Soils and Mineral Resources
Soils
Other development in the study area would occur over soils with similar characteristics. These types of impacts represent site-specific effects and do not result in a greater combined impact than the individual impacts. Earth disturbing activities could increase rates of erosion over current conditions, resulting in increased sediment loading in receiving waters or increases in air-borne dust. The LSJR project would comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements by the RWQCB to prevent stormwater runoff from construction entering receiving waters. Therefore, there would be no cumulative impact.
Mineral Resources
The cumulative setting for mineral resources is site-specific to those areas where construction for the project would occur. The alternatives would have no short- or long-term effects on the acquisition, mining or processing of the mineral resources in the project area. None of the existing sand and gravel mining or processing operations, is located at the work sites. Because the project construction sites would be isolated from other projects in the region, there would be no cumulative impacts on mineral resources.
Hydrology and Hydraulics
The cumulative setting for effects on hydrology and hydraulics are the study area’s streams and rivers, including reaches upstream and downstream, in addition to other FRM projects in the same reaches. FRM improvements in these reaches would reinforce existing levees and build new levees that would contain and redirect flood flows in a coordinated manner to prevent downstream effects on hydrology and hydraulics and reduce potential flooding or exceedance of stormwater drainage systems. All FRM projects are regulated and considered within the context of the regional system so that transfer of flood risk is avoided and no adverse, cumulative effects result. The LSJRFS project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact and cumulative impacts would be less than significant.
Water Quality
The cumulative setting for effects on water quality are those receiving waters within study area and within the Basin Plan. Construction activities have the potential to temporarily degrade water quality through the direct release of soil and construction materials into water bodies or the indirect release of contaminants into water bodies through runoff. All projects would be required to comply with NPDES General Construction Permit requirements for developing and implementing BMPs. Overall water quality would be required to meet the Basin Plan objectives. Related projects, including the RD 17 levee improvements and the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel routine dredging and deepening project, could be under construction during the same timeframe as the LSJR project. If construction occurs during the same timeframe, receiving water quality could be diminished due to increased turbidity and/or inadvertent release of construction materials, resulting in significant cumulative impacts. Construction of the LSJR project would have a less ATTACHMENT D 1423
Lower San Joaquin River
5-301
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences than significant impact, which could nevertheless contribute to a cumulatively significant temporary degradation of water quality. The impacts of the in-water closure structures at Smith Canal and on Fourteenmile Slough would be mitigated to less than significant and would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on water quality.
Groundwater
The cumulative setting for groundwater impacts include the regional groundwater basin for impacts related to supplies and site-specific locations relative to construction activities for the project improvements that include cutoff walls for groundwater quality. Project alternatives would not prevent the percolation or movement of the underlying groundwater basin and would not use groundwater and there would be no cumulative impact to groundwater supply. Further, construction of project alternatives for cutoff walls could result in the introduction of contaminants into groundwater below construction locations. Because the locations of cutoff walls would not be located near other projects in the study area, the project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact on groundwater quality.
Wetlands and Other Waters of the U.S.
The cumulative context for impacts to wetlands and other waters of the U.S. include the project study area and areas with connectivity to the wetlands and other waters within the study area. Implementation of projects in the cumulative context would have similar effects as the project alternatives and result in significant cumulative impacts. Implementing any of the project alternatives would result in short- and long-term effects on waters of the U.S., including wetlands, as a result of construction and operation of in water closure structures, placement of fill, and elimination of existing vegetation in the receiving waters.
Further, the project alternatives would include temporary impacts associated with fill and relocation of landside toe drains and irrigation ditches. Therefore, the contribution of the LSJR project to cumulative effects on wetlands and waters of the U.S. water would be considerable. Implementation of the avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures included in Section 5.7 would reduce the magnitude of the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact, but not to a less than considerable level; therefore, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Air Quality
The cumulative context for air quality impacts is the SJVAPCD jurisdictional boundaries. All the related projects would cumulatively contribute to emissions of criteria pollutants in the region, particularly if they are constructed concurrently, which could have a significant cumulative effect on air quality. It is anticipated that each of these projects would implement their own mitigation plan to reduce the emissions to below the significance levels, but there is the potential for significant cumulative effects to remain.
However, on a regional level, these projects would still contribute to a significant cumulative effect and coordination with the SJVAPCD would need to occur prior to construction to reduce these effects.
Construction of the proposed alternatives would result in a significant contribution to emissions of criteria pollutants. Implementation of mitigation measures to reduce construction criteria pollutants to below the regulatory thresholds, as described in Section 5.8, would reduce the LSJR project’s contribution to less than considerable because they would reduce project emissions below CAA and CCAA thresholds. Therefore, the cumulative impact would be less than significant.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
It is unlikely that any single project by itself could have a significant impact on the environment with respect to GHGs. Construction activity for the LSJR, considered on a project-only basis, would cause a temporary ATTACHMENT D 1424
Lower San Joaquin River
5-302
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences and less than significant increase in GHG emissions. However, the cumulative effect of human activities has been linked to quantifiable changes in the composition of the atmosphere, which, in turn, have been shown to be the main cause of global climate change (IPCC 2007). Therefore, the analysis of the environmental effects of GHG emissions is inherently a cumulative impact issue. While the emissions of one single project will not cause global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative effect with respect to global climate change.
It is expected that the primary impacts from these concurrent projects would be due to construction activities. On an individual basis, each of these projects would mitigate emissions below the general reporting threshold. If these projects are implemented concurrently, it is possible that the combined cumulative effects could be above reporting requirements for GHG emissions. However, with the implementation of mitigation measures, which would be required for each of these projects, it is possible that the effects could be reduced to less than significant. In addition, the majority of the related projects are FRM projects. By implementing these projects, the action agencies would be reducing potential future emissions associated with flood fighting and emergency actions. As a result, the related projects could combine to reduce long-term potential GHG emissions in the Lower SJR region. The overall cumulative GHG emissions from these projects are considered to be less than significant.
Vegetation and Wildlife
The cumulative setting for impacts on vegetation and wildlife in the Central Valley and Delta region include the vegetation, associated habitats and wildlife described in the cumulative projects above. It is anticipated that each of these projects would implement their own mitigation plan to reduce impacts to vegetation and wildlife; however, there is the potential for significant cumulative effects to remain. On a regional level, these projects would still contribute to a significant cumulative effect and coordination with regulatory agencies would need to occur prior to construction to reduce these effects. Implementation of the LSJR project has the potential to remove 25,508 lf of SRA up to a maximum of 51,985 lf; 142 acres up to 245 acres of riparian trees and shrubs; and 11 to 15 acres of wetlands, depending on alternative, within the project area. This is the case for FRM projects throughout the Central Valley. Over the past 200 years about 95 percent of the native riparian forests have been removed and the land within and adjacent to the riparian zone has been be converted to agricultural and urban uses. The LSJR project’s contribution would be considerable and would contribute to a significant cumulative impact on vegetation and wildlife habitat.
Implementation of the avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation measures included in Sections 5.9 and 5.10 would reduce the magnitude of the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact, but not to a less than considerable level; therefore, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation measures included in Sections 5.9 and 5.10 would avoid, minimize and compensate to the extent feasible in accordance with the recommendations of the USFWS contained in their draft CAR for the LSJR project (Environmental Addendum). Further design refinements during the next phase of project development, together with investigations into the feasibility of a vegetation variance for the levees in the project area, would further reduce impacts on vegetation and wildlife. Potential adverse effects on vegetation and wildlife would remain significant due to the amount of habitat being removed to construct the project and the time lapse before the new plantings would mature to the level of those removed.
Fisheries Resources
Potential cumulative effects on fish would include effects associated with other levee, bank protection, dredging, water supply and ecosystem restoration projects proposed to occur in the SJR watershed. Projects underway both upstream and downstream of the LSJR project are intended to improve conditions for native fish and other aquatic organisms by improving habitat conditions within the existing system and by creating ATTACHMENT D 1425
Lower San Joaquin River
5-303
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences additional habitat. Other projects are working to meet the State’s co-equal goals for the Delta, balancing water supply reliability and ecosystem health. FRM projects in the valley include extensive levees, mostly immediately adjacent to the water bodies. These levees require on-going maintenance and repair and periodic improvements. Each of these activities may result in the direct degradation of nearshore habitat.
In areas outside the Vegetation ETL VFZ or where a variance is approved, the riverbanks can be replanted and nearshore habitat conditions even improved over existing conditions. Most levee project proponents in the SJR watershed expressed the intent to seek a vegetation variance. With USACE approval of a vegetation variance, impacts to fish species from vegetation removal would be reduced but the cumulative impact would be significant.
The LSJR project would include the same kinds of impacts with the short- and long-term loss of SRA. The direct and indirect effects associated with construction of the LSJR project would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on fisheries. Implementation of the avoidance, minimization, restoration and compensatory mitigation measures in Section 5.7 would reduce the magnitude of the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact, but not to a less than considerable level; therefore, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Special Status Species
The cumulative setting for impacts to special status species includes the spatial and temporal setting described for the species that correspond with the projects in the list above. The combination of the projects to each of the listed species affected by the LSJR project would result in significant cumulative impacts.
