1 / 9

Cache Creek North Setback Levee Project Critical Erosion Site LM 3.9L and LM 4.2L California Environmental Quality Act

Cache Creek North Setback Levee Project Critical Erosion Site LM 3.9L and LM 4.2L California Environmental Quality Act Compliance. x. Central Valley Flood Protection Board Meeting January 16, 2009 Agenda Item No. 9. California Environmental Quality Act Compliance.

elom
Download Presentation

Cache Creek North Setback Levee Project Critical Erosion Site LM 3.9L and LM 4.2L California Environmental Quality Act

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cache Creek North Setback Levee ProjectCritical Erosion Site LM 3.9L and LM 4.2LCalifornia Environmental Quality Act Compliance x Central Valley Flood Protection Board Meeting January 16, 2009 Agenda Item No. 9

  2. California Environmental Quality Act Compliance A Notice of Completion and a Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the Cache Creek North Levee Setback Project, Critical Erosion Site LM 3.9L and LM 4.2L as required by the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines (CEQA) Section 15070 was circulated for public review (SCH #2008102072) The 30-day public comment period began on October 20, 2008 and expired November 18, 2008

  3. Project Findings The Initial Study (IS) and proposed MND was prepared to assess the proposed project’s potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Using the results of the IS, the proposed project would not have any significant effects on the environment once mitigation measures are implemented. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:

  4. Summary of Findings 1 • No Impact to: • Public Services • Recreation • Population and Housing • Less-than-significant impacts to: • Air Quality • Aesthetics • Mineral Resources • Land Use and Agricultural Resources • Public Utilities and Service Systems • Traffic and Circulation

  5. Summary of Findings 2 The Project would not: • substantially degrade the quality of the environment • substantially reduce fish or wildlife habitat • cause a fish or wildlife populations to drop below self-sustaining levels • reduce the number or restrict the range of a special-status species • eliminate important examples of California history or prehistory • achieve short-term environmental goals to the disadvantage of long-term environmental goals • have environmental effects that are individually limited but cumulatively considerable • environmental effects that would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly

  6. Mitigation Measures 1 Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level: • Biological: • Maintain a 20-ft Buffer Around Elderberry Shrubs • Conduct Pre-Con Surveys for Special-status Birds and Nesting Raptors • Erect Brightly Colored Fencing Around Sensitive Riparian Habitat • Cultural: • Immediately Halt Construction Activities if Any Cultural Materials or Any Human Remains Are Discovered • Hazardous Materials: • Ensure Employees Handling Hazardous Materials Are Trained In the Safe Handling and Storage

  7. Mitigation Measures 2 • Hydrology and Water Quality: • Prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan • Noise: • Maintain and Equip Construction Equipment with Noise Control Devices • Limit Construction to the Hours of 7:00 AM to 6:00 PM • Arrange Construction Equipment Travel to Minimize Disturbance to Occupied Residences and Limit Idling Times • Designate a Disturbance Coordinator to Receive All Public Complaints • Pre- and Post- Construction Photographic Survey and Report of Any Structures That Are within 15 ft of Heavy Equipment Operation and Compensation for any Damage

  8. Comments • A letter from CalTrans was the only comment received during the 30-day comment period • Traffic Control Plan and an Encroachment Permit was requested • The Traffic Control Plan is required in the construction contract • There will be no encroachment within the CalTrans right-of-way • A letters were received from the USFWS(12/10/08) and NMFS (12/17/08) after the 30 day period • USFWS determined that the project will not result in take of Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle with mitigation measures • NMFS requires a contingency plan for spill of cement during wall construction which will be included in construction specifications

  9. Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with Section 21082.1 of the CEQA, CVFPB has independently reviewed and analyzed the IS and final MND for the proposed project and finds that the IS and final MND reflect the independent judgment of CVFPB. The lead agency further finds that the project mitigation measures will be implemented as stated in the final MND.

More Related