localized impacts resulting from land clearing, grading, excavation and vehicle traffic. Combustion emissions would result from the operation of heavy equipment and commuter vehicles to and from the site. The primary emissions include NOx, CO, VOC, SO2 and small amounts of air toxics. The SCAQMD established two levels of thresholds for ROG, NOx, and


Reference Location:

LegendProject BoundaryUrban and Built Up LandWaterOther

Map Description:This map displays the FMMP Farmland typeswithin the project area, or partially within theproposed South Cypress Side ChannelEnhancement and Gravel Augmentation projectarea.

±

Date: 10/13/20170 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Lands

FMMP Data ptrovided by: Department of Conservation - Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

PM10 emissions which ozone precursors, and particulate matter respectively (Refer to “Table 4 – Estimated Project Emissions Per Year” in the Environmental Assessment). If Level A thresholds are exceeded, standard mitigation measures must be applied, however if Level B thresholds are exceeded, best available mitigation measures must be applied. A programmatic analysis of annual program emissions based on 22 working days per project and 3 projects per year determined that .6055 tons of ROG, 6.5807 tons of NOx, and 28.9596 tons of PM10 would be emitted per year (Reclamation, 2015, Table 4). This indicates that level A thresholds would not be exceeded for ROG, but would be exceeded by NOx and PM10. It also indicates that level B thresholds for PM10 would be exceeded.

Environmental commitments to reduce fugitive dust would include watering the roads at least twice per day, watering exposed areas as needed and limiting vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph). The estimated programmatic emissions for PM10 with fugitive dust suppression measures would be 27.9684 tons / year, a reduction of 3.42%. Estimated programmatic emissions for PM2.5 with fugitive dust suppression measures would be 3.3506 tons / year (11.72% reduction). Like other programmatic projects, the proposed Project would also include applicable and feasible standard and best available mitigation measures to reduce emissions, in accordance with the City of Redding 2000‐2020 General Plan (City of Redding, 2000). Programmatic emissions include calculations for up to three projects each year. This individual project would contribute only a portion of the estimated project emission per year. All disturbed soils within the Project area would be stabilized on an ongoing basis as well as after construction in order to reduce erosion potential. Planting, seeding with native species and mulching would be used to reestablish ground cover. Where suitable vegetation cannot reasonably be expected to become established non‐erodible material would be used for such stabilization.

The programmatic analysis demonstrated that Ozone emissions would be approximately 7.1862 tons / year (ROG [.6055] + NOx [6.5807]) for a total of three projects. The complete program would emit approximately 509 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents (MT CO2e) per year. Construction-related emissions from this Project would contribute a fraction of total programmatic emissions (i.e. multiple projects assessed in Programmatic EA). Total emissions from this individual project would be minimal and the release of GHG emissions, when compared to the scope of major local roads and thoroughfares, as well as the broader scope of anthropogenic release of GHG emissions, would be negligible.

As the Project does not include any permanent greenhouse gas emitting features, implementation of the proposed Project would not result in an increase of long‐term emissions from mobile, stationary, or area sources. In addition, the Project would not conflict with the implementation of the applicable air quality plan, nor would it violate an air quality standard that cannot be minimized to a level of less than significant with the incorporation of environmental commitments. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would result in temporary direct impacts as a result of intermittent diesel exhaust emissions from on‐site construction equipment. However, operation of construction equipment would be intermittent, in that equipment will not be running at all times during work day. Additionally, the diesel exhaust emissions would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, temporary odors from equipment emissions

may be considered an objectionable odor. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors. However, the Project would not result in any direct or indirect long‐term presence of objectionable odors.

Mitigation: None required. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact No Impact

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?

X

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

X

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of

X

native wildlife nursery sites?

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

X

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

X


The Project is located within and adjacent to the Sacramento River (RM 295). The Project area consists of six primary habitat types including Annual Grassland, Fresh emergent Wetland, Lacustrine, Riverine, Urban and Valley Foothill Riparian. These habitat types support a range of floral and faunal species including State and Federally Listed Species (see Appendix B – Draft Biological Resources Evaluation, see Appendix C – Draft Botanical Resources Evaluation). Refer to pages 15-16, and 29-48 of the EA. Refer to page 2-3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (BIO-1 through BIO-31).

Discussion:

a) Less Than Significant Impact. Ten (10) federally and/or state listed or candidate animal species have the potential to occur within the Project area, including the tri-colored blackbird, western yellow-billed cuckoo, little willow flycatcher, American bald eagle, bank swallow, green sturgeon, Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon and valley elderberry longhorn beetle. Of these ten species, six (6) could potentially be significantly impacted by the Project;

American bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus); Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris); Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss); Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha); Valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus).

A total of twelve (12) additional species designated by CDFW as Species of Special Concern or Fully Protected could potentially be significantly impacted by the proposed project. In addition, potentially significant impacts could occur to other species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and several sections of the California Fish and Game Code:

Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata); Riffle sculpin (cottus gulosus); Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus);

Hardhead (Mylopharadon conocephalus);

Fall/late-fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha);

Pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus);

Ringtail (bassariscus astutus);

Western red bat (Lasiurus blossevillii);

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens);

Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus);

Yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia);

Other nesting raptors;

Other Nesting migratory birds.

a) Side channel excavation will occur predominantly in ponds and low-lying areas when separated

from the main channel of the Sacramento River. In-water work will occur when potential impacts to

salmonids are lowest. Pre-construction surveys will be conducted to look for redds, and an on-site

biologists may survey for salmonid presence within disconnected excavation area. Turbidity

curtains and/or gravel berms will be installed at the downstream end of the Project to reduce

impacts from sedimentation on fish populations, and work will cease when turbidity levels rise

above the limits outlined by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Some

vegetation removal is likely, which will have short term impacts on shaded aquatic vegetation.