The project alternatives would result in considerable contributions to direct and indirect effects on special status species. Implementation of the mitigation measures described for each species listed in Section 5.12 would reduce the project’s impacts, except where there is direct and indirect loss of SRA habitat. This would not reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to less than considerable levels; therefore, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Potential cumulative impacts from the combination of these projects to each of the listed species affected by the LSJR project are discussed below. As described in Section 5.12, during preconstruction engineering and design, USACE designs will avoid impacts to special status species, where possible or otherwise minimize or compensate for adverse effects to each of these species.
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
Concurrent construction of multiple projects over the next 10 to 15 years within the LSJR study area would likely cause mortality to beetles due to construction operations. Construction activities for the multiple projects would occur each year during their flight season. Since construction activities would be adjacent to known VELB locations, it is likely that some mortality may occur. The exact number that would be injured or killed is unknown. No designated critical habitat would be affected with the construction of any of the projects.
Shrubs within each project footprint would be transplanted to appropriate conservation lands. These lands would be located as near to their currently locations as feasible. Additionally, compensation would be located at an approved mitigation bank. Transplanting of shrubs in the project vicinity, where feasible, would provide connectivity for the beetle. Lack of connectivity is a primary cause of the beetle decline and an important element in the recovery and sustainability for the beetle. The transplanting of shrubs and compensation through purchasing mitigation bank credits would offset effects to the beetle and a significant cumulative adverse effect or jeopardy to the VELB.
ATTACHMENT D 1426
Lower San Joaquin River
5-304
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Salmon, Steelhead and Sturgeon
The proposed projects could adversely modify critical habitat or contribute to the loss or degradation of sensitive habitats in the project vicinity for listed species such as the Central Valley steelhead, Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Delta smelt, Central Valley Fall-/late Fall-run Chinook salmon and green sturgeon. Erosion repair projects and dredging projects in the SJR system would reduce the sediment supply for downstream reaches. The LSJR project would not contribute to a reduction in the supply of sediment in the system; however, construction and operation of the closure structures on Fourteenmile Slough and Smith Canal could affect the distribution of the sediment in the system and change turbidity.
For projects approved for a vegetation variance, riparian vegetation, including vegetation that overhangs the water and contributes to SRA habitat values, would largely remain in place along the rivers and tributaries, except where removal is required for structural FRM features, like rock erosion protection. The RD 17 levee project would have initial cover losses due to project actions. However, the RD 17 levee improvement project would minimize vegetation removal through the choice of the type and method of improving the levees. The Lower SJR project would investigate the feasibility of a vegetation variance during the next project development phase. A vegetation variance could allow for most of the potential SRA overhanging vegetation canopy in the project area to remain, along with much of the woody vegetation on the lower one-half of the levee slopes and within the 15-foot easement adjacent to the waterside of the levee. Conceptual proposals for expansion of riparian habitat, including overhanging vegetation contributing to SRA along Paradise Cut and at upstream Federal wildlife refuges, would expand the availability of quality riparian habitat. In areas that have been approved or will be approved for a vegetation variance which would exclude the removal of SRA habitat, the effects would be considered less than significant for salmon, steelhead and sturgeon. Due to the scarcity and importance of SRA habitat values in the project area, complying with the Vegetation ETL would be considered a significant and unavoidable effect on habitat for salmon, steelhead and sturgeon.
Delta Smelt
The proposed projects would provide a mix of beneficial and adverse consequences to Delta smelt as explained for the other fish species. However, there are 4 specific, significant threats to the Delta smelt identified by USFWS: direct entrainments by State and Federal water export facilities, summer and fall increases in salinity and water clarity and effects from introduced species.
Implementation of the various projects would not affect direct entrainments by State and Federal water export facilities, although some, like the BDCP, intend to reduce entrainments by locating additional export facilities further north on the Sacramento River. Summer and fall increases in salinity is driven more by low flow drought years, water releases from the dams on the SJR system and agricultural return flows.
Summer and fall increases in water clarity are associated with, among other factors, invasive nonnative clam species and nonnative plant species, which are generally located in the Delta, including the northernmost part of the project areas. These nonnative invasive clams filter out vital chlorophyll and plankton that would normally increase turbidity, which helps the Delta smelt avoid predators. However, as mentioned above, the erosion repair activities of these combined projects, would likely reduce the sediment supply for riverine reaches directly downstream because the erosion repair is holding the bank or levee in place. Shallow water habitat is also a very important component for Delta smelt spawning and implementation of the various projects has the potential to have a significant effect on the Delta smelt’s shallow water habitat in the project area.
ATTACHMENT D 1427
Lower San Joaquin River
5-305
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Giant Garter Snake
The GGS could be affected by multiple projects being constructed within the LSJR project area during the next 10 to 15 years. Primarily, habitat loss would occur on the RD 17 area as a result of land conversion from agricultural and open space to urban uses. In association with the structural elements of the FRM project, short-term impacts would occur for a single construction season along haul routes and within borrow sites. To minimize potential impacts, work within GGS habitat would be conducted between May 1 and October 1, when snakes are active and can move out of the construction area. Snake mortality could occur during construction along haul routes; however, the snakes are mobile and would likely move out of the way from construction equipment. Avoidance and minimization measures described in Section
5.12.10.1 would reduce impacts on GGS to a less than significant level. The USFWS has recommended the avoidance and minimization measures for GGS based on BMPs shown to reduce impacts to the snake.
Land Use
The cumulative setting for impacts to land use is the Cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca and San Joaquin County. Construction of any of the proposed alternatives, especially the setback levee along Fourteenmile Slough and the setback levee in RD 17, would result in the conversion of some land use types, including agricultural lands, into levees and supporting FRM features. Construction and/or implementation of all projects within the these areas, as provided in the list above, including the RD 17 Phase 3 levee project and the build out of the Stockton, Manteca and Lathrop general plans. This would result in the irreversible conversion of farmland to urban development, which would be a significant cumulative impact. While the LSJRFS project would implement mitigation measures to reduce the effect from this project to less than significant, there would remain a significant cumulative effect to agriculture in the region.
Implementing the LSJR project would not result in a cumulative loss of urban lands, which are increasing in the region. The LSJR project would comply with Federal and State regulations to compensate the landowners for the loss of their properties (urban and agricultural) and to relocate them, as feasible.
Permanent loss of SRA would conflict with the San Joaquin Habitat Conservation Plan and for this reason the project would have a considerable contribution. Because there are no feasible mitigation measures to mitigate the project’s contribution to less than considerable, the impact remains significant and unavoidable.
The NEPA consideration of the project’s contribution to cumulative losses of SRA is considered under “Vegetation and Wildlife,” “Fisheries Resources,” “Special Status Species” and “Salmon, Steelhead and Sturgeon.”
Transportation
The cumulative setting for impacts to transportation is the transportation network in the study area. Projects planned in the study area constructed at the same time as the LSJR Project could contribute to short-term increases in construction-related vehicle trips and disruptions of traffic patterns. While there would be a cumulative effect on freeways and other regional roadways, the roadways are designed to handle increased traffic loads. The LSJR project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on traffic or transportation in the vicinity because there is enough distance between the LSJR project and the other projects that the effects would not combine and there would be no cumulative impact.
ATTACHMENT D 1428
Lower San Joaquin River
5-306
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Utilities and Public Infrastructure
The cumulative setting for utilities and public infrastructure include the Cities of Stockton, Lathrop, Manteca and areas within the project area served by utilities in San Joaquin County. Implementation of projects in the list above would result in increased demand on local utilities in the study area. Utilities planning and implementation of capital improvement projects, in concert with the development these projects, would reduce impacts on service. However, development of these projects would have potential significant cumulative impacts related to the expansion and service from utilities. Implementation of the proposed LSJR alternatives would not require the use or expansion of local utilities, including water supply.
The project would have the potential to damage utility lines during construction that could interrupt supply.
This would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts.
Implementation of the mitigation measures in Section 5.16 would reduce the project’s contribution to less than significant because the construction contractor would coordinate with utility service providers and consumers to minimize interruptions to the maximum extent feasible and a response plan to address service interruptions would be prepared and implemented. Therefore, by incorporating mitigation measures, the LSJR project would not contribute to significant cumulative impacts on utilities and public infrastructure.
Recreation
The cumulative setting for recreation in the project study area would be combined with other construction projects that could occur during the same timeframe as the alternatives considered in this study. At the time of this analysis, heavy construction projects are anticipated to occur along the north, west and south levees of RD 17. Temporary construction effects from the LSJR project would be minimized through replacement with similar facilities, design modifications and coordination with the public and recreation agencies ensuring that any residual effects would be minimized. However, LSJR project impacts associated with the loss of trees and shrubs (changes in the visual quality of the recreational experience, changes in microclimate and reduced opportunities for bird watching and wildlife viewing) would result in a considerable contribution to significant cumulative impacts on recreation. Because there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to less than considerable, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise
The cumulative setting for impacts related to noise is based on other local projects that would result in temporarily increased levels of ambient noise in the study area. In residential areas along the rivers and creeks, this would be a significant effect on those residents. However, the effects would be limited to the people or wildlife in the immediate proximity to the construction sites. None of the local projects are in close enough proximity of the individual construction sites in the project area to create a cumulative effect from concurrent construction. If there are any projects constructing within audible distance from one another, USACE would coordinate with the other projects to ensure that the LSJR project would not be constructing at the same time as other, adjacent construction. The LSJR project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact because the project noise impacts from the project would be site specific and would not combine with other projects’ noise impacts.
