INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Transcription

1 INITIAL STUDY NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOLSOM DROP STRUCTURE MODIFICATION PROJECT CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA Submitted to: City of Folsom 50 Natoma Street Folsom, California Prepared by: Dokken Engineering 2365 Iron Point Road, Suite 200 Folsom, California (916) April 2006

2 General Information About This Document The City of Folsom is the lead agency for the preparation of this Negative Declaration for the Folsom Drop Structure project proposed by the City of Folsom Department of Public Works. The City of Folsom has determined that opening this existing structure to vehicular traffic will allow for improved access to the light rail transit parking facilities on Leidesdorff Street. The City has determined that a Negative Declaration is the appropriate environmental document for the proposed project. This environmental review examines project effects which are identified as less than significant or no impact. It is believed at this time that the project will not result in potentially significant impacts. Therefore, a Negative Declaration is the proposed environmental document for this project. Formatting of this document follows standards of the California Environmental Quality Act with the addition of City environmental questions. The City is soliciting views of interested persons and agencies on the content of the environmental information presented in this document. Due to time limits mandated by state law, your responses must be sent at the earliest possible date, but no later than the 30-day review period ending on May 22, Please send written responses to Gail Furness de Pardo, 50 Natoma Street, Folsom CA 95630, or gdepardo@folsom.ca.us. Questions regarding the project should be directed to Project Manager, Thomas Garcia, Department of Public Works at

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION...1 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST...4 BACKGROUND...4 DETERMINATION:...5 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST...8 I. AESTHETICS...8 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES...9 III. AIR QUALITY...10 IV. BIOLOGICAL...13 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES...15 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS...16 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS...17 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY...19 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING MINERAL RESOURCES...27 I. NOISE...27 II. POPULATION AND HOUSING...29 III. PUBLIC SERVICES...30 IV. RECREATION...31 V. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC...31 VI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS...34 VII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE...35 REPORT PREPARERS...36 REFERENCES...36 FIGURES FIGURE 1: Project Location & Vicinity Map...2 FIGURE 2: Site Plan...3 FIGURE 3: Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)...23 FIGURE 4: City of Folsom Zoning Map...26

4 INTRODUCTION The City of Folsom proposes to open the existing Folsom Drop Structure, which connects the Natoma Crossing to the Leidesdorff Street Lid Structure, to vehicular traffic. The proposed improvements would include construction of a median approach to the ramp structure, relocating the existing entrance to the north Light Rail Park and Ride lot, installation of barriers, sign, and lighting on the ramp, stall restriping in the lots, and associated sidewalk, curb, and gutter work. The project is proposed in order to provide a more direct access to the Light Rail Park and Ride lots for people living north of the American River in and around the City of Folsom. The project will be funded with local funds. The Folsom Drop Structure is located on the Natoma Crossing of the American River, in the city of Folsom, Sacramento County, California (Figure 1). The ramp structure was built in 1999 by the City of Folsom as part of the larger Natoma Crossing that spans the American River. The existing structure will remain as it exists and only modified for safe vehicle use. Opening the existing drop structure will allow a single lane of southbound Folsom Boulevard traffic to exit Folsom Boulevard and access the Light Rail Station and parking lots at Leidesdorff Street. The project will relocate the existing entrance to the north Light Rail Park and Ride lot. A raised median, approximately 800 feet along Folsom Boulevard, would be constructed on the Natoma Crossing that would look and function similar to, a typical median left-turn lane. The taper distance and deceleration length of this channelized median lane has been designed to slow exiting traffic as they approach the ramp. Signs and lighting will alert southbound traffic about an approaching left side off-ramp to the parking lots. Southbound traffic that moves into this median deceleration lane would then see signs indicating the stop ahead at the intersection with Leidesdorff Street. Work along Leidesdorff Street and on the lid structure would consist of moving the north side curb to provide wider travel lanes and a bike lane. To accomplish this, modifications to the north side sidewalk adjacent to the north parking lot will take place. The project includes the loss of a single parking space and the restriping of existing spaces to ensure no loss of handicap spaces. The drop structure bridge will be maintained at the existing width. The existing curb and fencing along each side of the drop structure will be removed and barriers will be installed. It is estimated that construction will be completed within two months. The purpose of the ramp opening is to allow access to the parking lots at the Folsom Historic District Light Rail Station from points north of the American River. It is anticipated that this new access would not have significant impacts on parking demand or traffic circulation. Currently, people that live north of the American River in and around Folsom, who park at the light rail station to ride the train, have two options for getting to the parking lot at Leidesdorff Street. The first option is for vehicles to proceed southbound on Folsom Boulevard across the American River by way of the Natoma Crossing, under Leidesdorff Street Lid Structure, and make a U-turn at the Natoma Street signal. Vehicles then proceed north bound on Folsom Boulevard to the Sutter Street exit, turn left at the Reading Street intersection and proceed to the parking lot one block away. The second option is for motorists on the north side of the American River to proceed eastbound on Greenback Lane towards Rainbow Bridge where Greenback Lane becomes Riley Street. Motorists then cross the American River, take a right turn onto Leidesdorff Street and proceed to the parking lot at the light rail station. By modifying the Drop Structure for vehicular traffic, it will provide a direct connection to southbound Folsom Boulevard at the Natoma Crossing for motorists accessing the parking lots at the light rail station. While the Sacramento Regional Transit District 20 year vision plan does not include plans to extend Light Rail service across the American River at this location, the modifications to the Folsom Drop Structure for vehicular use does not preclude the Drop Structure from ever being converted to Light Rail use. 1