However, native replanting will help to re-establish the shaded aquatic vegetation. With

incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would

be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. The instream and terrestrial habitats within the Project area and

temporarily impacted by the project include the Central Valley Drainage Spring-run Chinook

Stream, Central Valley Drainage Valley Floor River, Great Valley Cottonwood Riparian Forest,

Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest, Great Valley Willow Scrub and Great Valley Valley Oak

Riparian Forest habitats. The instream habitats will be positively affected by the improvements to

spawning and rearing habitat conditions. Riparian vegetation may be disturbed in the project site

during excavation of the side channel and installation of bridge crossings, including mature native

trees and shrubs. However, revegetation would occur also occur as part of the Project. With

incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would

be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would primarily occur within federally protected

wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, including perennially channel (year-

round open water). The Project would result in minor conversion of riparian wetland to perennial

channel (see Appendix D – WOUS within Project area). However, there would be no net loss to

waters of the United States (WOUS) and there would be a gain in suitable aquatic habitat for listed

salmonid species.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Sacramento River serves as a migratory corridor for aquatic

and avian species. Potential construction-related impacts to aquatic and avian species could occur

during in-water work and overall activity. However, pre-construction surveys and on onsite

biological monitoring will take place to relocate species or provide an appropriate avoidance buffer.

With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts

would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would result in vegetation removal during excavation

of the side channel and installation of bridge crossings, including mature native trees and shrubs.

According to the City of Redding Code of ordinances (RMC 18.45) “candidate trees” in the city are

afforded special protections. These “candidate trees” include outstanding specimens, the largest

and oldest trees, unique species, and those which serve a desirable function. A tree inventory was

conducted and utilized during the Project design process to avoid and minimize disturbance to

desirable vegetation to the maximum extent possible; including avoidance of 25 out of 26

cottonwoods recorded within the ‘tree inventory area’ (i.e. proposed excavation, grading, and

bridge installation areas within the larger Project area). See Appendix E – Tree Inventory Memo.

Up to seventy-one (71) trees or mature shrubs would be removed as a result of the Project; which

includes forty-nine (49) ‘candidate trees’ (i.e. living native species ≥6” diameter-breast-height).

However, revegetation would occur also occur as part of the Project. With incorporation of

‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or

minimized to a less than significant level.

f) No Impact. No Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community Conservation Plans have been

adopted in the area.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the Project


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in § 15064.5?

X

b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to § 15064.5?

X

c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

X

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

X

Environmental Setting: In 2015, Reclamation developed a study area (88.6 acres) for this Project, as specific Project activities, limits, and timing were under development. Subsequently, Reclamation developed an area of potential effect (APE) of 17.65 acres, which covered potential construction and staging activities and access routes, as well as any necessary road improvements for construction access (see Figure 5). Based on records searches, consultation, and archaeological pedestrian surveys, three historic era sites were identified within the APE. These include the Free Bridge footings (P45-003213H), the Redding Electric Light and Power Company hydroelectric power plant (16NC-130-003), and the Thatcher Mill/American Transit lumber mill/gravel mine (16NC-130-002).

Refer to pages 61-65 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (CULTURAL-1, CULTURAL-2, CULTURAL-3).

Discussion: a) No Impact. The Project (specifically side channel and north bridge features) will result in

modification and/or removal of remnant concrete features5 associated with the former Free Bridge. Reclamation applied the criteria of eligibility for listing on the National Register (36 CFR §60.4) to the Free Bridge footings (P45-003213H), Redding Electric Light and Power Company hydroelectric power plant (16NC-130-003), and Thatcher Mill/American Transit lumber mill/gravel mine (l 6NC-l 30-002), and determined that these sites are not eligible under any criteria for inclusion on the National Register. The California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) concurred with Reclamations’ findings and determination on January 20, 2017 (see Appendix F – Cultural Resource Concurrence).

b) Less Than Significant Impact. No previously undocumented archaeological resources were identified during cultural resource investigations and field surveys within the Project area. However, Project‐related ground disturbances could impact previously unrecorded prehistoric and historic‐era sites, features, or artifacts located in subsurface contexts that could not be documented during these surface inventories. Such resources could be significant per California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and/or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) criteria. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

c) No Impact. The proposed Project area is in a previously disturbed setting and no unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features were identified.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. No burials were identified during cultural investigations and surveys of the Project Area and none are anticipated to be present. However, Project‐related ground disturbances could result in inadvertent discoveries of human remains. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

Mitigation:

None required. 5 Up to 8 of the 11 concrete features would be removed. One large concreate pier would be notched to lower elevation for

incorporation as part of new bridge.


Reference Location:

LegendProject BoundaryCultural Study AreaArea of Potential Effects

Map Description:This map displays the area of the cultural studyand area of potential effects associated with theproposed South Cypress Side ChannelEnhancement and Gravel Augmentation projectarea.

±

Date: 10/13/20170 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

Cultural Study Area and Area of Potential Effects

Cultural Study Perfomred by Bureau of Reclamation

3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

X

i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

X

ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? X

iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? X

iv. Landslides? X

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?

X

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?

X

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

X

Environmental Setting: The Project area is located within the center of the City of Redding Planning Area, in Shasta County. Most of Shasta County is characterized by moderately expansive soils with areas of low expansiveness in the South Central Region and highly expansive soils (those that swell when wet and shrink as they dry) in the mountains (Shasta County, 2004). Seismically triggered landslides are possible within the westernmost part of the Planning Area. Other types of ground failure, including expansive soils and subsidence (gradual settling or sinking of an area with little or no horizontal

motion), are not considered to pose a significant hazard within the City Planning Area (City of Redding, 2000). Three different soil map units occur within the Project area according to the local soil survey (USDA, 2016). The three identified map units are listed in Table 4 (see Appendix G – Map Units within Project Area).