Public Health and Environmental Hazards
There is a potential for the proposed project as well as projects identified above to encounter hazardous materials or to experience an unintended release of such materials, resulting in an increased risk of exposure.
Exposure to existing soil and groundwater contamination is generally site-specific and depends on past, present and future uses and existing soil, sediment and groundwater conditions. Any hazardous materials ATTACHMENT D 1429
Lower San Joaquin River
5-307
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences uncovered during construction activities would be managed consistent with applicable Federal, State and local laws to limit exposure and clean up the contamination. While construction and operational activities could result in accidental spills or leaks in the vicinity, the extent of the contamination is not likely to extend beyond the project site boundaries due to the type and limited quantities of hazardous materials likely to be used (e.g. motor fuels, hydraulic oils, paint and lubricants). Furthermore, the storage, handling and transport of hazardous materials are also regulated by Federal, State and local regulatory agencies to limit risk of exposure. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to contribute to a significant cumulative impact from exposure to existing contamination or from release of hazardous or toxic materials during construction.
Cultural
Cumulative impacts to cultural resources would be primarily related to other construction projects that could occur during the same timeframe as those considered for this study and within the same vicinity as this study. At the time of this analysis, there are several heavy construction projects anticipated to modify the SJR levees that would result in similar impacts to cultural resource sites as the LSJR project.
Construction activities, including those associated with the LSJR Project, could contribute to the progressive loss of cultural resources and result in significant cumulative impacts. The project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be considerable due to the amount of earth-disturbing activities associated with project construction. Implementation of the mitigation measures in Section 5.21 for development and implementation of an HPTP would reduce the proposed project’s contribution to this significant cumulative impact, but not to a less than considerable level. Therefore, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
The mitigation measure in Section 5.21 requires development of specific measures in accordance with the PA to address any adverse effects on historic properties via the development of an HPTP that would guide the level of data recovery, mitigation or actions taken to resolve adverse effects to the historic property.
Aesthetics
The cumulative setting for aesthetics would be site specific to those areas in or adjacent to the project study area. Implementation of projects within the study area in the past, together with those planned in the future, would result in significant cumulative impacts to visual resources primarily related to loss of visual quality both during construction and after construction. The proposed alternatives would contribute to this significant cumulative impact because it would result in a permanent loss of large trees and other vegetation along the Lower SJR, Lower Calaveras River, French Camp Slough, Mosher Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Tenmile Slough and Fivemile Slough. Other projects in the area, such as the RD 17 Levee Improvement Project, could also result in the removal of large trees and other vegetation. Therefore, the LSJR project would result in a considerable contribution to cumulative impacts on visual resources, primarily from removal of vegetation and the long time period for replanted vegetation to reach similar size. Because there are no feasible mitigation measures to reduce the magnitude of the project’s contribution to less than considerable, this cumulative impact would remain significant and unavoidable.
UNAVOIDABLE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
Certain adverse impacts cannot be avoided with the application of mitigation measures. State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 21100(b)(2)(A) provides that an EIR shall include a detailed statement setting forth “any significant effect on the environment that cannot be avoided if the project is implemented.” Sections 5.1 to 5.21 provide a detailed analysis of all potentially significant direct and indirect environmental impacts of the LSJR project, feasible mitigation measures that could reduce or avoid the project’s significant impacts and whether these mitigation measures would reduce these impacts to less than ATTACHMENT D 1430
Lower San Joaquin River
5-308
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences significant levels. The LSJR project’s significant cumulative impacts are in Section 5.23. If a specific impact cannot be reduced to a less than significant level, it is considered a significant and unavoidable impact. The significant and unavoidable environmental impacts (direct, indirect and/or cumulative) of the preferred alternative (RP), Alternative 7a, are shown in Table 5-48.
Table 5-48: Significant and Unavoidable Environmental Impacts of the RP, Alternative 7a Resource Effect
Vegetation Short- and long-term loss of trees, shrubs and wetlands in the project area.
Wildlife Short- and long-term loss of habitat and movement corridors in the project area.
Fisheries Indirect effects to fish habitat from the removal of some vegetation from the levee slopes and vibration during construction. Direct effects from the construction and operation of closure structures on Fourteenmile Slough and Smith Canal. Indirect effects of the closure structures due to the potential to attract non-native predators.
Special Status Species Local loss of riparian, wetland and shaded riverine aquatic habitat.
Recreation Impacts to the recreational experience due to vegetation removal and the resulting changes in the visual quality, microclimate and reduced opportunities for bird watching and wildlife viewing.
Aesthetics Loss of visual character and loss of visual quality of the site and surroundings. Removal of trees and shrubs for compliance with the Vegetation ETL would unavoidably impact aesthetics. If a variance to the vegetation ETL is approved, this impact would be reduced but not to less than significant. The Smith Canal closure structure and the wall along Dad’s Point would also be a significant and unavoidable impact.
Transportation Because haul routes are unknown at this time, the magnitude of impacts to transportation and circulation during construction activities cannot be quantified; therefore, even with mitigation measures impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Noise Short-term construction impacts related to noise and vibration may affect sensitive receptors in and adjacent to the construction sites and haul routes. Also, predicted noise levels may not meet the applicable standards for local exterior noise for residential land uses.
Cultural Resources Short- and long-term construction impacts to cultural resources and historic properties from construction of levee improvements, new levees, seepage berms and closure structures.
ATTACHMENT D 1431
Lower San Joaquin River
5-309
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES
NEPA requires that an EIS include a discussion of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources that may be involved should the project be implemented. Similarly, the State CEQA Guidelines require a discussion of the significant, irreversible environmental changes that would be caused by the project should it be implemented. The irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources are the permanent loss of resources for future or alternative purposes. Irreversible and irretrievable resources are those that cannot be recovered or recycled or those that are consumed or reduced to unrecoverable forms.
Project implementation would result in the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of energy and material resources during project construction and maintenance, including the following:
Construction materials, including such resources as soil and rocks; Land and water area committed to new/expanded project facilities; Energy expended in the form of electricity, gasoline, diesel fuel and oil for equipment and transportation vehicles that would be needed for project construction, O&M; and Water used for dust abatement.
The use of these nonrenewable resources is expected to account for only a small portion of the region’s resources and would not affect the availability of these resources for other needs within the region.
Construction activities would not result in inefficient use of energy or natural resources.
As described throughout this FR/DEIS/DEIR, without implementation of the LSJR project, the risk of levee failure would remain high. While a precise quantification of environmental impacts associated with potential levee failure is not possible, there is a potential for a variety of significant environmental impacts.
Levee failure and the resulting emergency and reconstruction efforts could expend more energy, overall, than construction of the LSJR project. A large volume of debris would result from a flood event, such as cars, appliances, housing materials and vegetation. They would all be generated with a flood and would likely have to be disposed of in a landfill. After debris removal was completed, re-building would occur and new materials would be required to construct homes, businesses, roads and other urban infrastructure.
Thus, project implementation preempts potentially substantial future consumption and is likely to result in long-term energy and materials conservation.
ATTACHMENT D 1432
Lower San Joaquin River
5-310
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND
LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY
NEPA requires that an EIS include a discussion of the relationship between short-term uses of the environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity. Within the context of this FR/EIS/EIR, “short-term” refers to the construction period, while “long-term” refers to the operational life of the project and beyond.
Project construction would result in short-term construction-related effects such as interference with local traffic and recreation facilities and increased air emissions, ambient noise level, dust generation and are not expected to alter the long-term productivity of the natural environment. Project implementation would also result in long-term effects, including permanent loss of riparian vegetation, habitat for fish and wildlife, changes to Waters of the United States and loss of visual resources.
Project implementation would contribute to long-term productivity of the environment by improving the FRM system, including levees and closure structures, that protects North and Central Stockton and thereby reducing the overall flood risk to residential, business and government buildings and infrastructure. This would reduce flood-related risks to human health and safety and to important infrastructure. The long-term beneficial effects of the project would outweigh its potentially significant, short-term impacts to the environment.
ATTACHMENT D 1433
Lower San Joaquin River
6-1
Final Feasibility Report – Chapter 6 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Coordination and Consultation
CHAPTER 6 — COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
This chapter summarizes public and agency involvement undertaken by USACE, CVFPB, and SJAFCA that were conducted to date, are ongoing, and/or will be conducted for this project and that satisfy NEPA and CEQA requirements for public scoping and agency consultation and coordination. Additionally, consultation with Native American Tribes is described.
PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT UNDER NEPA AND CEQA
This section describes key elements of the public involvement process for this feasibility study. This report was prepared as an integrated FR/EIS/EIR.