5 SOURCE: Google Earth Pro, 2005 FIGURE 1: Project Location & Vicinity Map Folsom Drop Structure 2

6 ...\1589_Project_Exhibit.dgn 04/17/ :06:05 PM

7 CITY OF FOLSOM INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST BACKGROUND 1. Project Title: Folsom Drop Structure Modifications for Vehicular Traffic 2. Lead Agency: City of Folsom 50 Natoma Street Folsom, CA Contact Person: Tom Garcia (916) Project Location: From the intersection of Leidesdorff Street and Reading Street north along Folsom Boulevard on the Natoma Crossing for approximately 1200 feet, in the City of Folsom. rth West to rth West Elevation Applicant: City of Folsom 6. General Plan: City of Folsom General Plan (Existing Arterial Roadway) 7. Zoning: H-D (Historic District) 8. Description of Project: As shown in Figure 2, project components consist of opening the existing ramp structure to vehicular traffic, construction of a median approach to the ramp structure on Folsom Boulevard, relocating the existing entrance to the north Light Rail Park and Ride lot, installation of barriers, sign, and lighting on the ramp, parking stall restriping, and associated sidewalk, curb, and gutter work on Leidesdorff Street. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The existing Natoma Crossing and Drop Ramp Structure is located on an existing transportation corridor and is adjacent to local streets, businesses, and light rail facilities. 4

8 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Pursuant to Section 15063, CEQA Guidelines, the City of Folsom has utilized an Environmental Checklist to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the project. The checklist provides a determination of these potential impacts and includes the substantiation developed in support of the conclusions checked on the form. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a " " as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agriculture Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology /Soils Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources ise Population / Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. 5

9

10 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except " " answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A " " answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A " " answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. " " is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more " " entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: " applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from " " to a "." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section VII, "Earlier Analyses," may be cross-referenced). 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a. Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b. s Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c. Measures. For effects that are "Less than with Measures," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 7

