Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDept of Transportation - Initial Study~+•~u.urvn~niivi~n~~U nvwuY nuent.r ~DMl1NDG BROWN If, GoYetnot DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION nzsTxicT 3 ~ • 703 B STREET MARYSVILLE, CA 95901-5556 1'1•IONE {530) 741-4233 ~~~ FAX {530) 741-4245 Tyr 7ii~ ~ JUL 13 2x12 July 12, 2012 ~ ~- Responsible Agencies, Reviewing Agencies File: and Interested Individuals To Whom It May Concern: .Flex your power! Be energy efficient! 03-CO1r20 PM 20.21 03-CO1,-5 PM. 87.99; PM 822.31; PM 22.32 03-BUT-32 ~ PM 8.31 03-BUT-149 PM M3.96 03-GLE-162 PM 38.9 Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project EA 03»4M200 EFfS 031000210031$ Enclosed is a copy of the Draft Initial Study document far a project on State Routes 20 {Colusa- County), 32 {Butte County), 149 (Butte County), 162 (Glenn County), and Interstate-5 (Colusa_ County). The California Department ~ of Transportation {Caltrans} proposes to complete scour repairs at seven bridges located in Colusa, Butte, and Glenn Counties. Generally, the scour repairs would involve regrading of the sites to restore the anginal contours, followed by protecting affected areas with the placement of rock slope protection (RSP) or, _~ one location, paving concrete. Additional material such as filter fabric under RSP, compacted structural soils, and slurry concrete may also be included in these repairs. The formal public comment period will end on August 16; 2012, and comments regarding this document maybe sent to Caltrans, addressed as follows: Susan D. Bauer, Environmental Branch Chief Caltrazls Environnieli,tal Management M-1 Attention: Joseph Robinson 703 B Street Marysville CA 95901-SSSb For additional information concerning this. document, please contact me at {530) 741-4597 .aT Susan D. Bauer at (530} 741-7113. Sincerely, JOSEPH ROBINSON, Associate Environmental Planner Office of Environmental Management, M1 Enclosures e // "Caltrans improves mobility across Cglijornia" s:~~ 3° :~ Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project BUTTE, COLUSA, AND GLENN COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA Various t,ocatians on State Routes 20, 32, 149 162, and Interstate-5, 03-4M200 (EFIS 03/0002100318} Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared by the State of California Department of Transportation July 20'[2 {Page Eeft intentionally blank.} General In#orm~tion about This.Document Wha#'s in this document: The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has prepared- this initial Studyf Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration which examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project located at various locations in Butte, Colusa, and Glenn Counties, California. The document describes why the project is being proposed, the existing environment that could be affected by the project, and the proposed avoidance, minimization, andlor mitigation measures. What you should do: • Please read-this document. Additional copies'of it, as well as copies of the technical studies we relied upon in preparing it, are available for review at the Caltrans District 3 Qflise of Environmental Management Services at 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901-5556. Copies of the document are also at the following public Libraries: • Chica Branch Library, 1108 Sherman Avenue, Chico, CA 95926 • Colusa County t=ree Library, 738 Market Street, Colusa, CA 95932 • Glenn County Library, 678 E. Walker St. Orland, CA 95963 • This document is also available on-line at: htt :Ilwww.dot.ca. ovldist3lde artmentslenvinternetlenvdoc.htm • We would like to hear what you.think. If you have any comments regarding the proposed project, please send your written comments to Caltrans by the deadline. • ,Submit comments via the US Postal Service ta: Susan.D. Bauer, Environmental Branch Chief Caltrans Environmental Management M-1 Attention: Joseph Robinson 703 B Street Marysville CA 95901-5556 •'r Submit comments via email to: joe~robinson@dot.ca.gov • Be sure to submit comments by the deadline: Au ust 1fi 2012 Seven Bridges Scaur Repair Project page ~ What happens next: ~ . After comments are received.from the public and reviewing.agencies, Caltrans may: (1) give environmental approval to the proposed project;'(2) do additional environmental studies, or {3} abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and funding is appropriated, Caltrans could design and construct all.or part of the project. por individuals with sensory disabilities, this document can be made available in Braille, large print, .on audiocassette, or on computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please call or write to Department of Transportation, Attn: Joseph Robinson, Environmental Management, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA 95901-5556; {530) 741-4597 Voice, or use the California Relay Service 1 (800} 735-2929 (TTY}, 1 (S00) 735- 2929 (Voice) or.711. - Seven Bridges-Scour Repair Project ~ Page 2 SClil~ 93-VAR-PM Various o3-4h142001 EFTS 03JA0021AO318 Repair•Scaur Damage atSeven-Bridges at the foilov~ing locations in Colusa, Bulte, and Glenn Coun#ies: 03-COL-2D PM 20.21 t13=C4L-5 PM 87.99; PM 822.37; PM 822.32 Q3-SUT-32 PM 8:31 Q3-BU7-149' PM M3:96 03-~SI.;E-~1B2 PM`38.9. lN1T.l~tl, STUDY with~Proposed Mitigated htegative E]ealaration Submitted Pursuant to: (State] Division 13, California Public Resources Code 71iE STATE C3F CA1_IF4Rh11A pepartmen# of Transportation a' ~ •.IGt~N r~ %02 Date of Approval D. Webb, Chief Legion f=nvironmerital Services oia Department of Transportation Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 3 {Page left intentionally blank.} Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 4 State of California department af'rrartsporEation BGH: 03-Var-PM Var 03-4M200 PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE. DECLARATION Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code Project Description The California Department of Transportation {Caktrans) proposes to complete scour repairs at seven bridges located in Colusa, Butte, and Glenn Counties. Generally, the scour repairs would involve regrading of the sites to restore the original contours, followed by protecting affected areas with the placement of rock slope protection {RSP) or, in one location, paving concrete. Additional material such as filter fabric under RSP, compacted structura# soils, and slurry concrete may also be included in these repairs. Determination This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration {MND) is included to give notice to interested agencies and the public that it is the intent of Caltrans to adopt an MND far this project. This does not mean that a decision by Caktrans regarding the project is final. This MND is subject to modification based on comments received by interested agencies and the public. Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and pending public review, expects to determine from this shady that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment far the following reasons: • The proposed project would have no effect on cultural resources, floodplains, geology and sails, land use and planning, traffic and transportation, mineral resources, public seNices, recreation, utilities, service systems, visual aesthetics, agricultural resources, air quality, noise, hazardous waste, population and housing, and growth. • The proposed project would have no significant effect on biological resources, water quality / hydrology, or storm water treatment with the implementation of Best Management Practices, avoidance and minimization measures, and work windows. • The proposed project would have no significant adverse effect on jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. because compensatory mitigation, either an-site or ofF site, would reduce potential effects to less than insignificant. .~ohn D. Webb, Chief Caltrans North Region, District 3 Office of Environmental Services -South California Department of Transportation Date Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 5 {Page left ini:entionaliy blank.} Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 6 Initial Study - Chapter 1 -- Proposed Proiect Project Title: Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project This project is included as a speciat reservation in the 2012 State Highway Operation and Protection Program (SHOPP}. The purpose of the SHOPP program is preservation of transportation facilities related to the state highway system, and include projects that preserve bridges, roadways, and roadsides, restore damaged roadways, reduce collision. rates, and enhance mobility. Purpose and Need The purpose of the project is to preserve the useful life of the structures by repairing scour damage, and protecting-the affected areas to prevent future scour. The project is needed because storm flows over a period of years have resulted in scour damage around the foundations of this group of bridges, washing away the earthen material surrounding the footings andlor abutments. The potential for future scour requires the installation of protection measures. Engineering analysis has set the current status of the bridges at "scour critical," meaning that in a signi#icant hydraulic event such as a 100-year flood, there is a passibility that additional damage to the foundations of these bridges could be sustained that would put one or more of them out of service. Project Description Since this is a scour repair project, one build alternative has been proposed to repair the damage. The proposed work would first replace the last soils at the bridge foundations, and then install protection measures to reduce future scour. Those measures, such as large rocks or a concrete slope, would protect both the channel and the foundations from high water velocities by dissipating its energy, particularly during storm events. The reduced velocity slows or eliminates the erasion associated with scour damage. The project description first discusses the design features common to aA seven work locations, and then reviews the site_specific details. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 7 {Page left intentibnaiiy blank.} Seven Bridges Scnur Repair Project Page 8 ~aslp~~Q~ ~ se~'a ~ 'dad p.E a .~o ~~,o . ~. - _ J_ I Cv Q ~ ~~ I. ~ 'Q ~ !"- ...1 I ~ ~ Fu~uac}~ ~ O -~- of f } 1 I ~ !~ ~a r ~~ ~!~ Q~O VIU a' ajz wj~' },,. , V I ~~~~ ` '~~NrjO a Q ~ Y~ Y Y ~ ~~ ` ~~ .~ '4) hi l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~7a i ~~~ i o °> ~ ' R RQiJi'E 99 i ~ ~ oJa! tR ,- Z ~ ~ ~ J'CS' p ~ t e! ~~v u 1 cs ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. . ~ W ~ i~G i~``'- v G1 LO ~ min S~77p ~ ~ -•. ~,i - ur~o~ ' 31t~ei i ~ ~ ~ysino~ uni3i~' ; ~ ti i RaiJT~ q5 N ~ j .-- I L'tJ I- ^^~ I ROI~TE 5 ~ ~ a ~ "'~ ROUTS 5 i ~ ~' i }1,r Q~ ~vC ~ o, rl~ _ ~i ~~ ~iN Uta 0 ,~ c,71 U i V ~ i ~ ~ ~ i .'" ~- ! t `,~~~ .i 1 ~+ L ~ ~~~a ~~~~~ - 'NBP ~.- -SU'C'f £,Q~~~ysr1'~ ..,- 'i'o Nicaiaus-, ~~ ~~ ~~ U .L71 .,. ss G ~qi~S 1 N ~ ~ to i i " i i ~ i f ~ I f~~ I r', ~G i---------------------~ ~ ~~ •-__~_,• ~ I ~ ~ '' r ti, i I ~~4 _. ~~ ~~ ~~{ V V d -O a e= sv ~} rn v an ,~ V m ~o .~ iZ. as rx s.. 0 U '~ .y M~ W 1~ Common ©esi n Features of the Build Alternative: The build alternative would-prepare the sites by clearing vegetation,. contour grade the affected area, install filter fabric-and structural soils as required, and protect the.affected areas with rock slope protection {RSP) or Portland concrete cement (PCC}. Generally, aN work would involve the following actions, constructed at each site pursuant to Caltrans standards for bridge design: 1. Site Pre oration: • Non-native or ruderal vegetation would be cleared from work areasr as required • Eroded areas would be backfilled with compacted structural soils, or with such material as slung concrete, as required • Each work site would be contour graded to optimize flows within that waterway, and banks would be restored to approximate original grades 2. Installation of Protection Measures: Protection from future erosion would- likely be accomplished by placing RSP where required at all sites except Location 2, where affected areas would ~e protected with PCC. Varying methods of using RSP have been proposed. for each location in this project to best meet the engineering objectives based on unique site characteristics. Some locations would include filter fabric underlying the RSP, which allows emergent vegetation to grow through the cloth, allowing the RSP, fabric, and plants to keep earthen material in place. 3. Work Windows and Timin 4n creeks that are ephemeral and therefore dry in summer, work would be comPieted when the creek is not running. If the repair site is at a perennial creek. with year-round flows, a cofferdam or other form of water diversion would be used to temporarily re- direct the flow to create a de-watered work site within the channel. ~4. Stagin4 and Storage:- Each of the work locations has sites for staging or storage areas, as well as one or more access roads. Some sites would require temporary construction easements {TCE} due to topography, or in order to access waten+vays that require flow diversion, or to avoid environmental impacts. 5. Utilities: Utilities are present at the sites, although those installations would not be disturbed during project activities. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 70 Site Saecific Design Features of the Build Alternative: The project would carry out the following site-specific work: Colusa County Location 9 5ait Creek State Route 20 Pastmile 20.29 This project site is Salt Creek Bridge {Caltrans Bridge Number 15-0022) on State Route (SR} 20, a conventional two-lane highway, crossing the ephemeral Salt Creek near the town of Williams in Colusa County. Work would install RSP over filter fabric. Before RSP has been installed, contour grading. would excavate enough- parent soil to result in the optimum streambed profile to maintain water conveyance. A tangle of vegetation would be removed from the northern, upstream portion of the work site. Utilities are present but would not require relocation. A staging area is available within the existing right of way, and access to the site may require a temporary construction easement in an adjacent parcel at the southeast quadrant of the site. Location 2 Salt Creek Interstate 5 Postmiie R7.99 Near the town of Arbuckle, Location 2 is the Salt Creek Bridge at 1-5 (Br. No 15-0005R} under the northbound lanes in a divided facility; there is no repair necessary under the southbound lanes toward Harrington. Work would be completed during summer months when the creekbed is dry. The southern embankment of Salt Creek under the bridge would receive concrete slope paving following removal of the existing broken PCC protection. The eroded area would be backfilled with compacted structural soils pursuant to Caltrans standards. Staging areas are within the existing right of way. Location 3 Lurline Creek interstate 5 Postmiie R22.39 Location 4 Lurline Creek interstate 5 Pastmile R22.32 At Locations 3 and ~ in unincorporated Colusa County, Lurline Creek flows easterly and crosses under two adjacent bridges on I-5, a divided facility with two lanes in .each direction. White the creek is naturally ephemeral, it may carry agricultural run-off requiring coordination to commence the work when the Creek is dry. -Location 3 involves the Left bridge (Br. No 15-0072L} far southbound traffic toward Williams, and Location 4 involves the right bridge (Br. No 15-0072R) far northbound traffic toward Willows. RSP would be placed along both banks of Lurline Creek under bout structures between the existing edges of right of way, as required. In one place along the north bank under Location 4, RSP would be used to support the base of a slope constructed using sack concrete that had been damaged. Staging is within the right of way. A temporary construction easement would be needed for access on bout the western and eastern sides of the project. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 11 Butte Countll f_ocation 5 Bi Chico Creek State Route 32 Postrnife 8.31 This bridge (Br. No 12-0043} crossing over Big Chico Creek is located on Nard Avenue near Bidwell Avenue within the City of Chico. RSP would be placed over fslter fabric at piers 2 and 3 located within the creekbed, to protect footings exposed by scour. Big Chico Creek flows westerly toward the Sacramento River, which discharges into the San Francisco Bay. Water flows year-round in Big Chico Creek and protected species offish migrate through the creek at different times of the year. As a result,. work windows would be used to avoid impacts to aquatic species, and a coffer dam or other form of water diversion would be used to maintain creek flow within the channel. Work would be performed on the pier within the de-watered side of the creek channel, and the process would be reversed so that work could be completed on the other bridge pier. Staging would be on paved areas adjacent to the work site, including temporary construction easements on surface streets and at an adjacent commercial site. Location 6 Clear Creek State Route 149 Postmile M3.9fi Near the town of Durham, Clear Creek flows in a northeasterly direction as it Grasses under SR 149, a divided. facility in this location, oriented north-south with. two lanes in each direction. The Creek is perennial, requiring a coffer dam or other water diversion to complete the work. Only the bridge under the northbound lanes (Br No. 12-0073R) requires repairs.. Most of the staging would be within existing right of way, with a temposry construction easement needed on the northern side of the work site. The entire site under the bridge would be regraded, and after lining the creekbed with fabric, the footings and abutments would be protected from bank to bank with RSP. Glenn' Coun 1^ocation 7 Hunter Creek State I'toute 1G2 Postmife 38.9 Hunter Creek flaws northeasterly at the project site, crossing diagonally under SR 162, a conventional #wo-iane highway between Alder Springs to the west, and Elk Creek to the east. The creek has a perennial flaw, requiring a coffer dam or other water diversion for work to be constructed. The structure is an arch culvert on the upstream side, matched to a box culvert at the downstream side, covered with non-bearing wingwalls on each side of the bridge (Br No. 11-0097). The facility has one lane in each direction, and staging requires a temporary construction easement on the northern side of the site. Scour has undermined the foil width of the slab footing supporting the combined structure. The repair would inject slurry concrete in the area under the slab that has been scoured out on the downstream side- Ta prevent future scour, RSP would be situated downstream aver fabric to slow water velocity. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 12 No-Build Alternative Environmental review must consider the effects of not implementing the proposed project. The no-build alternative provides a baseline for comparing the impacts associated with the build alternative. Since this project would correct scour and protect against future damage, the structural integrity of the bridges would continue to be undermined if left unattended. The useful lives of the structures would be shortened, and there may be closures of one or more of the subject bridges if large storm events weaken the structure to the point where it is no longer considered safe. It would be more expensive to repair each bridge as an individual project than to collectively repair them in a cohesive and timely fashion. Permits and Approvals Needed Table 1: The following permits, reviews, and approvals would be required for all project construction locations, unless otherwise noted: Agency PermitlApproval Status United Slates Fish and Wildlife Section 7 Consultation for Biological Assessment sent to USFWS Service (USFWS} Threatened and Endangered on April 20, 2412, seeking Noi Likely fo Species Adversely Affect Determination under (LOCATIONS 5 & b ONLY) Review and Comment on Section 7. USACE Section 404 Permit National Oceanic & Section 7' Gonsultatian for Biological Assessmeni sent is NOAA Atmospheric Administration 'Threatened and Endangered nn April 20, 2012, seeking Not Likely to (NOAA) Fisheries Species Adversely Affect Determination under Review and Cnmmen# nn Section 7. (LOCATIONS 5 & 6 ONLY USACE Section 404 Permit United Sta#es Army Corps of Section 404 Permit for filling or dredging Application for Section 404 permit Engineers (USACE} Waters of the United States. anticipated after final ED distribution. Fish & Game Code Section 1602 Application for 16D2 Agreements during Agreement for Streambed Alteration Design Phase. Califorr-ia Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Fish & Game Code Section 2080.1 Section 2484.7 Agreements Agreement for Threatened and coordination during Design Phase. Endangered Species (LOCATIONS 5 & 6 ONLY) (LOCATIONS 5 & 6 ONLY) Cafifomia Water Resources Water Discharge Permit Section 401 pem~its applica#ion during Board (Regional Water Quality Design Phase. Control Board) Central Valley Flood Protection Encroachment Permit Encroachment permi#s application Board (CVFPB} (LOCATION 5 ONLY) during Design Phase. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Pro~eet Page 73 Chapter 2 - A#fected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and Avoidance, Minimization, andlor Mitigation Measures This .Chapter explains the impacts that the project may have an~the human, physical, and natural environments in the project areas. It describes the existing environment that could be affected by the project, potential impacts, and proposed avoidance,. minimization and mitigation measures. Resources Without Impacts As part of the scoping and environmental analysis for the project, the following environmental issues were evaluated by technical specialists, but no adverse impacts were identified. Consequently, there is no further discussion regarding these issues in this document: Air Quality: This project is an action to repair bridge foundation scour; this type of work is exempt from alt emission analysis per Tifle 40 CFR Secfion 93.126, Table 2, based an the Air Quality technical study completed an April 24, 2042. AestheticslUsual Resources: There will. be no visual impacts from the proposed work based on a Visual Impact Analysis completed June 7, 2012. The Caltrans Office of Landscape Architecture would assist in the preparation of an erosion control plan to address revegetation of the creek channels and adjacent areas. Agricultural and 1sorest Resources: This project would not have any impacts on farmlands or timberlands as work will occur within. creek channels. Cultural Resources:. No cultural resources or human remains are anticipated to be affected by the project based on the Cultural Resources technical studies completed September 28, 2011. GeologylSoilslSeismiclTopagraphy: Impacts from geological hazards are not anticipated from the action considered in this proposed project. Grawth:.Due to the project scope, the proposed project would not result in growth impacts. Hazards and Hazardous Materials: An Initial Site Assessment was prepared for the project on September 20, 2011. Based on the rural locations of the project sites and the nature of the project work-scope, the potential for contamination from petroleum hydrocarbons or from lead-contaminated soil is not expected within the project study limits. Hydrology and Floodalains: There will be no impact to hydrology or floodplains because alt efforts will be made to ensure that the project does not cause any rise in water surface elevations under these seven bridges. There would be no additional threat of flooding from the work being undertaken by the project. Land Use 1 Planning: Since the project will not change any existing land use or zoning values, there are no land use or planning impacts anticipated from the project. Mineral Resources: The grading and excavation activities as part of the project activities are considered minimal, and would not have any anticipated impacts an mineral resources. Noise: There would be no noise impacts due to the nature of the project. Temporary noise impacts during construction would be addressed by requiring the contractor to be knowledgeable of, and adhere to, any local noise ordinance. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 14 Population 1 Housin4: There would be no impacts to communities from the proposed project, including population and housing. The project does not require relocations, nor would it affect any on-goingbusiness concerns or agricultural operations. Public Services: There would be no impacts to public services, including emergency services as a result of the proposed action. Recreation: There are no' recreational resources- that would be impacted by the project. Although SR 32 passes over Big Chico Creek and the western reaches of Bidwell Park at t_ocation 5, there are no recreational activities that would be impacted. Transportation 1 Traffic: There are na anticipated impacts to transportation or traffic as a result of the projec#. Utilities I Service Systems: Utilities exist at the site but would not be disturbed as part of the work proposed by the project. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 15 2,'~ Biological Environment 2.1,'1 Natural Communities Regulatory Setting This section of the document discusses natural communities of concern within the collective environmental study limits {ESL) for the project. The focus of this section is on biological communities, not individual species of plant ar animal. The emphasis of the section should be an the ecological function of the natural communities within the area. This section also includes information on wildlife corridors and fish passage, as well as habitat fragmentation. Wildlife corridors are areas of habitat used by wildlife for seasonal or daily migration. Habitat fragmentation involves the potential for dividing sensitive habitat and thereby lessening its biological value. Habitat areas that have been designated as.critical habitat under the Federal Endangered Species Act are discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species section, and includes a discussion of habitat for salmonids. in Big. Chico Creek. Aquatic habitat is also discussed in the section titled Wetlands and Other Wafers. Affected Environment According to the Natural Environmental Study {NES) dated May 2072 and- other communications prepared by a qualified Caltrans biologist, there are three natural communities that exist within the collective ESLs of ail the proposed sites. These natural communities are: riverine, riparian, and seasonal wetlands. Riverine typically includes ail open-water areas that occur within a defined channel of a stream as well as along perennial and intermittent stretches of streams and along some major dry washes. #n some cases, riverine systems are bounded by seasonal wetlands that develop in the floodplain on either side of the defined channel. Seasonal wetland areas take on the characteristics of a wetland only during specific periods of the year ar seasons, when they are inundated. The riverine system and the adjacent wetlands are often referred to collectively as riparian habitat. Riparian zones dissipate stream energy resulting in less soil erasion and a reduction in flood damage. The riparian zone also provides wildlife habitat, especially for birds; it provides corridors enabling aquatic and riparian animals to move along river systems without crossing roads ar other obstacles. These community-types exist at project locations as follows: Riverine: • Riverine community exists within the creek channel at ail locations. Riparian: At Location ~, Big Chico Creek has riparian habitat adjacent to the creekbed. Seasonal Wetlands: Seasonal wetlands actor within the stream margins at: • Hunter Creek (Location 7) • Clear Creek (Location 6) • Salt Creek {Location 7 ) Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 1fi Environmental Consequences f These community-types - riverine, riparian, and seasonal wetlands -are considered sensitive because, aside from inherent habitat values, they often support species of plants and animals that are fisted as endangered, threatened, or special status. The effects of the project on such listed species are discussed in the following sections. Based upon the Project Engineer's estimate, the project would result in a total, of approximately 7.6 acres of disturbed surface area (DSA) at the seven project locations. Since the DSA is greater than 1 acre, the project requires a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP} to meet water quality goals. That SWPPP would also serve to protect aquatic biological resources. At Big Chico Creek (Location 5) a couple of trees would be removed at the access paint on the western side of the bridge. Ail other upland or riparian vegetation to be removed would be shrubs or understory herbaceous plants. As a result of avoidance and minimization efforts, as well as site restoration via mitigation, there would be no net loss of riparian function. Avoidance, Minimization, andlor Mitigation Impacts to the riparian corridor at Big Chico Creek would be minimized by maintaining staging and storage on adjacent paved areas that have been previously disturbed. Erosion control will be applied to disturbed soil areas. Caltrans is required by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration [National Marine Fisheries Service) (NOAA Fisheries) to avoid impacting the fish species by following work windows and work restrictions, as discussed below, and NOAA Fisheries would also request that Caltrans avoid impacting the natural riparian habitat present at the site. The choice of plant species used to restate sites would replace non-native plants with native species. 2.1.2 Wetlands and Other Wa#ers Regulatory Setting Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the federal Ieve#, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly referred to as the Clean Water Act [CWA{33 USC 1344)] is the' primary law regulating- wetlands and surface waters. The CWA regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.), including wetlands. Waters of the U.S. include navigable waters, interstate waters, territorial seas and other waters that may be used in interstate or foreign commerce. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the CWA, athree-parameter approach is used that includes the presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils (soils formed during saturationlinundation). All three parameters must be present under normal circumstances for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland under the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that discharge of dredged or III material cannot be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation's waters would be significantly degraded. The Section 444 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers {USAGE) with oversight by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 17 USACE issues two types of 404 permits: Standard and General Permits. Nationwide _ _ _ _ _ permits, a type of General permit, are issued to authorize a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects. Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of the USACE's Standard permits. For Standard permits, the USACE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. EPA's Section 4Q4~b1(1}Guidelines (U.S. EPA 40 CFR Part 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404 {b}(1 }Guidelines were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.