NOTICE OF INTENT, NOTICE OF PREPARATION, AND SCOPING MEETINGS A NOI for preparation of a joint EIS/EIR was published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2010 (Vol. 75, No. 10). A NOP was filed with the State Clearinghouse (SCH # 2010012027) on the same date. USACE is the lead agency for the EIS and for NEPA compliance. SJAFCA is the lead agency for the EIR and for CEQA compliance.
A public scoping meeting was held at the University of the Pacific on Wednesday, January 27, 2010.
Scoping comments received at the public meeting and during the scoping period are included in Environmental Addendum. In addition to requests to be added to the study mailing list, scoping comments included the following broad requests and recommendations:
Include Stewart Tract and Paradise Cut within the focused study area. Evaluate dredging and levee height raises as measures to improve channel capacity and FRM. Incorporate measures to minimize adverse effects on fish, wildlife and their habitat. Incorporate measures to improve or restore fish and wildlife habitat. Use existing data, modeling and analyses developed by others where feasible. Evaluate potential impacts on infrastructure adjacent to and/or spanning the waterways. Evaluate potential impacts on fish, wildlife, special status species, habitat, vegetation, wetlands, water quality, river flows, channel alignment, floodplains, climate change, air quality, socioeconomics, land use, growth inducement and cumulative impacts.
Describe the relationship of the project to other large scale planning for the Delta and San Joaquin.
Measures for FRM were evaluated as part of this study. Plan formulation and measure screening are described in Chapter 3. Measures to reduce and minimize impacts on fish, wildlife and their habitat were analyzed and are described in Chapter 5. The purpose of this study is FRM, therefore measures focused solely on ecosystem restoration were eliminated early in the study; however, opportunities to incorporate environmentally beneficial measures into FRM alternatives were more fully considered. The levee setback along Fourteenmile Slough provides opportunities to integrate compensatory mitigation into the (RP).
Impact assessment for all of the resources identified during scoping are included in Chapter 5.
ATTACHMENT D 1434
Lower San Joaquin River
6-2
Final Feasibility Report – Chapter 6 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Coordination and Consultation
NEXT STEPS IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS
A Notice of Availability of the draft report was published in the Federal Register on February 27, 2015, and circulated for a 45-day public review period to Federal, State and local agencies, organizations and individuals who have an interest in the project. One public workshop was held during the review period to provide additional opportunities to discuss and comment on the draft report. The public workshop was held on Wednesday, April 8, 2015 at the Stockton Civic Auditorium, South Hall, 525 North Center Street, Stockton, CA from 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. All comments received during the public review period were considered and incorporated into the final report, as appropriate. Public comments and the USACE/CVFPB/SJAFCA responses to those comments are included in Environmental Addendum.
A Notice of Availability of the final report for a 30-day State, agency, and public review period will be published in the Federal Register. All comments received during this period will be considered prior to USACE making a final decision on the RP and in preparing the ROD.
COORDINATION WITH OTHER FEDERAL, STATE, REGIONAL AND LOCAL
AGENCIES
Chapter 7 describes how the project complies with applicable Federal, State and local laws, regulations, and other requirements and discusses required consultations and coordination. The following briefly summarizes these consultation and coordination efforts.
Beyond formal public scoping, USACE, SJAFCA, and DWR communicated with Federal, State and local agencies in the course of project planning, alternative development and preparation of this report. These communications included in-person meetings, telephone conversations and written correspondence. The communications addressed consistency with other planning studies and projects in the region, pursuit of agency approvals, information to be considered in the document and opportunities for partnership.
USACE coordinated and informally consulted with USFWS and NMFS during the study to help analyze potential effects to biological resources, including threatened and endangered species. In their Draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (2014), USFWS provided the recommendations shown in Section
6.2.1 below. USACE’s response to each recommendation is also provided.
This report was coordinated with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) among the project partners (USACE, CVFPB, SJAFCA) and with DWR. Coordination with SHPO was conducted during the early planning phase of this study. A current Programmatic Agreement has been signed by USACE and was coordinated with SHPO.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE RECOMMENDATIONS
A Draft Coordination Act Report (CAR), dated June 24, 2014, and a Final CAR, dated July 25, 2016, were prepared by USFWS in coordination with CDFW (See Environmental Addendum). The CAR describes existing environmental resources within the project area and potential effects of the project on these resources. Recommendations developed by the USFWS in the CAR were considered in plan formulation and mitigation development.
ATTACHMENT D 1435
Lower San Joaquin River
6-3
Final Feasibility Report – Chapter 6 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Coordination and Consultation
For the proposed LSJRFS, USFWS recommends USACE:
USFWS Recommendation 1: Resolve uncertainties and information gaps in the study.
1.1. Determine vegetation impacts and future allowances in all project locations with certainty, prior to construction.
1b. Comprehensively evaluate the effects of tidal gate operation on salinity, flow, temperature, other water quality factors, and all relevant ecological processes and related recreational activities, in the affected sloughs and adjacent waterways; this should include analysis for reasonable sea level rise predictions over the project life.
1.2. Conduct ground-level assessment of vegetation losses, including, but not limited to, cover typing, species, height, diameter, substrate and inundation frequency; and a habitat evaluation procedures study, if deemed appropriate by USFWS.
1.3. Develop and propose mitigation to offset habitat losses, using the guidance provided in this report, with exact locations and quantities of all mitigation plantings, and plans for monitoring.
1.4. Complete a quantitative assessment of impacts for the preferred alternative.
1.5. Identify staging and borrow areas.
Response 1: Concur in part. As part of USACE Planning Modernization, some of the specific information previously developed during the feasibility phase of a project is either not developed, or is developed during later project phases only for the RP. The simplifying assumptions and analytical methods used to quantify impacts are likely to overestimate actual environmental impacts to fish and wildlife habitat. However, the level of information developed at the Draft FR/EIS/EIR stage is sufficient to discern the relative differences in the impacts between alternatives to inform the decision making process and satisfy NEPA and CEQA requirements. Since the draft report was published, field surveys for VELB and GGS habitats were completed and that habitat was identified and quantified.
Response 1.1: Concur. Prior to construction, vegetation impacts and future approved vegetation allowances would be specifically determined for the RP. This would include onsite vegetation surveys.
Response 1.1b: Concur. During PED, engineering modeling and studies would be completed to support detailed designs, operational criteria, and minimization of environmental effects.
Response 1.2: Concur. During PED, field surveys would be completed to refine estimates of vegetation loss. The scope of these surveys would be coordinated with USFWS, NMFS and CDFW. If appropriate, a habitat evaluation procedure study would be completed.
Response 1.3: Concur. Mitigation that would avoid, minimize, rectify or compensate for potential adverse impacts is identified in this report. A mitigation and monitoring plan related to habitat elements has been developed for the RP. The plan will be coordinated with USFWS, NMFS and CDFW, and is included as an addendum to the final report.
Response 1.4: Concur. Chapter 5 of this report includes an assessment of impacts for all alternatives.
Response 1.5: Concur. Chapter 4, Section 4.5 generally describes staging and borrow areas needed to implement the alternatives included in the final array. Staging and borrow areas would be specifically identified and evaluated during PED.
ATTACHMENT D 1436
Lower San Joaquin River
6-4
Final Feasibility Report – Chapter 6 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Coordination and Consultation
USFWS Recommendation 2: Evaluate and consider the following alternative measures to avoid impacts, and locate mitigation sites as near to the impact sites as possible before going off-site to approved conservation banks:
2.1. Eliminate the proposed tidal gates, especially the one on Fourteenmile Slough, and instead improve the slough levees, as a means to avoid impacts of gate operations to tidal habitat function;
2.2. Restore the historic wetland between Walther and French Camp Sloughs, including removal of capped landfill material;
2.3. Create tidal wetland as near as possible to impact sites on Shima, Wright, and/or Rindge Tract lands;
2.4. Create SRA and riparian cover as near as possible to impact sites on candidate areas identified on French Camp Slough north bank (Van Buskirk golf course) and the lower Calaveras River south bank (existing set back levee area);
2.5. Develop an alternative for RD 17 phase III improvements that combines a setback levee with restoration of SRA cover to the maximum extent possible.
Response 2.1: Do not concur. The tide gates are an integral part of the RP. Modifications to the levee in this area is constrained by the proximity of homes and urban infrastructure.
Responses 2.2., 2.3., and 2.4: Concur in part. During PED, additional opportunities to implement cost effective, feasible, and acceptable compensatory mitigation on site and near the project site, instead of offsite, would be evaluated.
Response 2.5: Do not concur. The RP would implement a project in the North and Central Stockton area.
Improvements in RD 17 are not included in the RP identified in this interim feasibility study.
USFWS Recommendation 3: Develop an operations and maintenance manual for completed project features to provide maximal habitat value conditions consistent with any approved ETL variance, other maintenance standards needed for project reliability and safety, and the USFWS’ and NMFS’ Biological Opinions. This may include measures such as selective removal of non-natives and planting of natives.