11 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a. The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b. The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: 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 surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Discussion a. Although, the project area is recognized in the City General Plan Goal 25 (Open Space and Conservation Element) as a Scenic Resource and is designated Scenic Corridor in Folsom Municipal Code (FMC ), modification by the proposed project the will not negatively affect the scenic vista. Views to and from the existing structure will be maintained as part of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. b. Folsom Boulevard is not a designated or eligible scenic highway, but is designated as a scenic corridor (see A). alternations associated with the proposed project will negatively impact the surrounding. Therefore, no impact would occur. c. The existing visual character of the site and its surroundings is defined by the natural aesthetic characteristics of the American River corridor and the historic arch design of the nearby Rainbow Bridge. Riparian vegetation and creek flow within the creek corridor establish high scenic value for the project area. The project will not impact these resources as the structure already exists on the deck and, consequently, will not have an effect on existing features. mitigation will be required for biological resources as they will not be impacted by the proposed project. The Folsom Drop Structure was constructed as a component of the 1999 American River Crossing bridge project. This structure is not unique to Folsom and does not possess significant visual 8

12 characteristics for the project area. Although the drop structure profile is only visible from several private residences, placing safety barriers on the existing structure will not change the character of the structure and is not considered a potentially significant aesthetic impact. d. The drop structure and roadway approaches will include new street lighting consistent with city street lighting standards and the lighting that exists on the current Natoma Crossing. This will introduce a new light source into the area. To prevent excess light and glare from spilling into adjacent the residential area. As a project component, new street lighting will be shielded and light will be directed downwards. The drop structure will be the same width as the existing bridge, resulting in no additional shading upstream and downstream of the existing drop structure. II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. 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 nonagricultural use? b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c. Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Discussion a-c. The project site is not located in an area that has any farming or agricultural significance. Project implementation will not have an effect on agricultural productivity. 9

13 III. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the 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. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Discussion a-b. The project would not conflict with or obstruct the implementation of any air quality plans since the proposed project would incorporate a use that is consistent with the land use suppositions used in air quality modeling done for the regional Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) and the Sacramento Air Quality Manual. s would be less than significant. c. Sacramento County Air Quality Status for 2005 is summarized as follows: AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT STATUS CHART for Sacramento County Parameter California Standard Federal Standard Ozone n-attainment Classification = Serious (1 hour and 8 hour Standards) n-attainment Classification = Serious (8 hour Standard) Particulate Matter- 10 Micron n-attainment (24 hour Standard and Annual Mean) n-attainment*, Classification = Moderate (24 hr std) Particulate Matter- 2.5 Micron n-attainment (Annual Standard) Attainment/Unclassified (24 hour Standard and Annual Mean) 10

14 AIR QUALITY STANDARDS ATTAINMENT STATUS CHART for Sacramento County Parameter California Standard Federal Standard Carbon Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide Sulfur Dioxide Lead Visibility Reducing Particles Sulfates Hydrogen Sulfide Attainment (1 hour and 8 hour Standards) Attainment (1 hour Standard) Attainment (1 hour and 24 hour Standards) Attainment (30 Day Standard) Unclassified (8 hour Standard) Attainment (24 hour Standard) Unclassified (1 hour Standard) Attainment (1 hour and 8 hour Standards) Attainment (Annual Standard) Attainment (3 hour, 24 hour, and Annual Standards) Attainment (Calendar Quarter) Federal Standard Federal Standard Federal Standard In the adoption of the General Plan and the certification of the EIR, which accompanied the General Plan, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding Considerations to address the unavoidable significant adverse impacts which may result from the implementation of the General Plan. While it is the intent of the General Plan to provide policies and implementation actions for protecting important environmental and human resources in the City, the policies and implementation actions may be insufficient in certain areas, because the General Plan s land use designations and development policies will accommodate growth that may have significant adverse impacts. In consideration of the environmental effects, which may result from the implementation of the General Plan, the City Council concluded that, for air quality, the CO (carbon monoxide) measurements forecasted for the build-out of the General Plan would be over the eight-hour standard for CO. This proposed project would be an incremental contributor to the overall exceedence of these air quality standards. Although this project will incrementally contribute to air quality impacts, the project itself will not create significant air quality impacts which were not considered in the General Plan or accompanying EIR. The proposed drop structure modification should not further aggravate the non-attainment State or Federal status. The project will not generate additional vehicle trips; instead the project will provide an improved alternative to accessing the LRT Park and Ride lots from north of the American River via Folsom Boulevard. netheless, the construction of the proposed project will result in short-term air quality impacts such as dust generated by pavement removal activities, exhaust emissions from gasand diesel-powered construction equipment, and vehicular emissions associated with the commuting of construction workers. Local particulate concentrations would increase during construction, and it is possible that the State s particulate standard may be temporarily exceeded in surrounding areas. The following requirements will be implemented during construction to reduce dust. Prior to initiation of construction, the contractor shall prepare an air quality construction plan that addresses the reduction of air pollutants during construction. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components: 11