Table 4 – Map Units within Project Area Map Unit Map Unit Code Description Cobbly alluvial land Ch These soils are located on floodplains of the Sacramento

River and along smaller streams. They consist of very gravelly, very cobbly or very stony, coarse-textured alluvium. This soil is excessively drained, permeability is very rapid and runoff is very slow.

Reiff fine sandy loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

RgA These soils are located on low terraces and floodplains of the Sacramento River and Cottonwood Creek in the central part of Shasta County and are formed in recent alluvium from mixed sources. They are well drained, permeability is moderately rapid and runoff is very slow.

Riverwash Rw This soil map unit is made up of deposits of sand and gravel. It consists of channels of intermittent streams and of active streams where the water is high. The series is not classified by higher categories in the soil survey.

Water W — Refer to pages 48-49 and 65 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (GEO/SOILS-1, GEO/SOILS-2). Discussion:

a) No Impact. The Project area is located within the ‘Area of High Liquefaction Potential’, as well as the ‘Inundation Area for Shasta Dam Failure’ (City of Redding, 2000). However, there are no known Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones that run through the City of Redding which could expose people or structures to potentially significant adverse impacts involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault or strong seismic ground shaking (DOC, 2010). The Project would not cause rupture of a known earthquake fault, nor would the Project result in increased exposure of people or structures to risk of loss, injury, or death from seismic ground shaking or seismic-related ground failure.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction activities will involve excavation and grading, which could increase the potential for soil erosion. Introduction of water through a newly created channel may lead to additional soil erosion as the water fills in and subsides and creates a stable flow. Equipment operating in the Project area may potentially disturb the material along the banks of the main channel and along unpaved access roads temporarily resulting in potential erosion damage. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. The primary soil type within the Project area is Riverwash (Rw), which has slow runoff, excessive drainage, rapid permeability, and high erosion hazard. However,

the Project area is not characterized by soils that are highly susceptible to lateral spreading (fine-grained, sensitive soils such as quick clays). Landslide and subsidence potential are low because of the relatively minor gradient and high water table, respectively. Liquefaction potential is also low due to lack of active fault zones. The Project would not increase the potential for unstable soils that may result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. While the Project area is located on expansive soils the Project

itself would not create substantial risks to life and property.

e) No Impact. There would be no temporary or permanent wastewater associated with the Project.

Mitigation: None required.

3.7 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

X

b) Conflict with any applicable plan, policy or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

X


The California Air Resources Board has not defined “significant impacts”, and leaves it to lead agencies to investigate and disclose a project’s environmental impacts with regards to greenhouse gas emissions. In 2005, the Governor of California signed executive order S‐3‐05, which establishes statewide emissions reductions targets for greenhouse gases (GHG) to be achieved by the years 2010 and 2020. The broad standards for evaluating GHG emissions during environmental review process required by CEQA were established by Senate Bill 97. Draft guidelines were developed by the California Air Resources Board (CARB) in 2009, and were published in the CEQA Guidelines in January 2010. The guidelines did not include thresholds of significance, nor has subsequent city or regional thresholds of significance been adopted.

The Shasta Regional Climate Action Plan and specifically “Chapter 5 – City of Redding” which serves as the Climate Action Plan for the City of Redding describes target reductions of 15% below 2008 levels by the year 2020 (Shasta County, 2011). Refer to pages 24- 29 of the EA. Refer to page 2 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (AIR-1, AIR-2, AIR-3, AIR-4).

Discussion:

a-b) Less Than Significant Impact. While greenhouse gas emissions are cumulative, the Project would only temporarily contribute to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions above pre-project conditions. Heavy equipment used in channel excavation, gravel sorting, and processing would be the primary contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. Heavy equipment associated with this project would contribute exhaust emissions from diesel and gasoline.

A programmatic analysis of greenhouse gas emissions estimated 509 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents per year when completing three projects. As an individual project the proposed action would contribute a portion of these emissions. The California Air Pollution Officers Association CARB Reporting Threshold 2.3 recommends a significance threshold of 10,000 metric tons (CAPCOA, 2008). The programmatic evaluation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions falls well short of this significance threshold and the individual proposed Project would emit only a portion of estimated emissions.

Furthermore, Project design including vehicle access, staging, and transportation, will continue to be adjusted to reduce operating distances and times. The Project also includes native riparian planting as a Project component which would have a long term impact in off-setting Project emissions.

Given the temporary nature of construction of the Project, the lack of long term greenhouse gas emitting components, and the project goal of environmental restoration including the planting of native species, the cumulative effects on the global climate from greenhouse gas emissions would not be significant. The proposed project does not conflict with any known greenhouse gas reduction plans or policies.

Mitigation:

None Required.

3.8 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the Project:


Impact

Less Than Significant with

Mitigation Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

X

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

X

c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

X

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

X

e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?

X

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project Area?

X

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

X

h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

X


Historic land use within the Project area includes a former lumber mill and river gravel extraction and processing operations, which ceased sometime in the 1960s. Historically, these types of industrial operations are associated with the use of hazardous materials as part of their operations. Typical types of hazardous materials that are associated with lumber mills and gravel processing facilities include, but are not limited to, oils and greases, solvents, wood preservatives, heavy metals, and dioxins.