} only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (IEDPA} to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on waters a€ the U.S., and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (E.O. 11990) also regulates the activities of federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, this executive order states that a federal agency, such as the Federal Highway Administration {FHWA) andlor Caltrans, as assigned, cannot undertake or provide assistance far new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: 1 }.that there is no practicable alternative to the construction; and 2) the proposed project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm. At the state level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB} and the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB). In certain circumstances, the. California Coastal Commission (or Bay Conservation and Development Commission or Tahoe Regional Planning Agency) may also be involved. Sections 1600-1807 of the California Fish and Game Cade require any agency that proposes a project that will substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFG before beginning construction. If CDFG determines that the project may substantially and adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required. CDFG jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks, or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands under jurisdiction of the USACE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed Alteration Agreement obtained from the CDFG. The RWQCBs were established under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee water quality. The RWQC13 also issues water quality certifications for impacts to wetlands and waters in compliance with Section 401 of the CWA. Please see the Wafer Quality section far additional details. Affected Environment Location 1 Sait Creek Brid e Salt Creek is largely channeiized for agricultural use in this location. It does support large amounts of seasonal wetland and riparian vegetation adjacent to the project area though much of the vegetation consists of highly invasive arunda (Arundo danax) plants. It appears this creek has potential to convey water periodically throughout the year as a result of agricultural uses, including effluent from rice fields. Seven Bridges Seovr Repair Projeet Page 18 . , . , ~.. , ,., , , . _ Location 2 Salt Creek Brid e Salt Creek is an ephemeral stream that forms in the foothills west of the Sacramento Valley. It is a highly ephemera! stream, with a substrate at the stream bottom consisting almost entirely of sand. It would be genera#ly considered a wash because.it only conveys water during times of extreme rain events, and has very little vegetation ar natural cover for fish or wildlife. The land surrounding this creek is entirely agricultural. There is potential for burrowing mammals and reptiles to utilize the stream bank as well as potential for nesting birds upon the bridge structure. Location 3 & 4 Lurline Creek Bridge Lurline Creek is a highly ephemeral stream which flows from west to east toward the Sacramento River. Under the !-5 crossing, vegetation within the stream channe# is sparse, although thick stands of non-native arundo occur downstream from the bridge. This creek is natura#ly ephemeral but may contain water at different times of the year due to agricultural run-off. The substrate of the stream bottom consists almost entirety of sand. The land surrounding this creek is entirely agricultural. There is potential far burrowing mammals and reptiles to utilize the stream bank as well as potential for nesting birds upon the bridge structure. Location 5 Bice Chico Creek Big Chico Creek is a perennial stream which forms near the TehamalButte County line and conveys water from east to west through the foothills. Big Chico Creek Watershed crosses SR 32 within the City of Chico. The creek forms a confluence with the Sacramento River approximately $ miles west of Chico. The creek supports a riparian corridor with a dense overstory of sycamore and oak trees and an understory of Himalayan blackberry, blue elderberry and other shrubs. Populations of spring-run and fall-run Chinook salmon, as well as Central Valley steelhead, are supported within Big Chico Creek, as well as numerous species of native and non-native warm water fish. Due to the nesting habitat within the riparian corridor, the potential for migratory birds in the project area is high. Loca#ion 6 Clear Creek Bridge Clear Creek at SR 149 is a perennial stream which flows from northeast to southwest through Butte County. The land bordering the creek in the project area largely consists of grasslands and pasture used for livestock grazing. Southwest of the project area, Clear Creek farms a confluence with Dry Creek which becomes highly channelized and dissected as a result of mu#tiple diversions for agricultural purposes. It loses much of its natural configuration southwest of the' project area. Location 7_ Hunter Creek Bridge Hunter Creek is a perennia# stream that forms in the Coastal Mountain range west of the Sacramento Valley. Hunter Creek flows from west to east through grasslands and oak woodlands in Glenn County before entering the Sacramento Valley and merging with the Sacramento River. Seasonal wetlands occur downstream from the bridge, though these wetlands wil# not be impacted by any part of the proposed project. There are a large number of cuff swallow nests within the box culvert associated with this bridge. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 19 Environmental Consequences Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S., including riparian areas, were observed at all project locations. Consultation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) wil[ occur due to project impacts to Other Waters of the U.S. under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The installation of RSP andlor PCC within creek channels is considered fill by the USAGE, and the project would result in permanent impacts totaling 0.46 acres to Other Waters of the U.S. within the combined project sites. There will be no impacts to wetlands. Temporary impacts would be calculated during the Design Phase of the project during coordination with USAGE when more precise information is known, such as access. roads, staging areas, and o#her project requirements. Impacts to seasonal wetlands may be avoidable with the establishment o€ environmentally sensitive areas (ESA}, which would be reviewed and confirmed during the permit process with the USAGE. Table 2 below indicates the project impacts to Other Waters of the U,S., and the collective impacts far the entire project. Table 2: Permanent Impacts to Other Waters of the U.S. Lac 1: Soft Creek 0.06 acres ac Loc 2: Salt Creek 0.05 ac Loc 3&4: Lurline Creek 0.'19 ac Loc 5: Big Ghico Creek 0.05 ac Loc 6: Clear Creek 0.10 ac Loc 7: Hunters Creek 0.01 ac Project.Totaf Q:46 ac Consultation with the Regional Water Quality Control Board will occur due to project impacts to Waters of the State, under Section 40'1 of the Clean Water Act. The amount of impacts will also be calculated once design plans have been further developed. Caitrans will also consult with the CDFG under the Lake and Streambed Alteration Program, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Considering the ESLs at each bridge in the project, al! represent Waters afthe U.S., and Other Waters of~the U.S. Avoidance, Minimixation,,and Mi#igation Efforts To offset unavoidable impacts to Other Waters of the U.S., proposed mitigation may include one or more of the following: onsite creation of Other Waters of the U.S.; creation of onsite vegetated buffers; onsite and affsite restoration; revegetation and enhancemen#; and, if available, purchase of credits from an approved wetland mitigation bank. These potential mitigations are only examples, since mitigation to offset impacts to Other Waters of the U.S. would be subject to review and approval during on-going coordination with the USAGE and the CVRWQCB. The fallowing measures would be incorporated into the project to minimize impacts to wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S. during construction: • Work windows would be established to restrict construction in Other Waters of the U.S. to dry season or low-flow season based on the natural history of each creek. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 20 • Standard water quality Best Management Practices.(BMPs) would be implemented to minimize erosion control into waterbodies. ~ Following construction, if Qther Waters of the U.S. are temporarily impacted they would be restored to pre-construction conditions. 2."1.3 Threatened and Endangered Species Regulatory Setting The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal Endangered- Species Act (FESA): 16 USC Section 1531', et seq. See also 50 CFR Part 402. This act and subsequent amendments provide for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal-Highway Administration (FHWA), are required to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service {NOAA Fisheries) to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The outcome of consultation under Section 7 is a Biological Opinion or an incidental Take statement. Section 3 of FESA defines take as "harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct." California has enacted a similar taw at the state level, the California Endangered_Species Act (CESA), California Fish and Game Cade, Section 2050, efi seq. GESA emphasizes early consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and #hreatened species and to develop appropriate planning to offset losses of listed species populations and their essential habitats caused by the project. The California Department of Fish and Game (GDFG) is the agency responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2081 of the Fish and Game Code prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Cade as "hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; far these actions an incidental take permit is issued by CDFG. For species listed under both FESA and CESA requiring a Biological Opinion under Section 7 of the FESA, CDFG may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a Consistency Determination under Section 20$0.1 of the California Fish and Game Code. Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising: (A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March 10, 19$3; and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone over such anadromous species, Cantinentaf Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in special areas. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 21 Affected Environment Biological studies for the proposed- project included. a search of threatened andlar endangered species lists that cover the project work locations. The Natural Environment Study {NES) includes a listing. of species andlar critical habitat that could potentially occur in the project areas. As a result of field reviews and further research, the following threatened andlar endangered species have the potential to be affected by the proposed project: Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle, and Giant Garter Snake. Those same biological studies determined that there was no habitat within project limits for one listed plant species, Butte County meadowloam {BCM) (l.imnanthes floccosa ssp. Califomica); that habitat type, grasslands associated with vernal pool complexes, is not present within the project areas, and the pro}ect locations are not within the known range of. BCM. Salmonids Surveys for salmon and steelhead were not conducted as their presence is assumed at Big Chico Creek (Location 5}, a known migratory corridor far Central. Valley steelhead {Oncorhynchus mykiss, federally threatened) and Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha, federally threatened). Salmon can: be found returning to the creek in April, May and-June and then- spawning in September and October, while steelhead tend to enter the stream in the winter months. Adult steelhead- occur in Big Chico Creek during winter months. These fish likely migrate from the Racific Ocean through the Sacramento River and enter Big Chico Creek between December and March, during high flaw events. Spawning habitat does not occur in the project area though potential spawning areas occur upstream from SR 32 in the foothill region of eastern Butte County. Jwvenile steelhead migrate back to the Sacramento River prior to the summer dry season. Valle Elderber Lon horn Beetle VELB At Big Chico Creek, Location 5, and Clear Creek, Location 6, there is potential habitat for the valley elderberry longhorn beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). The valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB}, is listed as a federally threatened species, and is fully protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended {16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)_ It is not, however, aState-listed species.. VELB is completely dependent on its host plant, elderberry {Sambucus sp.), which is a common component of the remaining riparian forests and adjacent upland habitats of California's Central Valley. Over 90% of California's riparian forests have been cleared in the past century for agriculture, as well as urban and suburban development. Elderberry shrubs {Sambucus sp.), the sole host plant for the VELB, occurs in the project area though na shrubs will be directly impacted as a result of the project. Consultation would be required with the USFWS when elderberry plants with one ar mare stems measuring 1.D inch ar greater in diameter at ground level occur within 1QQ feet of the proposed project site, or are otherwise located where they may be adversely affected by the proposed action. Giant Garter Snake (GG5} Potential habitat for the state and federally threatened giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas) (GGS} have potential to occur at Salt Creek, Luriine Creek, and Clear Creek. These streams and the surrounding agricultural land may support GGS when water is present. GGS are highly dependent on aquatic habitat in summer months, but seek upland refuge to overwinter, generally between October 1 and March 1. Because of the seasonal- nature of these streams, aquatic habitat does not exist during the periods when work will be occurring. Work will occur in the summer months when water is not present and will be completed prior Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 22 to October 1, when GGS seek upland habitat for shelter. As such, there will be no impacts to GGS. The Big Chico Creek site is outside of the known range, and potential habitat present lacks necessary elemen#s to support GGS, mainly emergent vegetation or basking areas. Environmental Consequences Salmonids The project is not likely to adversely affect federally threatened Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus fshawyfscha}, or federally threatened Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) at Big Chico Creek (Location 5) with the use of work windows, and avoidance and minimization measures. Concurrence with this determination has been requested from NOAH Fisheries as part of-the endangered species consultation process. VELB Project construction could result in indirect impacts to VELB as a result of construction work adjacent to elderberry shrubs located withinladjacent to project work areas at Big Chico Creek (Location 5}and Clear Creek (Location 6). Consultation with the UFSWS would be necessary prior to construction. GGS A survey of ail project sites determined that no aquatic habitat occurs at either site capable of supporting GGS throughout the year. This would be confirmed during ongoing consultation with USFWS and DFG. Due to the potential for surrounding agricultural land use to influence the aquatic regime at various tunes during the year, and thereby provide potential GGS aquatic habitat, particular emphasis was placed on that review at Salt Creek (Locations 1 and 2} and Lurline Greek (Locations 3 and 4). Due to the lack of seasonal or fresh emergent vegetation and because of the ephemeral status of these streams, their potential to support GGS for the duration of the summer is limited. These creeks only have water present in winter months when GGS are not active. Rice fields, which could support GGS, are not present within the project area. These creeks may serve as migration corridors for GGS when water is present though these creeks are dry during the summer and therefore only serve as marginal habitat. Avoidance, Minimization, andlor Mitigation Salmonids It is expected that consultation with NOAA Fisheries will result in a requirement to avoid impacting the fish species by following work windows and work restrictions. Work windows are periods with specific dates for each affected species where work activities would result in the least amount of project-related effects. Activities conducted in the active channel of the creek would be limited to between August 15 and October 15. Erosion control would be applied to disturbed soil areas prior to October 15. It is likely that NOAA Fisheries will require Caltrans to avoid impacting the natural riparian habitat as much as possible. Best Management Practices used by Caltrans to protect water quality would also serve to protect listed saimonids. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 23 VEI_B Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderbeny I_onghom Beetle (July 9, 1999) would be followed. in order to avoid or minimize indirect impacts to VELB. Caltrans would continue consultation with USFWS and, prior to construction, wilt implement protection measures that may inc#ude: • Temporary construction fencing and flagging installed at least 100 feet outside the edge of the driplines of the elderberry plants. to areas where encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by USFWS, providing a minimum setback of at least 20 feet from the driptine of each elderberry plant and providing documentation of. USFWS approval of the reduced setback. • Briefing contractors on the need to avoid damaging the elderberry plants and the passible penalties for not complying with these requirements. • Erecting of signs every 50 feet along-the edge of the avoidance area with the fallowing inforrrmatian: "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 should be clearly readable from a distance of 20 feet and must be maintained for the duration of construction. • instructing work crews about the status of the beetle and the need to protect its elderberry host plant. GGS Work within Big Chico Creek, as well as within Clear Creek, would require water diversion to access the work area, but this work would occur only during the summer months to take advantage of low water #evels, as required by consultation with DFG, the USFWS and the NOAA Fisheries. That step, initiated to limit any potential fisheries, impacts, would also serve to reduce direct impacts to GGS since there is only an extremely small potential #or these creeks to support GGS during low flow summer conditions. All work areas would be surveyed by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities and.construction personnel would be informed of conservation requirements to insure that there would be na direct impacts to GGS. 2.7.4 Plant Species Regulatory Setting The U.S. Fish and Vlllldlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG} have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species. "Special-status" species are selected for protection because they are rare andlor sub;ect to population and habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that. are afforded varying levels of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and endangered species; these are species that are formally Fisted or proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA} andlor the California Endangered Species Act- (CESA}. Please see the Threatened and Endangered Species Section 2.1.3 in this document for detailed information regarding these species. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 24 This section of the document discusses all the atherspeclal-status plant species, including CDFG species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and California Native Plant Society (GNPs} rare and endangered plants. The regulatory requirements for the FESA can be found at United States Code 1fi (USG), Section 1531, et seq. See also 50 CFR Part 402. The regulatory requirements for the CESA can be found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 205fl, et seq. Department projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found~at California Fish and Game Code, Section 1900-1913, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code, Sections 2100-21177. Affected Environment An evaluation of the habitat present at each work location by a qualified biologist concluded that the potential far special status or sensitive plant species to occur was extremely small. Environmental Consequences Areas being impacted by the proposed projects consist mostly of disturbed roadside areas which support large amounts of non-native or ruderal vegetation, including invasive species such as star thistle, arunda, and certain grasses. Small populations of seasonal wetland vegetation occur within the stream margins at Locations 1, fi and 7, although these would be protected by establishment of Environmentally Sensitive Areas, and therefore not impacted. Big Chico Creek (Location 5} supports a riparian corridor within the project area; however, much of that area has also been heavily impacted by the influence of rzan-native vegetation. Developed during coordination with resource and permitting agencies, the project wil[ implement measures to restore impacted areas with native plants beneficial to the stream and-its riparian area, and especially suited for conditions at specific project locations. The sources to develop that list of native plants would be the USFWS online species fist database, the CDFG California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and the California Native Plant Survey (GNPs) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants. Avoidance, Minimiza#ion, andlor Mitiga#ion Efforts It is not anticipated that the project would result in impacts on sensitive plant species. 2.1.5 Anima! Species Regulatory Setting Many state and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS}, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's National Marine Fisheries Service (NQAA Fisheries) and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG} are responsible far implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit requirements associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under the state or federal Endangered Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered are discussed in Section 2.1.3. All other special-status animal species are discussed here, including CDFG fully protected species and species of special concern, and USFWS or NOAA Fisheries candidate species. Semen Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 25 Federal laws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following: • National Environmental Policy Act. • Migratory Bird Treaty Act • Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act State Saws and regulations pertaining to wildlife include the following: • California Environmental Quality Act • Sections 7600-1603 of the Fish and Game Code • Section 4150 and 415 of the Fish and Game Code Affected Environment Common Wildlife In addition to special status species discussed in this document, there is potential for-more common mammals, reptiles and amphibians to occur within the project area at all seven locations. These animals, which may not have any special protection under federal or state endangered species acts, are nonetheless protected by statute under the California Fish and Game Code. These animals are commonly found and have broad ranges, exploiting differing types of ecological conditions. Mammals would include deer, coyotes, raccoon, bats, and rodents such as ground squirrels, moles, shrews, gophers, and voles. Less commonly observed, but with ranges within project limits,-would be larger mammals such as bears or pumas. There would be insects, amphibians such as frogs, and reptiles including snakes and lizards. Some animals seek seasonal protection by aestivating or hibernating in win#er, while others burrow underground in the summer. Avian species might vary between turkey, anon-migratory species, to migratory species such as yellow warblers, black-headed grosbeak, flycatchers, warbling vireo, and Bullock's oriole. Migratory birds range in size from hummingbirds to cranes, and include birds of prey. As migratory species stop over on long migrations, some birds are present only during one season, while other species have a longer presence. Migratory birds are protected by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and may nest in vegetation within or adjacent to project work areas. Environmental Consequences The project is not expected to result in impacts to common animal species, as most would leave the work areas when construction activities begin. Avoidance andlor minimization measures would be included to address potential impacts to birds andlor bats that might be found within the work locations. .~~,~ Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 26 Avoidance, Minimization, andlor. Mitigation Measures In order to avoid impacts to nesting migratory birds, any vegetation required to be cleared would be removed outside of the nesting season. If that is not feasible, apre-construction survey for active bird nests would be conducted by a qualified biologist. If an active bird nest is found, construction would not begin at that site until after the chicks have fledged. There was no evidence of bat roosts at the bridges; this would be confirmed during pre- construction surveys. If needed, ESAs andior other protective measures would be evaluated to protect an active roost. 2.1.fi Invasive Species Regulatory Setting On February 3, 1999, President Clinton signed Executive Order 13112 requiring federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States {U.S.). The order defines invasive species as "any species, including its seeds, eggs, spares, or other biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health." Guidance issued August 10, 1999 by the Federal Highway Administration directs the use of the State's invasive species list currently maintained by the Califomi_a_ Invasive Species Council to define the invasive species that must be considered as part of the analysis for a proposed project. Affected Environment In the NES dated May 2012, there were noted infestations or large stands a# existing invasive species within the project work areas, including arunda {Arundo danax) in aquatic habitat and star thistle (Centaurea solstitialis) in upland areas. Disturbed sails are the perfect medium for the establishment of noxious weeds. The clearing, grading, and soil moving operations associated with roadway construction provide an opportunity for noxious weeds to become established. The proposed revegetation measures for all disturbed soils, including the use of native species, soil amendments, and "weed free" mulch, reduces the risk of introducing noxious weeds. The contract specifications for permanent erosion control would require the use of California native shrubs and grass species, from the same elevation and geographic area as the project site. All areas disturbed by construction would be treated with a seed mix comprised of local native grasses and shrubs. Soils would be amended with compost containing long-term soil nutrients and slaw-release organic fertilizers to provide nutrients over the first year. Mulches used on the project would be from source materials that would not introduce exotic species. No wheat or barley straw would be used on the project because of the potential to introduce weeds. Environmental Consequences The NES noted that disturbed soils are the ideal medium for establishment of weedy exotic plants, and if not addressed, the project activities have the potential to promote the spread of invasive species. The clearing, grading, and soil moving operations associated with roadway construction provide an opportunity for noxious weeds to become established. Since invasive species would not be used in any landscaping needed for the project, project activities also have the opportunity to inhibit weedy species. None of the species on the Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project page 27 Califorrmia list of invasive species is currently used by Caltrans for erosion control or landscaping, and all equipment and materials would be inspected for the presence of invasive species. Avoidance, Minimization, andlor Mitigation Measures Landscaping and erosion control inc#uded in the project would not use species listed as invasive. In areas of particular sensitivity, extra precautions would be taken if invasive species are found in or adjacent to the construction areas. These include the inspection and cleaning of construction equipment and eradication strategies to be implemented should an invasion occur. The proposed revegetation measures for all disturbed soils, including the use of native species, soil amendments, and 'weed free" mulch, reduces the risk of introducing noxious weeds. The contract specifications for pem~anent erosion control would require the use of California native shrubs and grass species, from the same elevation and- geographic area as the- project site. All areas disturbed by construction would be treated with a seed mix comprised of local native grasses and shrubs. Soils would be amended with compost containing long-term soil nutrients and slow-release organic fertifzers to provide nutrients over the first year. Mulches used on the project would be from source materials that would not introduce exotic species. No wheat or barley straw would be used on the project because of the potential to introduce weeds. 2:4.7 Cumulative Biological Impacts There are no cumulative biological impacts expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. Salmonids Cumulative biological impacts to salmonids are not expected to occur as a result of the proposed project. The primary concern would be at Big Chico Creek (Location 5) since it has presence of listed anadromous fish species with associated ecological requirements:- a riverine habitat with perennial flow and connectivity to the ocean, a mature riparian zone including a canopy layer of sycamores, willows, and valley oaks, and the soils of the creek bank secured by an understory with blackberry. and elderberry bushes, and an herbaceous layer of grasses and fortes. The work site at Big Chico Creek, and areas both upstream and down, have experienced disturbance by means of previous alteration and an-going public use over a period of many years. Project construction would not substantively contribute to permanent cumulative impacts on biological resources within or immediately adjacent to the project area- because scour repair and the protection installed serve to reduce sedimentation rates. Additionally, the avoidance and minimization efforts would address temporary impacts since construction would commence ~vuith a water diversion plan at times when slow-flow condition existed at the creek and migratory species are not present. Other Waters of the U.S. Immediately to the west of the Big Chico Creek work site, the Butte County l]epartment of Development Services sponsored in 2008 the Biduvell Reach Resforafion Projecf (Bidwell Reach). That undertaking began at the SR 32 Bridge to approximately one-third of a mile downstream to the west. The purpose of that project was to create a viable floodplain and Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 28 restore native vegetation in order to: (9 }arrest further bank erosion, and streambed incision, improve riparian habitat and discourage human intrusion; (2) improve habitat for anadromous fish, including federally-threatened spring-run Chinook salmon; and (3) provide potential habitat for the federally-threatened VELB by protecting the indigenous elderberry shrub, its host plant. The avoidance, minimization, and mitigation actions taken by the Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project would-avoid impacts to the Bidwell Reach Restoration Project (Bidwell Reach) work to the extent possible, and would make upstream improvements that would also reduce erosion, and therefore lessen sedimentation rates that affect salmonids. Any loss of vegetation installed by Bidwell Reach would be addressed through replacement planting to achieve pre-construction conditions or better. Preparation for this scour repair project included coordination with representatives from Butte County, the City of Chico and consulting staff associated with Bidwell Reach so that the combined work would be environmentally compatible. The anticipated mitigation to offset impacts to Other Waters of the U.S., including onsite restoration, revegetation and enhancemen#, andlor the purchase of credits at an approved mitigation bank, would offset the impacts so that there is no net loss and no contribution to cumulative impacts. VELB The greatest threats to the persistence of VELB are habitat loss and fragmentation, flood management, pesticide and herbicide use, and exotic species invasion. Urban and agricultural development, aggregate mining, and flood control practices (e.g., damming and channel maintenance} have damaged or eliminated a large percentage of the upland riparian forests that once occurred in California, reducing and fragmenting the available habitat for VELB. The project would not result in cumulative impacts to VELB, since its host plant would be protected with ESAs where found within project limits. GGS Project impacts are anticipated to be minor and temporary, with no direct or cumulative impacts to GGS or its habitat. Potential habitat for GGS at Salt Creek, Lurline Creek, and Clear Creek would not be sufficient for this species year-round due to the seasonal nature of these streams, and aquatic habitat does not exist during the periods when work will be occurring. The project would not affect that ecological system, or the influence of the surrounding agricultural land, and would not impact potential habitat during other seasons. Big Chico Creek is outside of their known range and habitat within the project area lacks necessary elements, mainly emergent vegetation or basking sites. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 29 2.2 WATER QUAL}TY AND STORM. WATER RUNOFF Regulatory Setting Federal Requirements: Clean Water Act In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any paint source unlawful unless the discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES} permit. Known today as the Clean Water Act {CWA), Congress has amended it several times. In the '1987 amendments, Congress directed dischargers of storm water from municipal and industriallconstruction point sources to comply with the NPDES permit scheme. Important CWA sections are: • Sections.303 and 304 require states to promulgate water quality standards, criteria, and guidelines. • Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the State that the discharge will comply with other provisions of the act. (Most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404- permit request. See below.) • Section 402 establishes the NPDES; a permitting system for the discharges (except for dredge or fill material) o€ any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB} administer this pem3itting.program in California. Section 402(p) requires permits for discharges of storm water from industriaVconstructian and municipal separate storm sewer systems (MS4s). • Section 404 establishes a permi# program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the U.S_ This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE}. The objective of the CWA is "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." USAGE issues two types of 404 permits: Standard and General permits. There are two types of General permits, Regional permits and Nationwide permits. Regional permits are issued for a general category of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide permits are issued to authorize a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal effects. There are two types of Standard permits: Individual permits and Letters of Permission. Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Nationwide Permit may be permitted under one of USACE's Standard permits. Far Standard permits, the USAGE decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. EPA's Section 404 {b}{1) Guidelines (U.S. EPA CFR 40 Part 234), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with USAGE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (Waters af`the U.S.} only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that USAGE may not issue a permit i# there is a least environmentally damaging practicable alternative (LEDPA), to the proposed discharge that would have Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 30 lesser effects on waters of the U.S., and not have any other sign~carit adverse environmental consequences. Per the Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict permitting activities that violate water quality.or toxic effluent standards, jeopardize the continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause "significant degradation" to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject to the Section 404(b)(1 }Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Weffands and Ofher Waters section. S#a#e Requirements: Porter-Cologne Wa#er Quality Control Act California's Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1569, provides the legal basis for water quality regulation within California. This Act requires a "Report of Waste Discharge" for any discharge of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for surface andlor groundwater of the State. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to waters of the State. Waters of the State include more than just Waters of the U.S., like. groundwater and surface waters. not considered Waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits discharges of waste" as defined and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of °pollutant". Discharges. under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or exempt under the CWA. The State Water Resources ControF Board (SWRCB} and RWQCBs are responsible for establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA, and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Details regarding water quality standards in a project area are contained in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. States designate beneficial uses for akl water body segments, and then set criteria necessary to protect these uses. Consequently, the water quality standards developed far particular water segments are based on the designated use and vary depending on such use. In addition, each state identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific pollutants, which are then state-listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(4}. If a state determines that waters are impaired for one ar more constituents and the standards cannot be met through point source controls, the CWA requires the establishmen# of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non-point, and natural) for a given watershed. State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards The SWRCB administers wafer rights, water pollution control, and water quality functions throughout the state. RWCQBs are responsible for protecting benefrcial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility. • National Pollution Discharge Elimina#ion System (NPDES) Program Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of storm water dischargers, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s): The U.S_ EPA defines an MS4 as any conveyance or system of Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 39 conveyances {roads with drainage systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels, and storm drains) owned or operated by a s#ate, city, town, county, or other public body having jurisdiction over storm water, that are designed or used for collecting or conveying storm water. The. SWRCB has identified Caltrans as an ownerloperator of an MS4. That permit covers all Caltrans rights-of--way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB ar the RWQCB issues NPD.ES permits for. five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has been adopted. Caltrans' MS4 Permit, under revision at the time of the release of this document, contains three basic requirements: 1. Caltrans must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit (see below); 2. Caltrans must implement ayear-round program in all parts of the State to effectively control storm water and non-storm water discharges; and 3. Caltrans storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through implementation of permanent and temporary (consfruction} Best Management Practices (BMPs) and other measures. To comply with the p.em~it, Caltrans developed the Statewide Storm Water Management Plan {SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway planning, design, Construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The SWMP assigns responsibilities within Caltrans for implementing storm water management procedures and practices as well as training, public education and participation, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The SWMP describes the minimum procedures and practices Caltrans uses to reduce pollutants in storm water and non-storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the selection and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The proposed Project will be programmed to follow the guidelines and procedures outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff. Part of and appended to the SWMP is the Storm Water Data Report {SWDR} and its associated checklists. The SWDR documents the relevant storm water design decisions made regarding project compliance with the MS4 NPDES permit. The preliminary information in the SWDR prepared during the Project Initiation Document (PID} phase will be reviewed, updated, confirmed, and if required, revised in the SWDR prepared for the later phases of the project. The information contained in the SWDR may be used to make more informed- decisions regarding the selection of BMPs andlor recommended avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures to address water quality impacts. Construction General Permit Construction General Permit (Order No. 2009-009-DWQ}, adopted on September 2, 2009, became effective on .lufy 1, 2010. The permit regulates storm water discharges from construction sites which result in a Disturbed -Soil Area (DSA) of one acre or greater, andlor are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of Severs Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 32 development. By law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading, and excavation results in sail disturbance of at Least one acre must comply with the provisions of ftie General Construction Permit. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less than one acre is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB, Operators of regulated, construction sites are required to develop storm water pollution prevention plans; to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention cantroi measures; and to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The 2009 Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels are determined during the planning and design phases, and are based on potential erosion and transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after construction aquatic biological assessments during specified seasonal windows. For all projects subject to the permit, applicants are required to develop and implement an effective Storm Water Pollution Prevention. Plan (SWPPP). In accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications, a-Water Pollution Control Plan (WPCP} is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre. Affected Environment 1. The project lies within the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) territory. a. Location 1 & Location 2: The Hydrological Area is Glenn Coiusa and the Hydrologic Sub-Area is Cotusa Trough {No. 520.21). The nearest receiving water body (to proposed construction operations) is Salt Creek. Salt Creek originates at an elevation of 2,000 feet southwest of the city of Williams near the Cortina Ridge. Eventually it makes it way down to the Cotusa Trough and down to a drainage canal that leads to the Sacramento River next to Knights Landing. Sait Creek is not listed as a 303{d) listed water body. b. Location 3 & Location 4: The Hydrological Area is Glenn Cotusa and the Hydrologic Sub-Area is Cotusa Trough (No. 52(3.21). The nearest receiving water body (to proposed construction operations) is Lurline Creek. Lurline Creek .originates at an elevation of 700 feet just northwest of Antelope Valley. It meanders through the Cotusa Basin and to the Cotusa Trough, and drains to a drainage canal that leads to the Sacramento River next to the community of Knights Landing. Lurline Creek is not listed as a 303(d) listed water body. c. Location 5: The Hydrological Area is Butte Basin and the Hydrologic Sub-Area is Cotusa Basin (No. 520.40). The nearest receiving water body (to proposed construction operations) is Big Chico Creek. Big Chico Creek originates at an elevation of 5,000 feet northeast of the city of Chico near Butte Meadows and Colby Mountain. Eventually it makes it way down to the Sacramento River through Chico. The Creek is listed as an impaired waterbody on the 303{d) list for the following: Mercury from Resource Extraction, with an estimated TMDL completion date of 2021. Mercury is not listed as one of Caltrans' Targeted Design Constituents within Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 33 the Project Planning and Design Guide (PPDG}. As a result, there are na requirements for any Caltrans-approved Treatment BMP's for the Targeted Design Constituents. d. Location 6: The Hydrological Area is Butte Basin and the Hydrologic Sub-Area is Calusa Basin (No. 520.40). The nearest receiving water body (to proposed construction operations) is Clear Creek. Clear Creek originates at an. elevation of 1,800 feet in the city of Paradise and eventually merges with Dry Creek, which eventually flows to the Butte Sink Wildlife Management Area. This is an 18,000 acre wildlife conservation area, owned by the U.S. Fish and' Wildlife Service. Clear Creek is not listed as a 303{d) Listed water body. e. Location 7: The Hydrological Area is Western Glenn and the Hydrologic Sub-Area is Grindstone Creek (Na. 522.23). The nearest receiving. water body (ta proposed construction operations) is Hunter Creek. Hunter Creek is not fisted as a 303(4) impaired water body. 2. Receiving water risk is ~{in part} based on whether a project drains to a sediment sensitive water body. Asediment-sensitive water body is either listed on the CWA 303(d) List for sedimentation, has a USEPA-approved Total Maximum Daily Load Implementation Plan for sediment, or has existing beneficial uses of COLD, SPAWN, and MIGRATORY. Location 5, Big Chico Creek, is the only Location that fits one or more of these categories. The beneficial use for Big Chico-Creek is Gold Freshwater Habitat, Commercial and Recreational collection of fish, shellfish, or organisms and is used as migration for salmon and central valley steelhead. Big Chico Creek also has two TMDL listed for Diazinon and Mercury by the State Water Resource Control Board. Therefore, Location 5, Big Chico Creek, may be considered to have a "high" receiving water risk. The rest o€ the locations do not fit under any of the sediment-sensitive categories. Therefore, Locations 1-4 & fi-7 may be considered to have a "low" receiving water risk. 3. The Caltrans 2009 Construction General Permit Information website indicates that Location 5, Big Chico Creek, lies within an area that is regulated by a separate urban Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase II permit. The City of Chico Storm Water Management Program was submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Cantroi Board (Central Valley Region} and has been approved. The permit can be found in the following link: http:flwww.waterboards.ca.govlwater issuesfpragramslstormwaterlswmplchico_swmp.pdf The Caltrans 2009 Construction Genera! Permit Information website indicates that the rest of the Locations for the proposed project area are not within the limits of any urban Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) Phase I or Phase l! permit. 4. There does not appear to be °Drinking Water Reservoirs and Recharge Facilities" where spills from the Caltrans' owned right of way, activities, or facilities could discharge directly to municipal or domestic water supply reservoirs or ground water percolation facilities (Caltrans 5tarmwater Management Plan, D03 Work Plan, 2011-2012). Seven Bridges Scour Repair Projec[ Page 34 Environmental Conseciuences No permanent water qualify impacts are expected as a resulfi of the project. The primary pollutant of concern is sediment and siltation from the disturbed areas of construction and the permanent disposal site. Temporary Construction Site BMPs would. protect water bodies within or near the project limits from potentia[ water pollution runoff as a result of construction activities. To address potential temporary water quality impacts, the contractor will implement Temporary Construction Site BMPs, identified in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP), or included as line item BMPs. Based on the preliminary conclusion that the receiving water risk for this project area is "high" at Location 5, it appears that permanent treatment BMPs may be considered; this conclusion is subject to change, pending further analysis by Caltrans Stormwater staff, which includes a final receiving water risk level determination andlor project specific Stormwater quality recommendations. Disturbe_d_Soil Area {DSA~ The expected construction activities, based on the project description, would disturb approximately 1.66 acres of sail, including staging areas and access roads_ Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation The land immediately adjacent to streams is key to protecting water quality. Repairing and protecting the sites would assist the surrounding area withstand erosive farces and prevent substantial amounts of sediment from being transported to downstream waters. The project would comply with Caltrans Statewide NPDES Permit CAS No. 000003 {Order No. 99-06- DWQ) issued by the State Water_ Resource Control Board. Construction site BMPs would be selected to protect Big Chico Creek, Salt Creek, Lurline Creek, Hunter Creek and Clear Creek from potential pollution from construction activities. Since the Total Disturbed Surface Area is expected to be approximately 1.6 acres in #otal for the seven bridges, a Caltrans- appraved Stormwater Pollution Prevention Pian {SWPPP) would be required pursuant to the requirements of NPDES Construction General Permit CAS No. 000002 {Order No. 2009- 0009-DWQ} #or General Construction Activities. If dewatering a site is necessary, asite- specific dewatering plan would be required. The Caitrans NPDES office will participate in early project design consultation with the Central Valley RWQCB since the project would result in greater than one acre of total soil disturbance. In addition, the Caltrans Office of Landscape Architecture, in conjunction with water quality engineers, require use of erosion control minimization measures to address ground disturbance from vegetation removal and construction and Use of access roads, as wel! as issues with ground disturbance at equipment staging areas. Project impacts wou}d be reduced or eliminated by implementing the following measures: • If any areas are disturbed or used far staging of vehicles and equipment, erasion control measures will need to be applied. This can best be accomplished by re- cantauring the landscape and applying ahydro-seed (consisting of native seed). This will help to restate the area to its natural condition upon completion of the project. • Access roads and areas of vegetation removal will require restoration through the use of erosion control andlor other soil stabilization methods necessary. • Plans during the Design Phase of the project would provide an allowance far the application of BMPs and permanent erosion control and soil stabilization applications to be provided by the Landscape Architecture division. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 35 Treatment Best Management Practices {BMPs} incorporating.treatment BMPs as part of the project design would be determined by Caitrans Office of Environmental Engineering. The State Water Resource Board has increasingly focused on implementing bow Impact Development (bID) measures to manage storm water. bl© aims to maintain- or restore the. natural hydrologic site functions by detaining water onsite, filtering out pollutants, and facilitating infiltration of storm water. Temporary Construction BMPs The project would be constructed with all the necessary erosion and water quality control measures to minimize the potential for sedimentation through the use of construction BMPs identified in Caltrans Wafer Qualify~Handbook and Construction Site BMPs Manual. The Caltrans-approved construction BMPs applicable to this project include measures for temporary sediment control. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 36 2.3 CLIMATE CHANGE Climate changeYefers to tong-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and other elements of the earth's climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research attributes these climatological changes to greenhouse gases {GHGs}, particularly those generated from the production and use of fossil fuels. While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change {IPCC} by the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization's in 1988, has led to increased efforts devoted to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with the emissions of GHGs related to human activity that include carbon dioxide {CO2}, methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoraethane, sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23 {fluoraform}, HFC-134a (s, s, s, 2 -tetrafluoroethane), and HFC-152a (difluoroethane). There are typically two terms used when discussing the impacts of climate change. "Greenhouse Gas {GHG) Mitigation" is a term for reducing GHG emissions in order to reduce ar "mitigate" the impacts of climate change. "Adaptation," refers to the effort of planning for and adapting to impacts due to climate. change (such as adjusting transportation design standards to withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels}'. Transportation sources (passenger cars, light duty trucks, other trucks, buses and motorcycles) in the state of California make up the largest source (second to electricity generation) of greenhouse gas emitting sources. Conversely, the main source of GHG emissions in the United States (U.S.) is electricity generation followed by transportation. The dominant-GHG emitted is CO2, mostly from fossil fuel combustion. There are four primary strategies #or reducing GHG emissions from transportation sources: 1) improve system and operation efficiencies, 2) reduce growth of vehicle miles traveled (VMT} 3) transition to lower GHG fuels and 4) improve vehicle technologies. Ta be mast effective all four should be pursued collectively. The following regulatory setting section outlines state and federal efforts to comprehensively reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources. Regulatory Setting 5fafe With the passage of several pieces of legislation including S#ate Senate and Assembly Bills and Executive Orders, California launched an innovative and pro-active approach to dealing with greenhouse gas emissions and climate change at the state level. Assembly Bill 1493 {AB 1493), Pavley. Vehicular Emissions: Greenhouse Gases {AB 1493, 2002: requires the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck greenhouse gas emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and Eight trucks beginning with the 2009-model year. In June 2009, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) Administrator granted a Clean Air Act waiver of preemption to California. This waiver ~ htt :Ilciimatechan e.trans ortation_or 1 h miti ationl Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 37 allowed California to implement its own GHG emission standards for motor vehicles beginning with model year 2009. California agencies will be working with Federal agencies to conduct joint rulemaking to reduce GHG emissions for passenger cars model years 2017- 2025. Executive Order S-3-05: (signed on June 1, 2005, by Governor Amald Schwarzenegger) the goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California's GHG emissions to: 1} 2000 levels by 2010, 2} 1990 levels by the 2020 and 3) 80 percent below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32. AB32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act. of 2006: ABA 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals as outlined in Executive Order S-3-05, while further mandating that CARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost effective reductions of greenhouse gases." Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the State's Climate Action Team. Executive Order S-01-07: Governor Schwarzenegger set forth the low carbon fuel standard for California. Under this Executive Order, the carbon intensity of California's transportation fuels is to be reduced by. at least ten percent by 2020. Senate Bill 97 {Chapter_ 1 S5, 2007): required the Governor's Office of Planning. and Research (OPR) to develop recommended amendments to the State GEQA Guidelines for addressing greenhouse gas emissions. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 20.10_ Federal Although climate change and GHG reduction is a concern at the federal level; currently there are, no regulations or legislation that have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and climate change at the project level. Neither the United States Environmental Protection Agency {U.S. EPA} nor Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has promulgated explicit guidance or methodology to conduct project-level greenhouse gas analysis. As stated on FHWA's climate change website (http:Ilwww.fhwa.dot.gav/heplclima#elindex.htm), climate change considerations should be integrated throughout the transportation decision-making process from planning through project development and delivery. Addressing climate change mitigation and adaptation up front in the planning process will facilitate decision-making and improve efficiency at the program level, and will inform the analysis and stewardship needs of pro}'ect level decision- making. Climate change considerations can easily be integrated into many planning factors, such as supporting economic vitality and global efficiency, increasing safety and mobility, enhancing the environment, promoting energy conservation, and improving the quality of 1 ife. The four strategies set forth by FHWA to lessen climate change impacts do correlate with efforts that the State has undertaken and is undertaking to deal with transportation and climate change; the strategies include improved transportation system efficiency, cleaner fuels, cleaner vehicles, and reduction in the growth of vehicle hours travelled. Climate change and its associated effects are also being addressed through various efforts at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy efficiency, such as the "National Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 38 Clean Car Program" and Executive Order 13514- Federal Leadership in Environmental, . Energy and Economic Performance. Executive Order 13514 is focused on reducing greenhouse gases internally in federal agency missions, programs and operations, but also direct federal agencies to participate in the interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, which is engaged in developing a U.S_ strategy for adaptation to climate change. On April 2, zaa7, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 {2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases are air pollutants covered by the Clean Air Act and that the U.S. EPA has the authority to regulate GHG. The Court held that the U.S. EPA Administrator must determine whether or not emissions of greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. On December 7, 2009, the U.S. EPA Administrator signed two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act: Endangerment Finding: The Administrator found that the current and projected concentrations of the six key well-mixed greenhouse gases--carbon dioxide {C02), methane {CH4), nitrous oxide (N20), hydrofluorocarbons {HFCs), pert1uorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6)--in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. • Cause or Contribute Finding: The Administrator found that the combined emissions of these well-mixed greenhouse gases from new motor vehicles and new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse gas pollution which threatens public health and welfare. Although these findings did not themselves impose any requirements on industry or other entities, this action was a prerequisite to finalizing the U.S. EPA's Proposed Greenhouse Gas Emission Standards for Light Duty Vehicles, which was published on September 15, 20092. On May 7, 2010 the final Light-Duty Vehicle Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards and Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards was published in the Federal Register. U.S. EPA and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) are taking coordinated steps to enable the production of a new generation of dean vehicles with reduced GHG emissions and improved fuel efficiency from on-road vehicles and engines. These next steps include developing the first-ever GHG re ulations far heav -dut en fines and vehicles, as well as additional light-duty vehicle GHG regulations. These steps were outlined by President Obama in a memorandum on May 21, 2010.3 The final combined U.S. EPA and NHTSA standards that make up the first phase of this national program apply to passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles, covering model years 2012 through 2016. The standards require these vehicles to meet an estimated combined average emissions level of 250 grams of carbon dioxide per mile, equivalent to 35.5 miles per gallon (MPG) if the automobile industry were to meet this carbon dioxide level solely through fuel economy improvements. Together, these standards 2 http;Ilwww.epa.govlciimatechancelendangerment.html s httpal_epa.govlotaglclimatelreAUlations.htm ~~~~~,.. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 39 will cut GHG emissions by an estimated 960 million metric tons and 1.8 billion barrels of ail over the lifetime of the vehicles sold under the program (model years 21x12-2016). On January 24, 2011, the U.S. EPA along with the U.S. Department of Transpor#ation and the State of California announced a single timeframe for proposing fuel economy and greenhouse gas standards for model years 2017-2025 cars and light-trucks. Proposing the new standards in the same timeframe (September 1, 2011) signals continued collaboration that could lead to an extension of the current National Clean Car Program. Project Analysis An individual project does not generate enough GHG emissions to significantly influence global climate change. Rather, global climate change is a cumulative impact. This means that a project may participate in a potential impac# through its incremental contribution combined with the contributions of all other sources of GHG.4 In assessing cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project's incremental effect is "cumulatively considerable." See California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines sections 15064(h)(1) and 15130. To make this determination the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the effects of past, current, and probable future projects. To gather suffcient information an a global scale of all past, current, and future projects in order to make this determination is a difficult if not impassible task. The AB 32 Scoping Plan contains the main strategies California will use to reduce GHG. As part of its supporting documentation for the Draft Scoping Plan, ARB released the GHG inventory for California (Forecast last updated: 2$ October 2010). The forecast is an estimate of the emissions expected to occur in the year 2020 if Wane of the foreseeable measures included in the Scoping Plan were implemented. The base year used for forecasting emissions is the average of statewide emissions in the GHG inventory for 2006, 200'7, and 2008. FIGURE 2. Source: htt ://www.arb.ca. ov/c~nvento /rlata/forecast.hfm a This approach is supported by the AEP: Recommendations by the Association of Environmental Professionals on How fo Analyze GHG Emissions and Global Climate Change in CEQA Documents (March 5, 2007), as well as the SCAQMD (Chapter 6:: The CEQA Guide, April 201'1} and the U5 i=ores# Service (Climate Change Considerations in Project Level NEPA Analysis, July 43, 2009). Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 40 CALIFORNIA GREENHOUSE GAS FORECAST Caltrans and its parent agency, the Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency, have taken an active role in addressing GHG emission reduction and climate change. Recognizing that 98 percent of California's GHG emissions are from the burning of fossil fuels and 40 percent of all human made GHG emissions are from transportation, the Department has created and is implementing the Climate Action Program at Caltrans that was published in December 2006 (see Climate Action Program at Caltrans (December 2006).