15 All disturbed areas, including storage piles, which are not being actively utilized for construction purposes, shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water, chemical stabilizer/suppressant, or vegetative ground cover. All on-site unpaved roads and off-site unpaved access roads shall be effectively stabilized of dust emissions using water stabilizer/suppressant. All land clearing, grubbing, scraping, excavation, land leveling, grading, cut and fill, and demolition activities shall be effectively controlled of fugitive dust emissions utilizing application of water or by pre soaking. Selective watering of exposed areas, especially during clearing and grading operations, will be utilized to control dust generated on the project site during construction. All unpaved areas of the project site that are being graded, excavated or used as construction haul roadways shall be sprayed with water as often as is necessary to assure that fugitive dust does not impact nearby properties. Stockpiles of soil or other fine materials being left for periods in excess of one day during site construction shall be sprayed and track walked after stockpiling is complete. Paving shall be completed as soon as is practicable to reduce the time that bare surfaces and soils are exposed. In areas where construction is delayed for an extended period of time, the ground shall be re-vegetated to minimize the generation of dust When materials are transported off-site, all material shall be covered, effectively wetted to limit visible dust emission, or at least six inches of freeboard space from the top of the container shall be maintained. All operations shall limit or expeditiously remove the accumulation of mud or dirt from adjacent public streets at least once every 24 hours when operations are occurring. The use of dry rotary brushes is expressly prohibited except where preceded or accompanied by sufficient wetting to limit the visible dust emissions, and use of blower devices is expressly forbidden. Street sweeping shall be conducted to control dust and dirt tracked from the project site onto any of the surrounding roadways. Construction equipment access shall be restricted to defined entry and exit points to control the amount of soil deposition. other air quality impacts were identified. Implementation of the above-stated City of Folsom construction requirements will maintain the identified air quality impacts as less than significant level. d. In summary, the project would result in air emissions during the construction process and during project operation. Construction emissions and operational emissions were determined to be less than significant. Thus, the project would not conflict with or obstruct attainment of any attainment plan adopted by the SMAQMD; it would not violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing violation; it would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria air pollutant, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e. The proposed project would not include industrial or intensive agriculture uses; therefore, the project would not create odors or toxic air contaminants. odors would be generated by potential uses. The closest residences to the project site are approximately 500 feet to the south. Potential effects related to air quality and odors would be less than significant, and no mitigation would be necessary. 12

16 IV. BIOLOGICAL - Would the project: a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d. Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f. Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Discussion a-c. There are no significant natural resources in the project site that would be impacted by the proposed construction. The project site is located within a fully developed suburban complex void of any vegetation. The all project impacts will take place on asphalt or concrete. While the California Natural Diversity Data Base CNDDB was consulted for the project location, there are no special status plants of animal species located within the project boundary. As such, a biological study for the site has not been prepared (CNDDB accessed April 6, 2006). Observed wildlife includes small numbers of species typically found in developed suburban areas. There are no adjacent wetlands, 13