If present, these contaminants could be found within the area soil and groundwater near the historical operations. Based on evaluations of the project site and areas where these historical industrial operations occurred, potential exists for the presence of contamination from the use of hazardous materials. To evaluate the potential for residual hazardous materials to be present on the project site, soil and groundwater samples were collected by a California licensed Professional Geologist and those samples sent to a California certified analytical laboratory for analysis (see Figure 6). Based on historic uses of the site, samples were analyzed for: Dioxins and furans in accordance with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Method 1613/8290

with toxic equivalence quotient (TEQ) results calculated using 2005 World Health Organization (WHO) toxic equivalence factors.

Pentachlorophenol (PCP) and 2, 3, 4, 6-tetrachlorophenol (TCP) in accordance with EPA Method 8270C.

Total arsenic in accordance with EPA Method 6020; lead, copper, and zinc in accordance with EPA Method 6010B; mercury in accordance with EPA Method 7471A; and cadmium in accordance with EPA Method 3113B.

Refer to pages 49-51 and 65 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4).

Discussion: a) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project includes the use of regulated materials

(such as petroleum hydrocarbons, fuels, and lubricants) for the use of mechanized equipment during construction. All hazardous or regulated materials that are used on site during construction activities will be properly stored and secured to prevent access by the general public; no construction equipment fuel or lubricants will be stored onsite (outside of fuel in equipment fuel tanks) during the Project development. Project development requires that the selected Contractor develop a Spill Plan as a part of the Contract Documents, to provide a plan for the routine use of hazardous materials and the cleanup of accidental spills should they occur. No hazardous materials will be disposed of at the Project Site. Should accidental spills occur, the Contractor shall be required (as a part of the Spill Plan) to cleanup and remove contaminated soil to a licensed disposal facility. The potential hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials is less than significant. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

b) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Excavation of soils that are contaminated with historical industrial hazardous materials could occur at some areas within the project during the development of the side channel. To mitigate the potential significant impacts from the unintended excavation of these hazardous materials, mitigation measures have been developed that when employed, will reduce the impacts to a less than significant level. See Mitigation Measure HAZ MM-1.

c) No Impact. There are no schools within a quarter mile radius of the project. The nearest school (Cypress Elementary) is more than ¾ mile away.

d) No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled

pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC, 2017). e-f) No Impact. The project site does not fall in, or intersect with the clear zones of Redding Municipal

airport or any private airstrips. The nature of the work would not interfere with airport operations or pose a safety hazard to people working in those areas (City of Redding, 2017a).

g) No Impact. The development of the project does not interfere with any adopted emergency

response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The City of Redding General Plan Health and Safety Element has established evacuation routes and defined procedures for emergency responses within the City by the various emergency response entities. This project does not interfere with, conflict with, or in any way impact the routes and plans established for the City or the project area. The freeboard clearance of the bridges constructed as part of the project will be at least 5 feet in height, which is sufficient for Sheriff’s Department boats to navigate (Hanson, 2017). Therefore the development of the project will have no impact.

h) Less Than Significant Impact. The development of the project would have a less than

significant impact on wildland fire potential, only because during construction activities there is potential for heavy equipment to be the cause of fires within the construction area. It is unlikely that fires would occur because the construction period is planned for winter months, when wildland fire danger is at its lowest. Once completed, the project would pose no threat to wildland fires or have fire impacts to adjacent residences or businesses as it will be fisheries habitat and recreation trails.

Mitigation: The following measures would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.

HAZ MM‐1: This mitigation measure has been developed to mitigate adverse impacts from the discovery of hazardous soils that could be found on the project site, based on investigations conducted as part of project planning:

A. Should analytical laboratory analysis determine that hazardous materials over regulatory limits are present at the construction excavation sites, then the following would occur:

I. The area (or areas) where soil contamination is located will be identified in the field and no

excavation or soil disturbance will occur until it is determined by a Professional Geologist or Engineer that excavation may proceed.

II. A work plan for the removal of the contaminated soil will be prepared by a Professional

Geologist or Engineer and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and concurrence.

a. The Work Plan will be implemented by a licensed hazardous materials excavation and trucking contractor, in accordance with the approved Work Plan.

b. Implementation of the Work Plan will be overseen by a Professional Geologist or Engineer that has experience working with contaminated sites and cleanup and remediation actions.

c. Contaminated soils removed from the site will be transported to an appropriately licensed landfill for disposal. The appropriate facility will be based on the contaminant type.

III. After implementation of the Work Plan, a Report of Findings will be prepared and submitted to the RWQCB for review and approval, after which the construction excavation activities at the contaminated site may proceed.

B. Should analytical laboratory analysis determine that there are no hazardous materials located

at the site that are over the regulatory limits, construction excavation may proceed.

#V

#V

#V

#V

#V #V

#V


Reference Location:

Legend#V Background Test#V Contaminant Test#V Geotechnical Test

Project Boundary

Map Description:This map displays the geotechnical and soilanalysis testing locations associated with theproposed South Cypress Side ChannelEnhancement and Gravel Augmentation projectarea.

±

Date: 10/13/20170 0.1 0.20.05 Miles

Geotechnical and Soil Analysis Testing Locations

3.9 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

X

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?

X

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 amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site??

X

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

X

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

X

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?

X

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

X

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? X


The Sacramento River is an approximately 327-mile long perennial river flowing generally south southwest, originating from the base of Spring Hill in Mount Shasta, California and eventually flowing into Shasta Reservoir and downstream to the Pacific Ocean near San Francisco, California. Flows in the upper Sacramento River (RM 295) along the Project Area are controlled by the releases from Shasta and Keswick Dams and vary significantly by season and year in response to rain and snowmelt, water needs and flood control. There is year-round hyporheic connectivity between the Project area and the main stem Sacramento River. A City of Redding stormwater outfall is present within the Project area. The Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) has determined that the 25-mile segment of the upper Sacramento River between Keswick Dam and Cottonwood Creek is impaired by levels of dissolved cadmium, copper, and zinc that periodically exceed water quality standards developed to protect aquatic life (CVRWQCB, 2002). Refer to pages 51-55 and 65-66 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (GEO-1, GEO-2, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4,

HYDRO/WQ-1, HYDRO/WQ -2, HYDRO/WQ-3, HYDRO/WQ-4, HYDRO/WQ -5, HYDRO/WQ-6, HYDRO/WQ-7).