Response 3: Concur in part. The operations and maintenance manuals for the project would be updated to include the new features and their operation and maintenance, including any vegetation management requirements, and requirements of the USFWS and NMFS BO’s. If an ETL vegetation variance is approved, non-native trees and shrubs would be selectively removed and native trees and shrubs may be planted during and immediately following construction and maintained during the approved establishment period. Following this, routine O&M would remove both native and non-native tree and shrub seedlings before they become established.
USFWS Recommendation 4: Reinitiate Section 7 consultation with USFWS and NMFS as appropriate for any changes in the project description, including but not limited to development of a mitigation plan.
Response 4: Concur. Section 7 consultation would be reinitiated consistent with the requirements specified in 50 CFR 402.16.
USFWS Recommendation 5: Conduct appropriate consultation with CDFW on effects to State-listed species.
Response 5: Concur. USACE has consulted with CDFW under the FWCA. SJAFCA as CEQA lead agency, and CVFPB as a responsible agency, are consulting with CDFW, as appropriate, on potential project effects to State-listed species.
ATTACHMENT D 1437
Lower San Joaquin River
6-5
Final Feasibility Report – Chapter 6 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Coordination and Consultation
USFWS Recommendation 6: Develop enhancement and restoration opportunities for incorporation to the maximum extent possible into the preferred alternative for the project.
Response 6: Concur. Opportunities for restoration were considered during plan formulation; however, opportunities to incorporate ecosystem restoration into the preferred alternative are severely constrained due to the proximity of the levee system to the waterways and the highly urbanized Stockton area.
Therefore, restoration actions are not included in the RP. The RP does incorporate some compensatory mitigation features along Fourteenmile Slough.
CONSULTATION WITH NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
A list of potentially interested Native Americans was obtained from the District Native American Coordinator at Caltrans District 10 in Stockton. Two letters were sent to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians, the Wilton Rancheria, the Nototomne/Northern Valley Yokuts and the California Valley Miwok Tribe.
The first letter, dated August 12, 2012, informed them of the new feasibility study and requested any information they may have on areas of traditional cultural interest to their tribal members. We had two responses. Ms. Sylvia Burley, Tribal Chairperson of the California Valley Miwok Indians, requested Government to Government consultation which was forwarded to Mr. Mark Gilfillan, the USACE Tribal Liaison. Ms. Katherine Perez, Tribal Chairwoman for the Nototomne/Northern Valley Yokuts, called to request more information.
The first letters were sent out on December 2, 2013, including a description, location maps of the final array of alternatives, and a copy of the draft PA for review. A call from Mr. Randy Yonemura concerning the PA was received in December 2013; however, no specific comments have been submitted by any Tribe.
Since the first letters were sent out, USACE developed a revised draft PA for the project. A second round of letters were sent on March 18, 2016 with a copy of the revised draft PA for review. No comments were received from the Tribes regarding the revised draft PA.
A final draft of the PA was distributed to tribes on August 13, 2014. In response, a letter from the California Valley Miwok Tribe stating they had no further comments and were requesting concurring party status was received on August 15, 2014. Ms. Perez called USACE for additional information, stated that she was very concerned about the possibility of human burials within the project area, and requested concurring party status. She chose to sign the final draft form of the document and submitted it via facsimile on August 20, 2014. USACE received comments concerning the project and PA from the Buena Vista Rancheria on August 29, 2014. USACE has provided the Buena Vista Rancheria responses to their comments in May 2016.
The United Auburn Indian Community expressed interest in this project on November 23, 2015 and have since been included in consultations.
The Draft FR/EIS/EIR was provided, and the Final Integrated Report will be provided to, the following Tribes: Wilson Rancheria, Nototomne/Northern Valley Yokuts, Californian Valley Miwok Tribe, Ione Band of Miwok Indians, United Auburn Indian Community, and Buena Vista Rancheria Me-Wuk Indians.
A current PA has been signed by USACE and SHPO on May 11, 2016 as part of the submittal of this document.
ATTACHMENT D 1438
Lower San Joaquin River
6-6
Final Feasibility Report – Chapter 6 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Coordination and Consultation
ISSUES OF KNOWN OR EXPECTED CONTROVERSY
The following issues were identified as a result of public scoping during the feasibility study and preparation of the EIS/EIR. While these issues are addressed in the EIS/EIR, they are of continuing concern to the public.
PROPERTY ACQUISITION
A specific issue of concern involves potential conflicts with private property within or near the construction area. In some cases, permanent property acquisition may be needed for project construction, O&M.
Temporary construction easements will likely be needed for construction staging and equipment access, and temporary restrictions on access to private property may also be necessary. These effects are described in Chapter 5.
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED EFFECTS
The levee system in the project area is adjacent to residential areas and other developed land uses.
Construction activities are likely to result in construction-related effects including topics of noise, traffic and air quality, and are specifically described in Chapter 5.
LEVEE ENCROACHMENT AND VEGETATION
The project is likely to include removal, relocation or replacement of features in, on or under the levee or adjacent O&M corridors such as structures, pipelines, walls, stairs, utilities and other elements such as vegetation.
USACE technical guidance for levee vegetation management is published in USACE ETL 1110-2-583.
Implementation of this guidance has stirred controversy throughout the Central Valley since cursory assessments have shown that much vegetation may require removal, resulting in effects on fish and wildlife habitat including habitat for endangered and threatened species, and social values like recreation and aesthetics. This issue is described further in Chapter 5 in the sections on vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, special status species, visual resources and recreation.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT
Application of the EO to this study caused concerns about the ability of local jurisdictions to meet their planning and development goals. This concern is particularly relevant to the RD 17 portion of the project area. The project’s potential to induce growth, or remove a potential barrier to growth, is discussed in Chapter 3, Section 3.6.
ATTACHMENT D 1439
Lower San Joaquin River
7-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans CHAPTER 7 — COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS, POLICIES
AND PLANS
The laws, regulations, policies and plans related to the resources discussed in Chapter 5 are summarized herein. The LSJRFS compliance status is also discussed.
FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS
CLEAN AIR ACT
The Federal CAA (42 USC Section 7401, et seq.) authorized the establishment of national health-based air quality standards, and also set deadlines for their attainment. The CAA Amendments of 1990 (1990 CAA) made major changes in deadlines for attaining NAAQS. State and local agencies, within areas that exceed the NAAQS, are required to develop SIPs to show how they will achieve the NAAQS for nonattainment criteria pollutants by specific dates. SIPs are not single documents. They are a compilation of new and previously submitted plans, programs (such as monitoring, modeling, permitting, etc.), district rules, State regulations and Federal controls. USEPA is responsible for enforcing the NAAQS primarily through reviewing SIPs that are prepared by each state. As required by the Federal CAA, USEPA established and continues to update the NAAQS for specific criteria air pollutants: O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and Pb. Pursuant to CAA Section 176(c) requirements, USEPA promulgated the General Conformity Rule (40 CFR Part 93), which applies to most Federal actions including the LSJRFS. The General Conformity Rule is used to determine if Federal actions meet the requirements of the CAA and the applicable SIP by ensuring that pollutant emissions related to the action do not:
Cause or contribute to new violations of a NAAQS.
Increase the frequency or severity of any existing violation of a NAAQS. Delay timely attainment of a NAAQS or interim emission reduction.
A conformity determination under the General Conformity Rule is required if the Federal agency determines: the action will occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area; that one or more specific exemptions do not apply to the action; the action is not included in the Federal agency’s “presumed to conform” list; the emissions from the proposed action are not within the approved emissions budget for an applicable facility; and the total direct and indirect emissions of a pollutant (or its precursors) are at, or above, the de minimis levels established in the General Conformity regulations.
For the LSJR Project, emissions from both construction equipment and barges, as well as those associated with construction of slurry walls, bank protection and levee raises were analyzed to determine air quality impacts. The analysis determined that the emissions associated with construction would be above de minimis levels. However, emissions would be reduced to below de minimis thresholds with the implementation of mitigation measures as described in Section 5.8. A General Conformity determination is therefore not required and the Project is in compliance with the CAA.
GHG emission management is regulated by Federal, State and local levels of government. USEPA is responsible for GHG regulation at the Federal level. On December 7, 2009, the Final Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases (endangerment finding) under Section 202(a) of the CAA went into effect. The finding states that current and projected concentrations of the six key GHGs threaten the public health and welfare of present and future generations. Furthermore, the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicles contribute to the GHG pollution, which threatens public health and welfare (USEPA 2012a). Under the endangerment finding, USEPA is developing vehicle emission standards under the CAA. Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the CAA determine whether ATTACHMENT D 1440
Lower San Joaquin River
7-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans project emission sources and levels significantly affect air quality based on Federal standards established by USEPA and State standards set by CARB. The LSJR Project is estimated to be beneath the reporting limits for GHGs. As a result, the Project is considered in compliance with the CAA.
CLEAN WATER ACT
CWA is the primary Federal law governing water pollution. It established the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into waters of the U.S. and gives USEPA authority to implement pollution control programs such as setting wastewater standards for industries (USEPA 2002). In some states, such as California, USEPA has delegated authority to regulate the CWA to State agencies.