17 marshes, sensitive riparian habitat, or vernal pools in the vicinity of the site; therefore, the project will have no impact and no mitigation is required. As the project location is absent of wildlife habitat areas, the construction activities will not result in the death or displacement of a biological species. There is a buffer of approximately 100 between the project site and the adjacent riparian habitat and oak woodland to mitigate the disturbance of wildlife occupying adjacent habitats. Furthermore all work will be conducted on existing structures which are elevated from any potential habitat. Construction will entail the use of heavy equipment and increased human presence at the project site. This additional noise and traffic may temporarily disturb wildlife outside the construction site; however, the project site is located within an existing developed area where there is no native vegetation and wildlife. Therefore, the construction phase would have a less than significant impact on biological resources and no mitigation would be required. d. interference with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites will take place as a result of the proposed project. Improvements will take place upon existing structures only. The proposed project includes modification to the existing ramp structure and to the park and ride lot. Based on this limited extent of the impact, low magnitude of light spill, limited duration of use, and distance to existing residential areas, the project s lighting is expected to have a less than significant impact on wildlife and surrounding areas. The additional lighting that is projected for the park and ride lot access point will be an incremental increase. new vehicle trips will be generated from the project. Current conditions at the LRT parking lot are not anticipated to change because the project will serve the same vehicles but only change the entrance to the facility. Consequently, the potential for disturbance to wildlife in the project area would be less than significant and no further mitigation would be required. e. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance based on the project being constructed on existing asphalt and or concrete structures. f. The project will not conflict with any locally adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, etc. in the project area, there are no resource based plans that address special status species. 14

18 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? 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 formal cemeteries? Discussion a. There are no significant cultural resources located within the project limits. The existing site was previously graded and developed. cultural resources were present. The proposed improvements are located completely on a concrete structure. ground disturbance is proposed. b. archaeological resources were identified within the project area previously, and the potential for discovering resources is considered low. The potential for buried resources does not exist because no ground disturbing activity is proposed. c. Geologically, the area is Copper Hill Volcanics including Mesozoic volcanic and metavolcanic rocks (Wagner et al. 1987). Soils in the project area are of the erolls Orangevale-Fiddyment series. There is no potential for the presence of paleontological resources within the study area because ground disturbing activity is not proposed. d. human remains or cemeteries were identified within the project area and there is no potential for discovering resources during construction. 15

19 VI. GEOLOGY 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 recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e. Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Discussion a.i-iv. According to the a preliminary geotechnical investigation documented in the Final EIR for the American River Crossing (1995: 4F-2) and preliminary geotechnical investigation conducted by Taber Consultants, the site is located approximately four miles west of the Prairie Creek-Spencerville- Dentman Fault. This fault has a maximum credible earthquake of magnitude 6.5 on the Richter Scale. The anticipated peak bedrock acceleration from this fault at the location of the bridge is a relatively low value of 0.35 g. The Seismic Acceleration Response Spectra Curve is a standard Caltrans Seismic Design Criteria curve with modifications of the nearness of the fault. 16

20 b. Project construction could not generate soil erosion concerns or the loss of topsoil due to all construction activities taking place on existing pavement. Standard best management practices will be implemented during construction. c. Refer to section a.i-iv. Furthermore, the project is located on existing asphalt and or concrete. There is no potential for on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse. d. The project is located on existing concrete and not on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property. e. The project will have no impacts related to septic systems. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal 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. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d. Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 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 residing or working in the project area? 17