Discussion:

a) Less Than Significant Impact. Water quality impacts to the Upper Sacramento River could occur as a result of the gravel augmentation and also side channel enhancements, if work on the side channels were to occur when the flows from the Upper Sacramento River were flowing into the side channel and out to reenter the river at the side channel outlet. Water quality impacts to the Upper Sacramento River could occur if fuel, oil or other petroleum products were accidentally spilled as a result of construction activities and entered surface waters. This is considered a potentially significant impact. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

b) No Impact. There would be no effects on groundwater supplies, levels or recharge as a result of

Project activities. c-d) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would create channels that flow year round instead

of seasonally, however the drainage patterns would be the same. There would be no changes in the locations of water flow back to the river from the proposed Project. Runoff patterns from street drains and culverts would not change and water surface elevations (WSE) for flood conditions would not change (see Appendix G – Preliminary No Rise Letter). The newly excavated channel would be stabilized with rock and native vegetation. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

e) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project would not result in any runoff which would contribute

to a stormwater drainage system. Construction-related activities could result in additional sources of

polluted runoff to the river, from ground disturbance or unintended spill. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

f) Less Than Significant Impact. In addition to the water quality impacts discussed above, a short‐

term minor increase in turbidity and suspended sediments would likely occur immediately following placement of the spawning gravel. However, mobilization would occur primarily during high flows when background turbidity and sediment transport is relatively high. The redistribution of sediment following the side channel enhancements could also result in temporary increase in turbidity in the Upper Sacramento River. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

g) No Impact. This Project does not include placement of any housing within the the100-year flood

hazard area. h) Less Than Significant Impact. Two bridges and one culvert would be constructed within the100-

year flood hazard area as part of the Project. Additionally, gravel may be placed within the floodplain, side channels would be excavated within the floodplain and minor instream habitat structures would be added. The side channels that would be constructed are in an area that is currently inundated by standard water releases from Shasta and Keswick dams. The side channel enhancements would not change flood flow patterns. The Project would not significantly impede or redirect flow. While localized increases in the WSEs are mapped to be 0.1 feet in the immediate vicinity of the bridges, those increases do not span the width of the river and do not extend to non-participant properties. The Project will not increase flood levels in the Sacramento River (see Appendix G – Preliminary No Rise Letter).

i) Less Than Significant Impact. Installation of Project features would result in a minor rise in WSE

within the Project area. However, the Project would not cause a failure in levee or dam, nor would the Project result in an adverse impact to water surface elevation outside the Project Area (see Appendix H – Preliminary No Rise Letter).

j) No Impact. The Project would not cause inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Mitigation: None required.

3.10 LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Physically divide an established community? X

b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?

X

c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X


The City of Redding General Plan designations for the Project area are Greenway (GWY) and General Office (GO). The zoning designations for the Project area are Open Space (OS) and General Office (GO). The Project area is within the Central and West Redding planning sector of the City of Redding’s General Plan (City of Redding, 2000).

Discussion:

a) No Impact. The proposed Project would not physically divide an established community. There are no permanent residential structures within the Project Area.

b) No Impact. The Project is compatible with the applicable policies and regulations of the City

General Plan and Zoning Ordinance and is not in conflict with any other Plan adopted by a jurisdictional agency for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect.

c) No Impact. There are no habitat conservation plans or natural community conservation plans,

either existing that are applicable to the site (CDFW, 2017)

Mitigation:

None required.

3.11 MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?

X

b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?

X


Gravel-bearing deposits exist along the Sacramento River, Clear Creek, Olney Creek, Churn Creek, and Stillwater Creek. Within the Shasta County, there are Aggregate Resource Area (ARAs) and Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs) (DOC, 2017).

An ARA is an area that has been classified as MRZ-2a and/or MRZ-2b. The Sacramento River ARA, Tract C-1 includes RM 295, which is adjacent to and partially within the Project Area. Areas classified as MRZ-2a and 2b, where mineral-extraction activities are considered feasible, have been designated with a "Critical Mineral Resources Overlay" on the General Plan Diagram (City of Redding, 2000). The Project area is not located within any "Critical Mineral Resource Overlay" area.

Discussion:

a) No Impact. Project activities would not result in the loss of the availability of a regionally valuable known mineral resource of value to residents of the state. Minerals such as sand and gravel would be redistributed within the Project Area to the extent possible.

b) No Impact. Project activities would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important

mineral resources recovery site.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.12 NOISE: Would the Project result in:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

X

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?

X

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

X

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?

X

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 expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels?

X

f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project Area to excessive noise levels?

X

Environmental Setting: The existing noise environments within the Project Area are typical of an open space area within a suburban environment. The existing noise environment is primarily influenced by vehicular traffic noise on the local and regional roadway network. Noise from interspersed industrial and commercial land uses, and outdoor activities (e.g., people talking, dogs barking and operation of landscaping and agricultural equipment), contribute to the existing noise environment to a lesser extent. Equivalent sound level (Leq) is an hourly average noise level descriptor. Refer to pages 55-56 and 66 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental protection Measures’ (NOISE-1, NOISE-2, NOISE-3, NOISE-4).