$ Environmental Consequences The purpose of the proposed project is to complete scour repairs at seven bridges located in Colusa, Butte, and Glenn Counties. Generally, the scour repairs would involve re-grading of the sites to restore the original contours, followed by protecting affected areas with the placement of rock slope protection (RSP} or, in one location, paving concrete. Additional material such as filter fabric under RSP, compacted structural soils, and slurry concrete may also be included in these repairs. This type of scour repair project, by its nature, is expected to generate minimal or no increase in GHG emissions. The project is not capacity increasing, and would not increase operational CO2 emissions. During construction there will be unavoidable emissions from equipment, and from staging activities such as hauling material or the energy required in the manufacture of materials such as PCC. However, this scour project preserves the useful life of several structures, and the GHG emissions produced during construction can be mitigated to some degree by longer intervals between more extensive bridge rehabilitation or reconstruction event required if scour repair was not completed. Construction Emissions Greenhouse gas emissions for transportation projects can be divided into those produced during construction and those produced during operations. Construction GHG emissions include emissions produced as a result of material processing, emissions produced by onsite construction equipment, and emissions arising from traffic delays due to construction. These emissions will be produced at different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic management during construction phases. CEQA Conclusion While construction would result in a slight increase in greenhouse gas emissions during construction, Caltrans expects that there would be no operational increase in GHG emissions associated with this proposed project. However, it is Caltrans' determination that in the absence of further regulatory ar scientific information related to greenhouse gas emissions and California Environmental Quality Act significance, it is too speculative to make a determination on the project's direct impact and its contribution on the cumulative scale to climate change. Nonetheless, Caltrans is taking further measures to help reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. These measures are outlined in the following section. ~ Caltrans Climate Action Program is located at the following web address: http-Ilwww dot ca govlhgltpplofficeslopmllcey reports fileslState Wide_StrategylCaltrans Climate A ctian Pra ram. df Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 41 Greenhouse Gas Reduction 5tra#egies AB 32 Compliance The ©epartment continues to be actively involved on the Governor's Climate Action Team as ARB works to implement the Executive Orders 5-3-05 and S-01-07 and Delp achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. Many of the strategies Caltrans is using to help meet the targets in AB 32 come from the California Strategic Growth Plan, which is updated each year. Former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Strategic Growth Plan calls fora $222 billion infrastructure improvement program to fortify the state's transportation system, education, housing, and waterways, including $100.7 billion in transportation funding during the next . decade. The Strategic Figure 3: Mobility Pyramid Growth Plan targets a significant decrease in traffic congestion below today's level and a corresponding reduction in GHG emissions. The Strategic Growth Plan proposes #o do this while accommodating graw#h in population and the economy. A suite of inves#ment options has been created that combined together are expected to reduce congestion. The Strategic Growth Plan relies on a complete systems approach to attain COZ reduction goals: system monitoring and evaluation, maintenance and preservation, smart land use and demand management, and operational improvements as depicted in Figure 3: The Mobility Pyramid. The Department is supporting efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled by planning and implementing smart land use strategies: joblhousing proximity, developing transit-oriented communities, and high density Dousing along transit corridors. The Department is working closely with local jurisdictions on planning activities; however, the Department does not have local land use planning authority. The Department is also supporting efforts to improve the energy efficiency of the transportation sector by increasing vehicle fuel econamy in new cars, light and heavy-duty trucks; the Department is doing this by supporting on-going research efforts at universities, by supporting legislative efforts to increase fuel economy, and by its participation on the Climate Action Team. It is important to note, however, that the control of the fuel economy s#andards is held I,y U.S. EPA and ARB. Lastly, the use of alternative fuels is also being considered; the Department is participating in funding for alternative fuel research at the UC Davis. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 42 Table 3 summarizes the Department and statewide efforts that the Department is implementing in order #o reduce GHG emissions. Mare detailed information about each strategy is included in the Climate Action Program at Caltrans (December 2006). ,~ ~ x T~ble~3 , ~ G~ii7t~~te~hange~C " O~~fi~ec#~ictran~Stra't~e~3e's ~~r~~`~3f ~ ~~~ ~ `.~ 4 ~; ~ .a ,. ~,.: .__ .' ~ ~ '-~-`E. .. .- __. _.,.. i- x ~ r ~ t"~`~ . ~u > ~ ~"~. '~ ~, ~ S~ '` - !ins-.C 3, .._ - ~r1 1 r' r~ roS'~ L.~-i ra-Lr:'~ '~ -~ '^~f.~`„'`G.I cr;~a-~sWae: w 's.'~-^>_ 3~.'~~~ K'~ ~~~r 1 ~ ~ ~ h C ~ y4 F .~~;b am' i ' ~ Y, w ~5 ~~~y . ~~T _~ . ..... - - ~, , ~---r ~. ~- ri r e ~ -es'+F e~ ~ ~ 4 .r .. w ... :~.. , . . _ - . ~ ~ .~-~.~E ~ y ~;~;:3 ,~ <r ~~p S.'` '3 .~ P~i1 C~~r . . s . s.-. .... 4,- 1 : ~.~`.:,~ ---~ ~ ~a ~ ~ .~~'4sY~ 7 ~~ ~ ~ ~ h,.. t. c ~ w, Es~matedr ~'r ~ 4~ G,C~r Sa~i`~ -1 ` ~~ - - `'~f Strafegy y ~ Pt~ogra~r~' ~~-~ ~ ~ ~ h ~ s by k ~ ~~..~~,~ ~-~ ~~etha~d~roc.~s~ ~ r ,~~-~.~ u ~ r~ M ~ ; ,~~`"~. F -, ~ ':, ,: 1V 4= < r~ ~' ~~ -'~~' -~ S~ '~ ~~ ~ _~~ ', „~F'I~'YI "m __ (M+Z'~.A 'pi .sF~ ~~r ~" s ~ ~e~d ~ ~ v ~~"" 4 .'~`v.-T~ ~ ry ,,~ ~~ c~ ... : r ~ ~ - 't~-t n y~y.~ S"_' x ~~O ~ ~y Lr~'. ', V "u,'~ ~ 2 ZQ ___ _. ~, ~ r_ ~ .. ~'e ,r.. ~ ~ -_..~.~. . a r t, : i ._ ......_ ...,. 's~?~.~; ,. -..rr _._._ " ~L-ca~ YTC~~-nom ~ ~-r_Z~,,. G ~;:~rc~-.. ,.~ :~f~E ~r. W __.._.. ~,~ .. ` ' ~ Intergavemment Local C l Review and seek to Nat Not ,~ al Review (IGR) a trans Governments mitigate development Estimated Estimated - - ro -orals Laval and ~5inart Land regional Competitive selection Not Not 7 U -- Planning Grants Caltrans agencies & r se - other p ocess Estimated Estimated _ - stakeholders _ . Regional Plans ' and Blueprint Regional Caltrans Regional plans and 975 7 8 - Plannin Agencies application process . . Operational Irrmpro~ements &~ tntellEgent ~ Strategic Growth State ITS; Congestion ~Tran~s. Plan Caltrans Regions Management Plan .07 2.17 System {1T5} :: De" io ment :. Mainstream - Office of Policy Frier & rJY Analysis & Policy establishment GHG into'; Research; InterdepartmentaE effort , guidelines technical Not- Not Plans and Division of , assistance Estimated Estimated . Protects ; Environmental Anal sis Educatiorai &~ Office of Policy Analytical report data lnformat~gn Analysis & interdepartmental, , collection publication Not Not ;l?r~: ram= Research CaIEPA, CARB, CEC , , workshy s, outreach Estimated Estimated Fleet Greening & ©ivision of Department of General 1=1eet Replacement _0065 FEJe! Equipment Services B20 .0045 .045 1]iverstftcat~on 5100 _0225 Non vehicular Energy Conservation Conservation Green Action Team Energy Conservation 117 34 Measures Pro ram Opportunities . . 2.5 % limestone 1.2 4.2 Portland : ~ Office of Rigid Cement and cement mix . Cerr-ent, - Pavement Construction Industries 25% fly ash cement _36 3.6 mix ~ 50% fl ashIsla mix Goods ''' Office of Goods Cal EPA, CARB, BT&H, Goods Movement Not Not Movement Movement MPOs Action Plan Estimated Estimated TotaP 2.72 18.18 Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 43 Adaptation Strategies "Adaptation strategiesA refer to how the.Department and others can plan for the effects of climate change on the state's transportation infrastructure and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage. Climate change is expected~to produce increased variability in precipi#ation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels,. storm surges and intensity, and the frequency and intensity of wildfires. These changes may affect the transportation infrastructure in various ways, such as damaging roadbeds by longer periods of intense heat; increasing storm damage from flooding and erosion; and inundation from rising sea levels. These efFects will vary by location- and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a facility be relocated or redesigned. There may also be economic and strategic ramifications as a result of these types of impacts to the transportation infrastructure. At the Federal level, the Climate Change Adaptation Task Force, co-chaired by the White Rouse Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP}, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH}, released its interagency report October 14, 2010- outlining recommendations to President Obama.for how Federal Agency policies and programs can better prepare the United States (U.S.) to respond to the impacts of climate change. The Progress Report of the Interagency Climate Change Adaptation Task Force recommends that the Federal Government implement . actions to expand and strengthen the Nation's capacity to better understand, prepare for, and respond to climate change. Climate change adaption must also involve the natural environment as well: Efforts are underway on astatewide-level to develop strategies to cope with impacts to habitat and biodiversity through planning and conservation. The results of these efforts will help California agencies plan and implement mitigation strategies for programs and projects. On November 'l4, 2008, Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-13-08 which directed a number of state agencies to address California's vulnerability to sea level rise caused by climate change. This Executive Order set in motion several agencies and actions to address the concern of sea level rise. The California Natural Resources Agency (Resources Agency) was directed to coordinate with local, regional, state and federal public and private entities to develop. The California Climate Aalaptatior~ Strategy (Dec 2009}s, which summarizes the best known science on climate change impacts to California, assesses California's vulnerability to the identified impacts, acid then outlines solutions that can be implemented within and across state agencies to promote resiliency. The strategy outline is in direct response to Executive Order S-13-08 that specifcally asked the Resources Agency to identify how state agencies can respond to rising temperatures, changing precipitation patterns, sea level rise, and extreme natural events. Numerous other state agencies were involved in the creation of the Adaptation Strategy document, including Environmental Protection; Business, Transportation and Housing; Health and Human SeNICeS; and the Department of Agriculture. The document is broken down into strategies s htt :Ilwww.ener .ca. ov/2009 ublicationslCNRA-1000-2009-E}271CNRA-10oo-20©9-{?27-1=.P©F Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page ~ ._ _ _ .... _ ... for different sectors that include: Public Health; .Biodiversity and ,Habitat; Ocean and Coastal Resources; Water Management; Agriculture; Forestry; and Transportation and Energy Infrastructure. As data continues to be developed and collected, the state's adaptation strategy wilt be updated to reflect current findings. Resources Agency was also directed to request the National Academy of Science to prepare a Sea Level Rise Assessment Report by December 241 D' to advise how California should plan for future sea level rise. The report is to include: • relative sea level rise projections for California, Oregon and Washington taking into account coastal erosion rates, tidal impacts, EI Nino and La Nina events, storm surge and land subsidence rates; • the range of uncertainty in selected sea level rise projections; • a synthesis of existing information on projected -sea level rise impacts to state infrastructure (such as roads, public facilities and beaches), natural areas, and coastal and marine ecosystems; • A discussion of future research needs regarding sea Level rise. Prior to the release of the final Sea Level Rise Assessment Report, alt state agencies that are planning to construct projects in areas vulnerable to future sea level rise were directed to consider a range of sea level rise scenarios far the years 2fl5fl and 21D0 in order to assess project vulnerability and, to the extent feasible, reduce expected risks and increase resiliency to sea level. rise. Sea level rise estimates should also be used in conjunction with information regarding local uplift and subsidence, coastal erosion rates, predicted higher high water levels, storm surge and storm wave data Until the final report from the National Academy of Sciences is released, interim guidance has been released by The Coastal Ocean Climate Action Team (CO-CAT} as well as the Department as a method tv initiate action and discussion of potential risks to the states infrastructure due to projected sea level rise_ Alt projects that have filed a Notice of Preparation, andlor are programmed far construction funding from 2flfl8 through 2D13, or are routine maintenance projects as of the date of Executive Order S-13-D8 may, but are not required to, consider these planning guidelines. A Notice of Preparation has not been filed for this project. The project has an expected construction date of the year 2fl1312D14. Furthermore Executive Order S-13-08 directed the California Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency to prepare a report to assess vulnerability of transportation systems to sea level affecting safety, maintenance and operational improvements of the system and economy of the s#ate. The Department continues to work on assessing the transportation system vulnerability to climate change, including the effect of sea level rise. Currently, the Department is working to assess which transportation facilities are at greatest risk from climate change effects. However, without statewide planning scenarios for relative sea level rise and other climate change impacts, the Department has not been able to determine what change, if any, may be made to its design standards for its transportation facilities. Once statewide planning scenarios become available, the Department will be able ' The Sea Level Rise Assessment report is currently due to be completed in 2012 and will include information for Ore on and Washin ton State as well as California. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 45 review its current design standards to determine what changes, if any, may be warranted in order to protect the transportation system from sea level rise. Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk management to address vulnerabilities i€s the transportations systemfrom increased precipitation and flooding; the 'rncreased frequency and intensity of storms and wildfires; rising, temperatures; and rising sea levels. The ©epartment is an active participant in the efforts being conducted in response to Executive Order x'13-~08 and- is mobilizing to be able tv respond to the National Academy of Science report on Sea Level Rise Assessment which is due to be released in 20'l2. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 46 Chapter 3 -Comments and Coordination Early and continuous coordination with the general public and appropriate public agencies is an essential part of the environmental process.. It helps planners determine the necessary scope of environmental documentation, the level of analysis required, and to identify potential impacts and mitigation measures and related environmental requirements. Agency. consultation and public participation for this project have been accomplished through a variety of formal and informal methods, including: project development team meetings; interagency coordination meetings; specifc location meetings with stakeholders; and coordination with resource and permitting agencies having jurisdiction over affected resources. Also, Caltrans staff met on May ~0, 2012 {and again on June S, 2012 for those that could not attend the first meeting} to discuss the project activity at Big Chico Creek with representatives from Butte County, the City of Chico, and other stakeholders. This draft Initial Study 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration will be made available for public and agency review during a 30-day comment period beginning on July 1$, 2012, and ending on August 16, 2092. During that time, the document will have been made available to all appropriate parties of the public and governmental agencies, including the following: (1 } Responsible Agencies; (2) Trus#ee agencies that have resources affected by the project; {3} other State, federal, and local agencies that have regulatory jurisdiction, or that exercise authority over resources which may be affected by the project; and {4} the public at large. A Notice of Availability has been published in three newspapers broadly available in Colusa, Butte and Glenn Counties. Copies of this document have been made available at the Caltrans District 3 Headquarters, Office of Environmental Management, 703 B Street, Marysville, CA, as well as via ,the Internet at: http:llwww.dot.ca.govldistaldepartmentslenvinternetlenvdoc.htm Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 47 Chapter 4 -List o~ Preparers In alphabetical order, the following staff of Caltrans District 3 contributed to the preparation of this Initial Study: Susan D. Bauer Senior~Environmentat Planner Contribution: Environmental Branch Chief Alicia Beyer ~ Transportation Engineer Contribution: Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment Kathleen Grady Landscape Architect . . Contribution: Visual Impact Assessment Osabuogbe C, lgbinedion PE, Transportation Engineer. . Contribution: Water Quality Assessment Ken Keaton ~ . PE, Senior Transportation Engineer Contribution: Project Design Daryl Noble Associate Environmental Planner (Archaeology). Contribution: Cultural Studies Joseph Robinson Associate Environmental Planner Contribution: Coordinator and Document Preparer Sukhdeep Sandher, PE Project Engineer, Transportation Engineer. Contribution: Project Design Nadarajah Suthahar, PE Project Manager Contribution: Project Coordination and Delivery Sharon Tang Transportation Engineering Technician Contribution: Air Quality & Noise Study Brooks Taytor Environmental Planner (Natural Science) Contribution: Natural Environmental Study Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 48 Chapter 5 -Distribution List Office of Planning and Research State Clearinghouse and Planning Unit 1400 10~ Street P:O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 City of Chico, General Services Mr. Ruben Martinez, Director 965 Fir Street Chico, Ca. 95973 Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Butte County Athninistrative Office 2S County Center Drive # 200 Ozoville, CA 95965-3365 Ms. Sheryl Thur, County Clerk Glenn County Supervisors 525 W. Sycamore Street, Suite B 1 Willows, CA 959$8 Ms. Yolanda Tirado, Chief Board Clerk Colusa County Supervisors 547 Market Street, Suite 102 Colusa, CA 95932 Chico Branch Library 1108 Sherman Avenue Chico, CA 95926 Colusa County Free Library 738 Market Street Colusa, CA 95932 Glenn County Library 676 E. Walker St. Orland, CA 95963 Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Adaaainistration Nat. Marine Fisheries Service, SW Region 501 West Ocean Blvd, Suite 4200 Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 US Fish and Wildlife Service Attn: Ms. Kellie Berry 2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2605 Sacramento, CA 95825-1846 Central Valley Flood Protection Board Attn: Mr. James Herota, Floodway Protection Section 3310 El Camino Avenue, Rm. 151 Sacramento, CA 95821 Butte County, Dept of Public Works Mr. Mike Crump, Director 7 County Center Drive Oroville CA 95965 Mr. Roger Cole, Streamaaaders PO Box 68 Forest Ranch, CA 95942 Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 49 APPENDICES Appendix A. CEQA Checklist The impacts checklist starting on the next page identifies physical, biological, social, and economic factors. that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases; background studies. performed in connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A "NO IMPACT" answer in the last column reflects this determination. Direct and' indirect impacts are addressed in checklist items I through XV[: Mandatary Findings of Significance are discussed in item XVII. The California Environmental Quality Act impact levels include "potentially significant impact," "less than significant impact with mitigation,° "less than sign cant impact," and "no impact:° These do not reflect federal limits or restrictions. Supporting documentation. of all CEQA checklist determinations is provided in Chapter 2 of this Initial StudylEnvironmental Assessment. Documentation of "No Impact" determinations is provided at the beginning of Chapter 2. 13iscussion of all impacts, avoidance, minimization, andlor compensation measures under the appropriate topic headings in Chapter 2. Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 50 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant 5ign'rticant Impact with impact Mitigation 1. AESTHETICS: Would the project: No Impact a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surcoundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighftime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agrscultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Galifornia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (9997} prepared by the Calffomia Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state's inventory of forest [and, including the Forest and Range Assessment project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existng zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict vrith existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 9222[](8}), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51904(8))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location ar nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 57 Potentially Less Than Less Than Significant Significant Significant impact with Impact Mitigation t+fo Impact 111: AIR QUA!`FTY; Where available, the. signficance criteria established by the applicabie air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Facpose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting. a substantial number of ~ ~ ^. people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RI=SOl1RGES= Would the project: a} Have a substantial adverse effect, either direciiy or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in focal or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and' Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fsh and Game or k1S Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 4d4 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool; coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident ormigratory fish ar wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any focaE policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a free preservation policy or ordinance? Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page ~2 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant 5ignfignt impact ImpacE with Impact Mitigation ~ Conflict with the provisions at an adopted liabifat ^ Conservation Plan, Natural l;ommunity Conservation Pfan, ar other approved iacal, regional, or state habitat canservatian plan? V. CULTtJRAL RESOt1RCES: Would the project: a} Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b} Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeolagicat resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d} Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of forma! cemeteries? Vt. GEDLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recentAlquist-Priolo Earthquake t=aulf 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? b} Result in substantial soli erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located an a geologic unit or soft 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1t3-t-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? ^ ^ 0 ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Q ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Seven Bruges Scour Repair Project Page 53 Potentially less Than less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mi#gation e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available far the disposal of waste water? VII. Gftl~ENHDUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:, a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact an the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy ar regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? An assessment of the greenhouse gas emissions and climate. change is included in the body of environmental document. White Caltrans has included this good faith effort in order to provide the public and decision-makers as much infarmatian as passible about the project, it is Caltrans determination that in the absence of further regulatory or scientific informafian related to GHG emissions and CEQA significance, it is too speculative io make a significance determination regarding the project's direct and indirect impact wish respect to climate change. CaEtrans does remain fimnEy committed to implementing reasures to help reduce the potential effects of the project. These measures are outlined in the body of the environmental document_ Vitt. HAZARI?S AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project a} Create a sign'rf'icant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposa[ of hazardous materials? 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? c)1=mit hazardous emissions ar handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mils ofan existing or proposed schooi? d) Be located an a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Cade Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people raiding or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adapted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Seven Bridges 5caur Repair Project Page 54 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Signifcant Significant Impact impact with Impact lillitigation h) Expose people ar structures to a significant risk of toss, injury or death Involving wifdland fires, including where wlldlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? IX. HYDROLQGY AND WA'i'1rR QUALITY: Would the project: a}Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere ~ ~ ~ ®. substantially with groundwater recharge such tha# there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the Inca! groundwater table IeveE re.g„ the production rate of pre-existing nearby weds would drop to a Level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pem~its have been granted)? c} Substantially after 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~erosian or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 10p-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map orotherflood hazard delineation map? h} Place within a 10fl-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i} Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving hooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: a} Physically divide an established community? Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 55 potentially Less Than Less Than Na Significant Significant. Significant Impact Impact with Impact Mitigation b)Goniiict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation ~ ~ Q of an agency with jurisdiction overthe project (including, but not. limfted'to the general,plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted far the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmentaPeffect? c) Gonflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or ~ ~ ^ natural community conservation plan? XI. MINERAL RESDiIRCES: Would the project a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would 6s of value.io the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of alocally.-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or ocher land use plan? Xt#. NOISE: Would the project result in: a) Fatposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the locat~general plan or noise ordinance, ar applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or graundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise ~ ~. Eevels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been 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? 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? XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project a} Induce substantial population growth in an area, either direcBy (far example, by proposing new homes and businesses} or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page v6 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Empact Impact with Impact Mitigation b} Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? xIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: a) Would the project result in substantia! adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemmenta! facilities, need for new or physically altered govemmentaE 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: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? XV. RECREATION: a) Would the projec# 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? 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? XVI. TRANSPORTATIONlTRAFFtC: Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of iranspartation 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 transiE? Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 57 Potentially Less Than t PCC Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact impact with Impact Mitigation 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? 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? d) Substantialty increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., ~ ~ Q sharp curves or dangerous intersections} or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e} Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Ganfllct with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? XVII. t)TILITIES AN© SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: a) F~cceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control 8aard? b}~ Require or result in the construction of new water or ~ ~ ~ ®. wastewater treatment facilities or expansien of existing facilities, fine construction of which could cause sign'fiicant environmental effects? 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 effeets7 d))-Save sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entdlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves ar may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the projects projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient pem~itted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 58 Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant Significant ]mpact impact with impact Mitigation 7Mt1. iNANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFFCANCE ' a) Dces the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife speaes, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or anima! community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or anima! or eliminate important examples of the major periods of Galifomia history or prehistory? b). Does the project have impacts thaf are indirridually 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 cun-ent projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Seven i3ridges Scour Repair Project page 5g Appendix. B. Title ul. PQlicy Statement DEPAR'I'11+lElV'1' OFTRANSPORTAT>iON OFFICE OF TtiE DIttECTAIi. P.O.6ox 992&73, MS-49 SACRAIs~fE01'i'O,CA 44x73-0001 PFTO~~ (9i5}554-5265 ;pax (gis)es9-c~6os ~'r'I'Y 711 j~,ly zo, 2010 '1<`ITLE 'VI 1?E)1~ICY STAT~iV1~1VT ,rfes~srr powerf Hr rarr~ rQrfnnf The California Department of Transportation, under Title Vl of the Civil Rights Aet of 19ti4 and related statutes, ensures that no person in the State of Calif+ornia shall, on the grounds csf race, color, national origin, sex, disability; or age, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be Otherwise subjected to discrianination under ar~y program or activity it administers. For information or guidance on how to file a complaint based on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, ar age, please visit the following web page: httpJ/www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bepltitle vilt6 violated.htm. Additionally, if you need this information in an alternate format, such as in Braille or in a language other than English, please contact Charles Wahnnn, Manager, Title Vi and Americans with Disabilities Act Program, Califamia Depar~nent of Transportation, 1823 14'h Street, MS-79, Sacramento, CA 95811. Phone: (916) 3241353 or toll free l -866-810-63~1ti (voice}, TTY 711, fax (9I6) 3241869, or via email: charles wahnon@dot.ca.gav. ~IM~`f 1`K~ C1NDY M Director "Calpanr improvrt moDtllry etrratC CnAfamPn -' Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page ~~ List of Technical Studies that are Bound Separately Air Quality Conformity Anal}~sis, Caltrans Environmental Engineering, April 24, 2012 Hazardous Waste Resort: Initial Site Assessment, Caltrans Environmental Engineering September 20, 201'1 Natural Environmental Study, Caltrans Environmental Management, Biology, May 2012 Noise Assessment, Caltrans Environmental Engineering, April 24, 2012 Programmatic Agreement 1 Screening Memorandum, Caltrans Environmental Management Cultural Resources, ~ctaber 11, 2011 Visual Im act Assessment, Caltrans Landscape Architecture, June 7, 2012 Water Quality Assessment, Caltrans Environmental Engineering, April 12, 2412 Seven Bridges Scour Repair Project Page 61