Section 401 of the CWA regulates the water quality for any activity that may result in discharge into navigable waters; these actions must not violate Federal water quality standards. The Central Valley RWQCB administers Section 401 in California and either issues or denies water quality certifications that typically include project-specific requirements established by the RWQCB.
Section 404 of the CWA requires that a permit be obtained from USEPA and USACE when an action will result in discharge of dredged or fill material into wetlands and waters of the U.S. Under Section 404, USACE regulates such discharges and issues individual and/or general permits. Before USACE can issue a permit, it must determine that the project is in compliance with the CWA Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, which specify that “no discharge of dredged or fill material shall be permitted if there is a practical alternative to the proposed discharge which would have less adverse impact on the aquatic ecosystem, so long as the alternative does not have other significant adverse environmental consequences” (40 CFR 230.10[a]). USEPA has “veto” authority over permits issued by USACE.
When conducting its own civil works projects, USACE does not issue permits to itself. Rather, USACE complies with the guidelines and substantive requirements of the CWA, including Section 404 and Section 401. The LSJR Project would require discharge of fill material into waters of the U.S.; therefore, a section 404(b)(1) analysis was conducted on the Recommended Plan (RP). The discharge of fill material would comply with 404(b)(1) guidelines with the inclusion of appropriate measures to minimize pollution or adverse effects on the aquatic ecosystem. A Section 401 water quality certification will be requested from the Central Valley RWQCB. With the completion of a 404(b)(1) analysis and the issuance of a Section 401 water quality certification from the Central Valley RWQCB, this project would be in full compliance with the CWA.
The Project would also require a NPDES permit since it would disturb 1 or more acres of land and involves possible storm water discharges to surface waters. Prior to construction, the contractor would prepare a SWPPP and then submit a NOI to the Central Valley RWQCB requesting approval of the proposed work.
This storm water plan would identify best management practices to avoid or minimize any adverse effects of construction on surface waters. Once the work is completed, the contractor would submit a Notice of Termination to terminate coverage by the NPDES permit.
COMPREHENSIVE ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSE, COMPENSATION, AND
LIABILITY ACT
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (known as Superfund) was passed to facilitate the cleanup of toxic waste sites. In 1986, the Act was amended by the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act Title III (community right-to-know laws). Title III states that past and present owners of land contaminated with hazardous substances can be held liable for the entire cost of the cleanup, even if the material was dumped illegally when the property was under different ownership.
HTRW materials may be present in the project vicinity. The NFS is responsible for providing all lands, easements and rights-of-way required for the LSJR Project. If contaminants exist, these lands would be ATTACHMENT D 1441
Lower San Joaquin River
7-3
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans required to be cleaned up before project implementation. The LSJR Project would be in full compliance with this Act.
FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973, AS AMENDED
Pursuant to the ESA, USFWS and NMFS have regulatory authority over Federally-listed species. Under the ESA, a permit to “take” a listed species is required for any Federal action that may harm a listed species.
ESA, Section 7 prohibits Federal agencies from authorizing, funding or carrying out activities that are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species, or destroy or adversely modify its critical habitat.
By consulting with USFWS and NMFS before initiating projects, agencies review actions to determine if they could adversely affect listed species or their habitat and design their programs and projects to conserve listed and proposed species. USFWS and NMFS coordination with other Federal agencies is important to species conservation. USFWS is the administering agency for non-marine species. NMFS is the administering agency for marine species, including anadromous fish species.
USACE submitted to USFWS and NMFS a biological assessment and requested to formally consult on the RP’s potential effects on Federally-listed, threatened and endangered species, and designated critical habitat. Formal consultation with USFWS and with NMFS concluded with biological opinions (BO), issued in June 2016, which included incidental take statements and non-discretionary terms and conditions. The consultation addressed the following: VELB, GGS, North American green sturgeon southern DPS, Delta smelt, California Central Valley (CV) steelhead DPS, CV spring-run Chinook salmon evolutionarily significant unit (ESU), and designated Critical Habitat for Central Valley Steelhead DPS, Delta smelt, and green sturgeon southern DPS. With receipt of the BOs the LSJR Project is in full compliance with Section 7 of the Act. The BOs and supporting information are included in Environmental Addendum.
EO 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS
Executive Order 11990, signed May 24, 1977, directs all Federal agencies to refrain from assisting in or giving financial support to projects that encroach on publicly or privately owned wetlands. It further requires that Federal agencies support a policy to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands.
A project that encroaches on wetlands may not be undertaken unless the agency determines that: 1) there are no practicable alternatives to such construction, 2) the project includes all practicable measures to minimize harm to wetlands that would be affected, and 3) the effect would be minor.
As part of the Feasibility Study, a full range of measures and alternatives to achieve FRM were developed and assessed. The RP includes elements that would impact waters of the U.S., including wetlands. These project elements are the two closure structures on Fourteenmile Slough and Smith Canal; and relocation of landside toe drains and some local irrigation and drainage ditches in order to construct levee improvements.
During the next project development phase, all jurisdictional wetlands potentially affected by the project would be identified and delineated in the field. Avoidance and minimization measures would be implemented to the maximum extent feasible. All impacts to wetlands would be fully mitigated through a combination of onsite or offsite compensatory mitigation and mitigation bank credits. Once wetlands have been identified, delineated and avoidance, minimization and compensation measures implemented, the will be in compliance with EO 11990.
EO 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
EO 12898 requires that environmental analyses of proposed Federal actions address any disproportionately high, adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income communities. Federal agencies’ responsibility applies equally to Native American populations. Each Federal agency must ensure that public documents, notices and hearings are readily accessible.
ATTACHMENT D 1442
Lower San Joaquin River
7-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans No disproportionately high or adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income communities were identified. Mailing notices and distribution of other project information includes property owners and potentially affected persons and institutions without any distinction based on minority or income status. The local community was invited to all public meetings and their representatives attended plan formulation meetings to ensure input into the planning process. A public meeting was held during the public review period for the draft report to allow all interested parties an opportunity to learn about and comment on the RP. Socioeconomics and environmental justice Compliance are also discussed in Chapter
5. All public comments were received and addressed, as appropriate. The Project is in full compliance with EO 12898.
EO 13045, PROTECTION OF CHILDREN FROM ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH RISKS
AND SAFETY RISKS
EO 13045, signed April 21, 1997, directs Federal agencies, to the extent permitted by law and as appropriate, to make identifying and assessing environmental health and safety risks that may disproportionately affect children a high priority and to ensure that policies, programs, activities and standards address disproportionate risks to children that result from environmental health or safety risks.
Construction projects such as the RP include factors that could place children at increased health and safety risk due to the temporary generation of air pollutants, use of toxic materials like petroleum and diesel, increased truck traffic on surface streets and reduced access to some parks and open space where people, including children, may walk or ride bicycles. Implementing best management practices, including close coordination with local communities and their leaders, would reduce these risks. The RP is a FRM project designed to reduce the risk of flooding in the highly urbanized Stockton area. Individual decision-making during disasters is novel and dynamic because of the complexities and uncertainties inherent disasters, and children are particularly vulnerable. Children may have limited access to evacuation options and limited physical ability to respond to or withstand the rigors of such an emergency. The RP would reduce this risk.
EO 13112, INVASIVE SPECIES
EO 13112, signed February 3, 1999, directs all Federal agencies to prevent and control the introduction of invasive species in a cost-effective and environmentally sound manner. It established the National Invasive Species Council, composed of Federal agencies and departments, and the supporting Invasive Species Advisory Committee, composed of State, local and private entities. The Council’s National Invasive Species Management Plan recommends objectives and measures to implement EO 13112, and to prevent the introduction and spread of invasive species (National Invasive Species Council 2008). EO 13112 requires consideration of invasive species in NEPA analyses, including their identification and distribution, their potential effects and measures to prevent or eradicate them.
FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT (7 U.S.C. 4201, ET SEQ.) The FPPA was authorized to minimize the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use due to Federal projects. It protects Prime and Unique Farmland, and land of State-wide or local importance. The FPPA protects forestland, pastureland, cropland or other land that is not water or urban developed land. The FPPA, administered by the NRCS, requires a Federal agency to consider the effects of its action and programs on the nation’s farmlands. The NRCS is authorized to review Federal projects, and if farmland is being affected, determine a farmland conversion impact rating. USACE is required to provide the NRCS with project maps and descriptions to assist in determining impacts to prime farmland, unique farmland, and land of State-wide or local importance.
Prime farmland is land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, fiber, forage, oilseed and other agricultural crops with minimum inputs of fuel, fertilizer, ATTACHMENT D 1443
Lower San Joaquin River
7-5
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans pesticides and labor, and without intolerable soil erosion. Unique farmland is land that is used for the production of specific high-value food and fiber crops such as citrus, tree nuts, olives, cranberries, fruits and vegetables. Farmland of State-wide or local importance is identified by State or local agencies for agricultural use, but not is not of national significance.