Discussion:

a) Less Than Significant Impact. Construction equipment noise levels (Refer to “Table 4 – Construction Equipment Noise Levels” in the Environmental Assessment) are the maximum levels at 50 feet from the source of the noise. The equivalent hourly average noise level (Leq) would be

less than the maximum levels (Lmax) for each type of equipment. Noise‐sensitive areas include residential areas, parks, schools, churches, hospitals, and long‐term care facilities (City of Redding, 2000). The City of Redding Schedule 18.40.100‐A: Exterior Noise Standards Ordinance which requires an exterior noise level standard of 65 Leq for office and commercial land uses between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. and 55 Leq for residential land uses receiving the noise between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m (City of Redding, 2017b). With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

b) No Impact. It is not anticipated that ground vibration created by Project activities would generate

any excessive ground borne vibrations and would not expose any persons to ground borne noise levels.

c) No Impact. Project activities are planned to be temporary in nature and short in duration, and any

increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels that exist without the Project, would not be permanently increased.

d) Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction phase of the Project, noise from

construction activities would periodically and temporarily impact ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity depending on site‐specific topography and vegetative screening. LEQ measures individual noises for a period of time (typically for one hour) and determines the average noise level. The noise levels of typical construction equipment that could be used to implement the Project are shown in Table 4 of the EA (p. 56). Mobile equipment such as excavators, loaders, etc., may operate in a cyclical fashion in which a period of full power is followed by a period of reduced power and noise. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

e) No Impact. There would be no noise related impacts to public airports within the Project Area.

The Project is located within two miles of a city‐owned, public‐use airport, the Benton Airfield, however due to the noise levels of typical construction equipment, which fall below the City of Redding ordinance levels. Therefore, people residing or working in the Project Area would not be exposed to excessive noise levels.

f) No Impact. The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. There would be no

noise-related impacts to privately owned airstrips adjacent to or within the Project Area.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.13 POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?

X

b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

X

Environmental Setting: The Project area is located along the banks of the Upper Sacramento River within Redding, California. Zoning and General Plan land use designations are Open Space (OS), General Office (GO), and Greenway (GWY). There are no residences or buildings within the Project Area, but the eastern boundary of the project is bordered by Single Family (RS-2) zoning.

Discussion:

a) Less Than Significant Impact. The Project may indirectly result in increased use of the Henderson Open Space through the indirect development of new recreational opportunities. However, the Project does not include construction of any new homes or extension of roads or infrastructure that could be used to support new homes or businesses.

b) No Impact. The proposed Project would not directly nor indirectly result in the displacement of any

existing or planned housing, nor would the Project necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere.

c) Less Than Significant Impact. While there are no legal residents or residential structures, there

are fluctuating numbers of transients who are illegally occupying spaces within the Project Area. The Project could result in temporary direct displacement of illegal occupants during pre-project patrols and citations by local law enforcement in order to allow for unimpeded and safe construction. Presence of night patrol by private security service during construction could also indirectly displace illegal occupants. However, the Project would not result in substantial displacement of people, nor would the Project necessitate replacement housing elsewhere. Furthermore, WSRCD may coordinate with law enforcement and appropriate public service providers to encourage appropriate engagement with illegal occupants.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.14 PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) 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 times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

I. Fire Protection? X

II. Police protection? X

III. Schools? X

IV. Parks? X V. Other Public Facilities? X

Existing Setting:

There are no existing governmental facilities within the Project Area. The City of Redding plans to construct a vault toilet, parking lot, and kayak launch as part of the Henderson - Parkview Open Space Restoration, Trail, and Kayak Access Project. In addition to recreation, HOS is also accessed for public services, including utility maintenance, law enforcement, vector control, invasive species treatment, and recreation services6. Discussion: a) No Impact. No governmental facilities will be provided or altered as a result of the Project. To

maintain riverside access within HOS, the Project will include installation of side channel crossing features (two bridges, one culvert), which will require long-term maintenance and management services, to be provided by the City of Redding. These features may be considered governmental facilities in the broader sense that they are structures which will be maintained by a local municipality. However, the Project would not result in substantial adverse physical impacts from installation or reasonably foreseeable long-term maintenance of crossing features (e.g. debris clearance, deck repair, ramp grading, graffiti removal). Installation of crossing features would maintain access for fire protection, police protection, and City Parks and Recreation staff. Furthermore, improved access may result from minor grading of existing trails during construction.

Mitigation:

None required.

6 City of Redding Parks and Recreation, City of Redding Police Department, Shasta County Mosquito Vector Control,

PG&E, and volunteers.

3.15 RECREATION: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?

X

b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?

X


The Project area is located within the HOS, a recreational area that is maintained in a relatively natural state with some unpaved pedestrian trails and recreational opportunities. Existing recreational facilities are limited to unpaved trails which provide access for recreation and public services. A disc-golf course was deconstructed in 2016 due to vandalism. Future recreational facilities planned by the City as part of the Kayak Launch Project include a vault toilet, parking lot, and kayak launch. Qualitative observations indicate that recreational use within the Project area is low. There are existing adverse physical impacts on the environment due to illegal use (e.g. illegal encampments, trash).

Refer to pages 57-60 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (GEN-1, GEN-2, GEN-3, GEO/SOILS-1,

GEO/SOILS-2, HAZ-1, HAZ-2, HAZ-3, HAZ-4, HYDRO/WQ-1, HYDRO/WQ -2, HYDRO/WQ-3, HYDRO/WQ-4, HYDRO/WQ -5, HYDRO/WQ-6, HYDRO/WQ-7, NOISE-1, NOISE-2, NOISE-3, NOISE-4, REC-1, REC-2, TRANSP-1).