21 VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: g. Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Discussion a-b. The proposed project drop structure will not routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials. Similar to existing conditions, a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident condition involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment is not likely with the proposed project. Therefore, no significant impacts are expected. c. The site is not within one-quarter mile of a school. Furthermore, the proposed project does not involve the use or handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, no impact would occur. d. The project site has not been included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to the Government Code. Based on a review of public records, the project site is not contained on any lists of hazardous materials sites set forth in Section of the California Government Code Therefore, no impact would occur. e-f. Though aircraft landing at Mather Airport located five or more miles west of the site traverse the project area at altitude, since the project site is not located within two miles of an airport or an area for which an Airport Land Use Plan has been prepared, and no public or private airfields are within two miles of the project area, users of the Folsom Drop Structure to access LRT parking would not be exposed to hazards due to over flight aircraft. Thus, no significant impact would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary. g. The project is not expected to impair the implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Under existing conditions, the bridge is not rated to accommodate heavy vehicle loads. Accordingly, the City Fire Department does not use the bridge to provide fire and emergency services to adjacent residential neighborhoods (other access is currently available). The new access will accommodate heavier fire truck loads and will improve these services during emergencies. h. The proposed project does not present conditions that are subject to wildland fires. There is no potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. Therefore, no impacts are potential or expected. 18

22 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER 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 that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 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 storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f. Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other food hazard delineation map? g. Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? h. Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? i. Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 19

23 VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: j. Potential impact of project construction on storm water runoff? k. Potential impact of project post-construction activity on storm water runoff? l. Potential for discharge of storm water from material storage areas, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas? m. Potential discharge of storm water to impair the beneficial uses of the receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit? n. Potential for the discharge of storm water to cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies? o. Potential for significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of storm water runoff that can cause environmental harm? p. Potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site or surrounding areas? Discussion a. The project involves both construction and demolition of existing curb and sidewalks on Leidesdorff Street and the center median on the Natoma Crossing (but not directly in) the American River as well as on the Leidesdorff Lid. Construction Best Management Practices (BMP s) are provided below to ensure that project construction does not lead to violations of water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The existing structure is located within parts of the Leidesdorff Lid Structure, LRT parking lot and center median of the Natoma Crossing over the American River (Lake Natoma), all project features are in existing developed suburban areas in the City of Folsom. Run-off from previously paved surfaces will be collected into the existing drainage facilities. While there will be no additional runoff associated with the proposed drop structure parking entrance modifications, the existing storm drain system has sufficient capacity to tolerate any additional run-off. activity is proposed that would result in degradation of water quality or result in discharge to nearby streams during project operations. (For construction effects, see below.) Thus, project implementation would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. b. Folsom Drop Structure Modification Project would not result in the use of groundwater, interfere with groundwater recharge, or interfere with storm water or natural drainage ways. Modification of the 20

24 existing structure project would not place persons or structures at risk from flood hazards, nor would the project interfere with existing floodway capacity. Thus, no significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary. c. Project improvements will not result in modifications to the immediate drainage patterns. Construction activities will not increase sediment production in the waterways during the short-term or long term. The construction measures will be implemented to meet the storm water requirements as listed in response to question also see questions (j-p) below. The City of Folsom participates, in conjunction with the Sacramento County Water Agency, the City of Sacramento, and the City of Galt, in a joint National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Municipal Storm Water permit. The NPDES process requires evaluation of water quality impacts from urban storm water runoff and the implementation of pollution control programs. These programs are required to reduce impacts to water quality from both new development and existing urban areas. Management programs of the NPDES permit include, but are not limited to, pollutant management for new development, drainage facility maintenance, and street cleaning. In addition, all projects within the City must comply with the City Drainage Ordinance, which includes constructionphase erosion and sedimentation control measures. Storm runoff would not increase erosion of exposed soils during construction of the Folsom Drop Structure Modification Project given the City s commitment to the NPDES process. Construction activities disturbing one or more acres are required by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) to obtain a General Construction Activity Stormwater Permit and a NPDES permit. The project area is 1.2 acres, thus this requirement would apply. In compliance with the City s existing NPDES permit and standard City construction requirements, prior to the initiation of construction, the City and or their Contractor will prepare and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) designed to reduce potential impacts to water quality during construction of the project. As required by regulations implementing the Construction Stormwater Permit, the SWPPP will include: Specific and detailed Best Management Practices (BMPs) to mitigate construction related pollutants, including sediments. These controls would include practices to minimize the contact of construction materials, equipment, and maintenance supplies (e.g., fuels, lubricant, paints, solvents, and adhesives) with stormwater. The SWPPP would specify properly designed centralized storage areas that keep these materials out of the rain and/or protected from the wind. Dust control BMPs for the stabilization of exposed surfaces and to minimize activities that suspend or track dust particles. For heavily traveled and disturbed areas, wet suppression (watering), chemical dust suppression, gravel or asphalt surfacing, temporary gravel construction entrances, equipment wash-out areas, and haul truck covers can be employed as dust control applications. Permanent or temporary vegetation and mulching, and sand fences can be employed to prevent sediment-laden stormwater from reaching receiving waters, or to force stormwater to drop their sediment load onsite. The SWPPP is required to specify a monitoring program to be implemented by the construction site supervisor. SWRCB personnel, who may make unannounced site inspections, are empowered to levy appropriate fines if it is determined that the SWPPP has not been properly prepared and implemented. Implementing all the requirements of the SWPPP, including those listed above, would avoid siltation effects. residual impacts would remain, and no mitigation would be necessary. Although 21