In California, NRCS uses a Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) system to establish a farmland conversion impact rating score on proposed sites of Federally-funded and assisted projects. The score is used as an indicator for the project sponsor to consider alternative sites if the potential adverse impacts on farmland exceed the recommended allowable level. Farmlands are scored on a scale of 260 points, and under the FPPA, those with a total score of less than 160 points need not be given further consideration for protection and no alternative sites need to be evaluated (FPPA Rule 401.24, Section 658.4).
USACE submitted the project's Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (NRCS-CPA-106) to NRCS in December 2015 with a finding of approximately 100 acres in the project area corridor and 28 acres to be converted from the total. In January 2016, NRCS returned the evaluated form to USACE with a rating of 82 out of 100. NRCS determined there to be a total of 14 acres of prime and unique farmland in the project area, with 0.003% of farmland to be converted. Additionally, NRCS confirmed that there are no NRCS conservation easements on lands included in the RP. The final Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form presents the total corridor assessment points to be 18 out of 160. Overall, the score from evaluations performed by both USACE and NRCS (total corridor assessment and relative value of farmland) was 100/260. It is unnecessary to conduct further consultation due to the score being well below the 160 point threshold.
Preliminary review indicates that the permanent impacts on prime farmlands resulting from construction of the RP would be considered less-than-significant since construction would primarily occur within the footprint of existing FRM infrastructure. New areas affected would mainly be within lands already converted to urban uses. Because the Farmland Impact Rating was received and evaluated by NRCS, the project is in full compliance with this Act. The LESA is established through the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form, which is included in the final report.
FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 661, ET SEQ.)
The FWCA of 1958 requires that all Federal agencies consult with USFWS, NMFS and the affected State wildlife agency for activities that affect, control or modify surface waters, including wetlands and other waters. Under the FWCA, the USFWS, NMFS and CDFW have an extended responsibility for project review that encompasses concerns about plant and wildlife species that may not be addressed under NEPA and the Federal ESA. This extended responsibility may include a project’s secondary effects on jurisdictional waters, including wetlands. USFWS and NMFS review CWA Section 404 permit applications as well as other Federal actions perceived to modify waters, and prepare a CAR to document the coordination between the Federal agency and the appropriate State regulatory agencies (Cylinder et al. 2004). The USFWS and CDFW participated in evaluating the proposed project, and the CAR is included in the Environmental Addendum. USACE is in full compliance with this Act because USFWS issued the final CAR, USACE has given full consideration to the USFWS’ recommendations (see Section 6.2.1), and has included the CAR with the study report to Congress for project authorization.
MAGNUSON-STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT ACT (16.
U.S.C. 1801, ET SEQ.)
This Act establishes a management system for national marine and estuarine fishery resources. Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) is defined as “waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity.” It states that migratory routes to and from anadromous fish spawning grounds should ATTACHMENT D 1444
Lower San Joaquin River
7-6
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans also be considered EFH. The phrase “adversely affect” refers to any effects that reduce the quality or quantity of EFH. Federal activities that occur outside an EFH, but that may have an effect on EFH waters and substrate, must also be considered in the consultation process. Effects on habitat managed under the Pacific Salmon Fishery Management Plan must also be considered.
This Act requires Federal agencies to consult with NMFS regarding all actions or proposed actions permitted, funded or undertaken that may adversely affect EFH. In consulting, the action agency must provide a written assessment of the effects of their action on EFH to NMFS. If NMFS determines that a proposed Federal or State activity would adversely affect EFH, then NMFS is obligated to provide EFH conservation recommendations to the action agency. The action agency must provide a detailed response in writing to NMFS within 30 days after receiving EFH conservation recommendations. The response must include a description of measures proposed for avoiding, mitigating or offsetting the impact of the activity on EFH. If the response is inconsistent with NMFS EFH conservation recommendations, the agency must explain its reasons for not following the recommendations.
The Delta Estuary and the SJR and its tributaries are designated EFH for Pacific salmon. Simultaneous with ESA Section 7 consultation, USACE consulted with NMFS under the MSA. The EFH consultation concluded that the RP would adversely affect the EFH of Pacific salmon in the action area. The EFH consultation adopts the ESA reasonable and prudent measures and associated terms and conditions from the BO and includes additional conservation recommendations specific to the adverse effects on Pacific salmon EFH in the action area as described in Amendment 18 of the Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. After USACE considers and responds to the conservation recommendations, the Project will be in compliance with this Act.
MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT OF 1918, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 703, ET SEQ.) This Act, as amended, implements treaties and conventions between the United States, Canada, Japan, Mexico and Russia providing protection for migratory birds as defined in 16 U.S.C. 715j. It establishes hunting seasons and capture limits for game species and protects migratory birds, their occupied nests, and their eggs (16 USC 703, 50 CFR 21, 50 CFR 10). Permits from USFWS are required for both incidental and direct take.
Migratory birds and their nests are likely to occur within, and adjacent to, the footprint of proposed construction. The project is in a very urbanized area where traffic congestion and human activities are very common. Birds have adjusted to the human environment and continue to nest in these areas. To ensure that the project does not affect migratory birds, preconstruction surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist in areas within and adjacent to the project construction site. If breeding birds are found in the area, a protective buffer would be delineated and USFWS and CDFG would be consulted for further actions.
With the implementation of these surveys and subsequent avoidance of nesting birds, the Project would be in compliance with this Act.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (42 U.S.C. § 4321 ET SEQ.; 40 CFR 1500.1) NEPA applies to all Federal agencies and most of the activities they manage, regulate or fund that affect the environment. NEPA requires every Federal agency to disclose the environmental effects of its actions for public review purposes and assists the Federal agency to assess alternatives to, and the consequences of, the proposed action. NEPA requires that an environmental document be prepared that considers, discloses and discusses all major points of view on the environmental impacts of the RP and Alternatives.
This document provides the information required by NEPA to consider the environmental consequences of the No Action and Action Alternatives. USACE is the lead Federal agency under NEPA for this project.
The findings of this FR/EIS/EIR indicate that the RP, Alternative 7a, would have significant short- and ATTACHMENT D 1445
Lower San Joaquin River
7-7
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans long-term impacts on the human environment. Implementation of mitigation measures, including BMPs, would reduce most impacts to less than significant levels. However, for some resources (vegetation, wildlife and fisheries), mitigation would not reduce short- and long-term impacts below significance.
The Draft FR/EIS/EIR was circulated for a 45-day public review. After the public review period, a final report was prepared that incorporates public comments, as appropriate. Following circulation of the Final FR/EIS/EIR for a 30-day public review and the execution of a ROD, the project will be in full compliance with NEPA.
NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966, AS AMENDED (16 U.S.C. 470) NHPA Section 106 requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of a proposed undertaking on properties determined to be eligible for, or included in, the National Register of Historic Places. Letters with a request to participate in and comment on the draft PA were sent to the SJAFCA, DWR and SHPO on December 16, 2013. Copies of the draft PA were also sent to Native American Tribes with interest in the project area on November 23, 2013. Comments were received from DWR, SJAFCA and SHPO. No comments concerning the PA were received from the Tribes. Any proposed changes to the RP that require additional environmental effects analysis would also require additional consultation under Section 106 of this Act.
The PA was signed by USACE and the SHPO in May 2016, and is provided in the Environmental Addendum. The PA identifies specific stipulations that take into account the effects of the proposed project on cultural and historic properties. In addition to other specific requirements of the PA, additional records and literature searches would be conducted prior to conducting archaeological surveys of the APE.
Consultation with Native American groups and individuals to identify properties of cultural significance would be maintained, and complete field surveys would be conducted prior to any construction. If historic properties are identified, USACE would evaluate effects to such properties. In consultation with SHPO, Native American Tribes, and any other interested stakeholders, USACE would produce a Memorandum of Agreement outlining a process to resolve adverse effects to any historic properties impacted by the Project.
NOISE CONTROL ACT OF 1972, AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C. 4901 ET SEQ.) Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the Nation's population, particularly in urban areas. The major sources of noise include transportation vehicles and equipment, machinery, appliances and other products in commerce. The Noise Control Act of 1972 establishes a national policy to promote an environment for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes their health and welfare. The Act also serves to: (1) establish a means for effective coordination of Federal research and activities in noise control; (2) authorize the establishment of Federal noise emission standards for products distributed in commerce; and (3) provide information to the public respecting the noise emission and noise reduction characteristics of such products.
While primary responsibility for control of noise rests with State and local governments, Federal action is essential to deal with major noise sources in commerce, control of which require national uniformity of treatment. EPA is directed by Congress to coordinate the programs of all Federal agencies relating to noise research and control. Also, the Act requires that Federal agency activities comply with all Federal, State, and local laws and regulations that regulate noise levels. The general plans for San Joaquin County, the City of Stockton and the City of Manteca identify noise emissions thresholds, which were incorporated into the significance thresholds used in the assessment of potential project impacts. Construction related noise is not likely to exceed land use compatibility thresholds on agricultural lands, but could result in intermittent noise impacts to residential uses within 700 feet of construction activities. Truck routes and detours would consider potential impacts to adjacent properties. All construction equipment would be properly maintained. No night-time construction is planned. The proposed levee improvements, flood wall and ATTACHMENT D 1446
Lower San Joaquin River
7-8
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans closure structures would affect lands zoned for residential use, and additional mitigation such as the construction of temporary sound barriers or sound-proofing of homes could be required.