Discussion:

a ‐ b) Less Than Significant Impact. During construction, temporary impacts to recreation facilities could include increased noise, potential ground disturbance of recreational trails, and closure to the public (e.g. no trail access) for the purpose of safety. After construction, the Project may indirectly result in increased use of HOS and associated recreation facilities mentioned above.

Additionally, as similarly discussed in the ‘Public Services’ section, the Project will include construction of side channel crossing features (two bridges, one culvert); and may be considered recreational facilities in the broader sense that they are structures within an open space that will be partially utilized for recreational access to the river. However, the Project would not result in direct substantial adverse physical impacts to the environment. Additionally, implementation of the Project could be seen as an enhancement to recreational resources within the Project area. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’, potentially significant impacts would be avoided or minimized to a less than significant level.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.16 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the Project


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

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 relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

X

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

X

c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

X

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

X

e) Result in inadequate emergency access? X

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

X


Refer to pages 60-61 and 66 of the EA. Refer to page 3 of the FONSI. Refer to ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (REC-1, REC-2, TRANSP-1).

Discussion:

a‐c) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. The proposed Project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program nor result in a change in traffic patterns. Existing land uses would not be altered by the proposed Project and there would not be permanent changes to level of service (LOS). Potential impacts to traffic would be temporary and related to the construction activities. During construction, traffic impacts would occur from the initial staging of equipment and materials on the

Project area, transportation of excavated materials offsite, and from daily commutes by construction workers. Hauling of material outside of the Project Area would be limited to Monday through Friday, except holidays, and from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. for approximately.

d‐f) Less Than Significant Impact. Temporary access to the Project area would be created that ensure adequate ingress and egress as well as maneuverability within the Project Area; thereby minimizing hazards and safety risks. There would be no impact to emergency access. Trails shall be signed, cautioning users of the equipment. Traffic associated with temporary construction activities and any improvement to unpaved access roads within the Project area would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.17 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the Project:


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

X

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

X

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

X

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

X

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?

X

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X


Even though the Project is located in an urban setting, there is no water or wastewater infrastructure located within the Project area. One municipal storm water culvert terminates at a location along the east boundary of the Project area. There are three PG&E distribution poles located within Project area, near the proposed north bridge crossing (see Appendix A – Site Plans). The Project has been designed to maintain an adequate maintenance buffer (PG&E, 2017). Discussion:

a‐c) No Impact. The Project would not result in the discharge of wastewater, nor would the Project require construction of new or expansion of existing wastewater treatment or stormwater facilities.

d) No Impact. There are no existing or new water supply entitlements associated with the proposed

Project. During construction, temporary water needs (i.e. filling water truck) would be sourced from metered municipal fire hydrant. Naturally occurring sources of water, including surface flow, precipitation, shallow ground water and local flooding events would provide the long-term water needed for the Project (i.e. maintain suitable habitat for juvenile salmonids at lowest allowable flows 3,250 cfs).

e‐f) No Impact. The proposed Project would not increase demand on wastewater providers or require

use of a landfill for solid waste that is beyond the provider’s existing commitments. g) No Impact. Contractors would be responsible for their own utilities and waste disposal during

construction activities. The proposed Project would comply with federal, state and local regulations related to solid waste.

Mitigation:

None required.

3.18 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE


Impact


with Mitigation

Incorporated


Impact

No Impact

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 plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?

X

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 the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)?

X

c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

X

Discussion:

The CEQA Lead Agency has determined from this Initial Study (IS) that the Project would not have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

a) Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation. With incorporation of ‘Environmental Protection Measures’ (i.e. environmental commitments, conservation measures, and project-specific avoidance and minimization) the Project would have a less-than-significant or no impact as related to aesthetics, agriculture and forestry resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology/soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/ water quality, land use/planning, mineral resources, noise, population/housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, and utilities/service systems. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce potential project impacts to a level of less-than-significant in regards to hazards and hazardous materials.

b) Less Than Significant Impact. Project impacts would be individually limited and cumulatively considerable impacts of would be less than significant. As a program, the Bureau of Reclamation’s Upper Sacramento Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program has demonstrated less than significant cumulative impacts within the Programmatic EA, and this individual project would not increase potential for further impacts above a cumulatively significant level.

c) No Impact. The restoration project, despite taking place in an urban setting, would have no substantial adverse effects on human beings directly or indirectly.

Mitigation:

The following measures would be implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and to mitigate potentially significant impacts to less than significant levels.

HAZ MM‐1: This mitigation measure has been developed to mitigate adverse impacts from the discovery of hazardous soils that could be found on the project site, based on investigations conducted as part of project planning:

A. Should analytical laboratory analysis determine that hazardous materials over regulatory limits are present at the construction excavation sites, then the following would occur:

I. The area (or areas) where soil contamination is located will be identified in the field and no

excavation or soil disturbance will occur until it is determined by a Professional Geologist or Engineer that excavation may proceed.

II. A work plan for the removal of the contaminated soil will be prepared by a Professional

Geologist or Engineer and submitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Board for review and concurrence.

a. The Work Plan will be implemented by a licensed hazardous materials excavation and trucking contractor, in accordance with the approved Work Plan.

b. Implementation of the Work Plan will be overseen by a Professional Geologist or

Engineer that has experience working with contaminated sites and cleanup and remediation actions.

c. Contaminated soils removed from the site will be transported to an appropriately

licensed landfill for disposal. The appropriate facility will be based on the contaminant type.

III. After implementation of the Work Plan, a Report of Findings will be prepared and submitted to the RWQCB for review and approval, after which the construction excavation activities at the contaminated site may proceed.