25 substantial changes to the existing drainage patterns are not planned, relocation of the existing inlets are expected with the proposed structure improvements. These alterations should not affect the local hydraulics. Modification of the existing bridge and drop ramp will not encroach into the stream channel. The proposed improvements will not have a significant effect on the upstream water surface elevation, nor cause increases in downstream flooding conditions. d. Storm water runoff will be directed into facilities designed within the bridge structure. Runoff collected from the roadway surface will be discharged into existing drainage inlets. e. Implementation of the Folsom Drop Structure Modification Project will not increase the amount of impervious surfaces (and, hence, will not affect the quantity and timing of stormwater runoff). Design features proposed for the drop ramp and parking area configuration will maintain the existing impervious paving materials. Potential water quality effects are considered to be less than significant with compliance with NPDES permit conditions and the City s Drainage Ordinance. significant impacts to water quality or drainage capacity would occur, nor would any adverse affects to water resources be anticipated. The project would be consistent with legally adopted standards and programs to protect water quality. significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary. g. The project does not involve housing or exposure of habitable structures to the 100-year flood event. The project area is not located within the 100-year or 500-year floodplains (FEMA, 1982). Thus, there is no danger of flooding. Because the project areas are located outside of the 100-year and 500-year floodplains, development of the projects would not place persons or structures at risk from flood hazards, nor would the projects interfere with existing floodway capacity. Floodplain Map has been provided in Appendix B. Thus, no significant impacts would occur, and no mitigation would be necessary. h-i. j-p. The project does not involve exposure of persons to flooding risks or inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflows. The following construction measures will be implemented to meet the requirements of the National Pollution and Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Program (SWPPP). The following procedures are to be incorporated into standard specification language to be implemented by the contractor: During construction, the contractor shall prepare a Water Pollution Control Plan for approval by the Public Works Director. The plans shall include the following measures: Although wet season work is not anticipated, work will be conducted April 16 through October 14 to avoid the rainy season. Land disturbing activities and the installation of erosion and sedimentation control practices shall be coordinated to reduce on-site erosion and off-site sedimentation. These measures may include mulches (above the mean high water line only), soil binders and erosion control blankets, silt fencing, fiber rolls, sediment desilting basins, sediment traps, and check dams. Existing vegetation shall be protected where feasible to provide an effective form of erosion and sediment control, as well as watershed protection, landscape beatification, dust and pollution control, noise reduction, and shade. The area of construction and disturbance will be limited to as small an area as feasible. Loose bulk materials may be applied to the soil surface as a temporary cover to protect bare soils from rainfall impact, increase infiltration, and reduce runoff and erosion. 22

26 Project Area