B. Should analytical laboratory analysis determine that there are no hazardous materials located

at the site that are over the regulatory limits, construction excavation may proceed.

4.0 List of Preparers

The following individuals prepared, or contributed in the preparation of this document:

Western Shasta Resource Conservation District (CEQA Lead Agency) Harmony Gugino, Project Manager

Jan Raether, Project Coordinator

Reclamation

Amy Barnes, Archaeologist, Mid‐Pacific Regional Office John Hannon, Fisheries Biologist, Bay Delta Office, Science Division Andrea Meier, Senior Natural Resources Specialist

Corps Robert Chase, Regulatory Project Manager (Fisheries)

California Department of Fish and Wildlife Brad Henderson, Senior Environmental Scientist Harvest Viera, Senior Environmental Scientist Doug Killam, Senior Environmental Scientist

California Department of Water Resources Scott Kennedy, Civil Engineer, Northern District Seth Lawrence, Civil Engineer, Northern District

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Guy Chetelat, Engineering Geologist, Redding Office

City of Redding Kim Niemer, Community Services Director Lily Toy, Senior Planner Paul Hellman, Planning Manager Chuck Aukland, P.E. Assistant Director of Public Works-Transportation James Triantafyllou, P.E. Design Project Coordinator Erich Mayne, Permit Center Supervisor Terry Hanson, Subcontractor

cbec, inc. Chris Campbell, Ecoengineer Ben Taber, Ecoengineer

SHN Engineering Mark Chaney Bob Hess

Tehama Environmental Solutions, Inc. Jeff Souza, Senior Biologist Kelly Peterson, Associate Environmental Specialist

Dittes and Guardino Consulting John Dittes, Senior Botanist

5.0 References and Citations

DOC, 2010. California Department of Conservation. California Geological Survey - Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx, 2010

DOC, 2016. California Department of Conservation. Shasta County Important Farmland 2014, ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/sha14.pdf, 2016

DOC, 2017. California Department of Conservation. Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) Mineral Lands Classification (MLC) data portal, http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc, 2017

CDFW, 2017. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Regional Conservation Plans July 2017. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline, 2017.

DTSC, 2017. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStar, 2017

SHC, 2015. California Streets and Highways Code 1935. Div. 1, Cha. 2, Art. 2.5 State Scenic Highways 1969. 2015

CAPCOA, 2008. California Air Pollution Officers Association. CEQA & Climate Change: Evaluating and Addressing Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Projects Subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. 2008

CalTrans, 2016. California Scenic Highway Mapping System, http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/, 2016

City of Redding. 2000. City of Redding General Plan 2000-2020, http://www.cityofredding.org/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan-and-development-guidelines, 2000

City of Redding, 2017a. Redding Municipal Airport Influence Area, http://www.cityofredding.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=841, 2017

City of Redding, 2017b. City of Redding. Code of Ordinances, https://library.municode.com/ca/redding/codes/code_of_ordinances, 2017

CVRWQB, 2002. Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. Upper Sacramento River TMDL for Cadmium, Copper & Zinc Final Report. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/upper_sacramento_cd_cu_zn/tmdl_final_rpt_apr2002.pdf, 2002

Hanson, 2017. Personal communications with Terry Hanson/Subcontractor for City of Redding. Discussed emergency access required for emergency responders using boats on the Sacramento River and passage restrictions. September 27, 2017, 2017

NMFS, 2015. National Marine Fisheries Service Endangered Species Act Section 7(a)(2) Biological Opinion, and Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish Habitat Response and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Recommendations for the Upper Sacramento River

http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx

ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dlrp/FMMP/pdf/2014/sha14.pdf

http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=mlc

https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inline

http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/

http://www.cityofredding.org/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan-and-development-guidelines

http://www.cityofredding.org/departments/development-services/planning/general-plan-and-development-guidelines

http://www.cityofredding.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=841

https://library.municode.com/ca/redding/codes/code_of_ordinances

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/upper_sacramento_cd_cu_zn/tmdl_final_rpt_apr2002.pdf

https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/central_valley_projects/upper_sacramento_cd_cu_zn/tmdl_final_rpt_apr2002.pdf

Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Programmatic, in Shasta and Tehama counties. October 9, 2015.

PG&E, 2017. Personal Communications with Amado Pete Perez/Senior New Business Representative for Pacific Gas and Electric. Discussed distribution poles buffer and maintenance vehicle requirements on September 21 and 25, 2017, 2017

Shasta County, 2011. Shasta Regional Climate Action Plan. https://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/drm_index/aq_index/programs/RCAP/Draft_RCAP.aspx, 2011

Shasta County. 2004. Shasta County General Plan As Amended Through 2004, https://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/drm_index/planning_index/plng_general_plan.aspx, 2004

Reclamation, 2015a. United States Bureau of Reclamation. Upper Sacramento Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program, Environmental Assessment, 2015

Reclamation, 2015b. United States Bureau of Reclamation. Upper Sacramento Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program, Finding of No Significant Impacts, 2015

Reclamation, 2015c. Biological Assessment Upper Sacramento River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program to USFWS.

Reclamation, 2016. Biological Assessment Upper Sacramento River Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program to USFWS. June 2016.

USDA, 2016. United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Geographic Database, https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, 2016

USFWS, 2017. United States Fish and Wildlife Service. Wild and Scenic Rivers Act 1968, https://www.rivers.gov/california.php, 2017

USFWS 2016. United States Fish and Wildlife Service Concurrence Memo for Programmatic Informal Consultation. June 17, 2016.

https://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/drm_index/aq_index/programs/RCAP/Draft_RCAP.aspx

https://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/drm_index/planning_index/plng_general_plan.aspx

https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

https://www.rivers.gov/california.php