7.1.18 NOXIOUS WEED ACT OF 1974
The Noxious Weed Act (7 U.S.C. § 2801 et seq.) was authorized to control and manage the spread of nonnative plant species that may have adverse effects on agriculture, commerce wildlife resources, or public health. It inhibits the transport, trade or sales of noxious plant species in the U.S. and gave the Secretary of Agriculture authority to determine noxious plant species, and to establish measures to control them. As amended, the Act requires all Federal agencies to establish a management plan to control the spread of noxious plant species in their jurisdiction. A management plan would be developed and implemented for the construction phase of this project and included in the O&M Manual, after which the Project would be in compliance with this Act.
RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT
This Act enables EPA to administer a regulatory project that extends from the manufacture of hazardous materials to their disposal, thus regulating the generation, transportation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous waste at all facilities and sites in the U.S. The LSJR Project would comply with this Act when transporting or disposing of hazardous material found in the project area.
UNIFORM RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION POLICIES ACT OF 1970 (UNIFORM ACT), AS AMENDED (42 U.S.C. 4601 ET SEQ.) This Act ensures the fair and equitable treatment of persons whose real property is acquired, or who are displaced as a result of a Federal or Federally-assisted project. All or portions of parcels within the LSJR Project footprint would need to be acquired for project construction. Federal, State, local government agencies and others receiving Federal financial assistance for public programs and projects that require the acquisition of real property must comply with the policies and provisions set forth in the Uniform Act, as amended in 1987, and implementing regulation 49 CFR Part 24. Relocation advisory services, moving costs reimbursement, replacement housing and reimbursement for related expenses and rights of appeal are provided for in the Uniform Act. Implementation of the LSJR Project would require acquisition of property in the footprint to construct FRM facilities and improvements. Also, temporary relocation of residents may occur during portions of construction. Property acquisition and relocation services, compensation for living expenses for temporarily relocated residents and negotiations regarding any compensation for temporary loss of business would be accomplished in accordance with the Uniform Act so this Project would be in compliance.
WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT (16 U.S.C. 1271 ET SEQ.)
This Act establishes protection of rivers with important scenic, recreational, fish, wildlife and other values.
Rivers are classified as wild, scenic or recreational. The Act designates specific rivers for inclusion and prescribes the methods and standards by which additional rivers may be added. The LSJR is not included in the system. So, the Project would have no effect on Wild or Scenic Rivers.
NATURAL RESOURCE CONSERVATION SERVICE CONSERVATION EASEMENTS NRCS administers a range of conservation programs, including easements. NRCS-administered conservation easement programs include the Grassland Reserve Program, Wetlands Reserve Program and Farm and Ranchland Conservation Program. USACE coordinated with NRCS to confirm that no lands within the RP are currently under any NRCS conservation easements (Van Steyn, pers. com. 2015).
ATTACHMENT D 1447
Lower San Joaquin River
7-9
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans
STATE REQUIREMENTS
ALQUIST-PRIOLO EARTHQUAKE FAULT ZONING ACT OF 1972 (PRC SECTION 2621 ET SEQ.)
Was enacted in 1972 as the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act and renamed in 1994. It seeks to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes. It prohibits the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults, and strictly regulates construction in the corridors along active faults (earthquake fault zones). It also defines criteria for identifying active faults, gives legal weight to terms such as active, and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in and adjacent to earthquake fault zones. Under the Act, faults are zoned and considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during the Holocene Epoch (considered present time and defined for purposes of the Act as approximately the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface using standard professional techniques, criteria and judgment (Hart and Bryant 1997). The LSJR Project would not be constructed along or across any faults, and is in full compliance with this Act.
CALIFORNIA CLEAN AIR ACT
The CAA was signed into law in 1988 and, for the first time, clearly spelled out in statute California's air quality goals, planning mechanisms, regulatory strategies and standards of progress. It provides the State with a comprehensive framework for air quality planning regulations. Prior to passage of the Act, Federal law contained the only comprehensive planning framework.
The CAA requires attainment of State ambient air quality standards by the earliest practicable date. For air districts in violation of the State ozone, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide or nitrogen dioxide standards, attainment plans were required by July 1991. CARB is responsible for the development, implementation and enforcement of California’s motor vehicle pollution control program, GHG State-wide emission estimates and goals and development and enforcement of GHG emission reduction rules. A summary of the major California GHG regulations that will affect the project’s GHG emissions requires projects to determine whether emission sources and levels significantly affect air quality based on Federal standards established by USEPA, and State standards set by CARB. Compliance with the CAA for GHG emissions is expected with incorporated mitigation specified in Chapter 5. As a result, full compliance with this Act is expected with coordination with SJVAPCD and preconstruction permitting.
CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The ESA was enacted in 1984 and prohibits the take of listed endangered, threatened and candidate species.
It defines take as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species; habitat destruction is not included in the State’s definition of take. This Act requires the NFS to consider the potential adverse effects to State-listed species. As a joint NEPA/CEQA document, this FR/EIS/EIR considered the potential effects to State listed species, as discussed in Chapter 5. CDFW administers the Act and authorizes take through Section 2081 agreements (except for species designated as fully protected).
CDFW can adopt a Federal biological opinion as a State biological opinion under California Fish and Game Code, Section 2095. In addition, CDFW can write a consistency determination for species that are both Federal and State listed if CDFW determines that the avoidance, minimization and compensation measures will ensure no take of species.
San Joaquin County, including the project area, is covered by the San Joaquin County Multispecies Conservation and Open Space Plan, approved in 2000. It covers an expansive list of species and habitats of interest at Federal, State and local levels. Species that are under the jurisdiction of the NMFS are not ATTACHMENT D 1448
Lower San Joaquin River
7-10
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans comprehensively covered. This conservation plan was considered during development of project alternatives and identification of the RP. The Project is consistent with the conservation plan.
There is the potential for the LSJR Project to impact the State-listed GGS, and Swainson’s hawk if nests are present at the construction sites. The State coordinated with CDFW regarding potential impacts to Statelisted species. Since the GGS is both Federal and State listed, USACE consulted with USFWS under Section 7 and the RP incorporates conservation measures that would be implemented at construction sites where there is GGS habitat. Prior to construction of any site, USACE and the State would conduct Swainson’s hawk surveys to determine the presence of nests. If nests are present, coordination with CDFW would occur to determine any mitigation or minimization measures that would need to be implemented to protect Swainson’s hawks. The LSJR Project would be in full compliance with this Act once these surveys are conducted, coordination has occurred.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA applies to an action that is directly undertaken by a California public agency; is supported in whole or part by California public agency contracts, grants, subsidies, loans or other assistance for a public agency; or involves the issuance by a California public agency of a permit, lease, license, certificate or other entitlement for use by a public agency. CEQA requires State, regional and local agencies to prepare environmental documents assessing the significant environmental impacts of the RP, to circulate these documents to other agencies and the public for comment, and to consider these comments in their decisionmaking.
The CEQA lead agency for this project is SJAFCA. This FR/EIS/EIR was prepared jointly with the NEPA and CEQA Lead Agencies to meet both requirements. SJAFCA and CVFPB evaluated this project under CEQA guidelines and determined that the mitigation measures incorporated would reduce most impacts to less than significant levels; however, impacts to some resources (vegetation, wildlife, fisheries) would remain significant. Therefore, a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be prepared.
Upon certifying the document, CEQA lead agencies would adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or the conditions of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects. Full compliance would be achieved when the Final FR/EIS/EIR and Notice of Determination (Statement of Overriding Consideration) is sent to the Office of Planning and Research.
CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE
CDFW provides protection from take for various species under the CFGC. CDFW also regulates work that will substantially affect resources associated with rivers, streams and lakes in California, pursuant to CFGC Sections 1600 to 1607. Section 1602 requires project proponents to notify CDFW before any project that would divert, obstruct or change the natural flow, bed, channel or bank of any river, stream or lake. CDFW’s jurisdiction extends to the top of banks and often to the outer edge of riparian vegetation canopy cover.
Riparian trees with a diameter of 6 inches or greater also fall within CDFW’s jurisdiction. Preliminary notification and project review generally occur during the environmental process. When an existing fish or wildlife resource may be substantially adversely affected, CDFW is required to propose reasonable changes to the project to protect the resources that are formalized in a streambed alteration agreement that becomes part of the plans, specifications and bid documents. An application for a Streambed Alteration Agreement would be submitted to CDFW to authorize the LSJR Project under Section 1602 and provide full compliance.
ATTACHMENT D 1449
Lower San Joaquin River
7-11
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans
CALIFORNIA FOOD AND AGRICULTURE CODE
The California Department of Food and Agriculture lists 171 plants as noxious weeds. A noxious weed is defined as any plant species that is, or is liable to be, troublesome, aggressive, intrusive, detrimental or destructive to agriculture, silviculture or important native species, and difficult to control or eradicate (California Food and Agricultural Code Section 5004). Any area that is infected with any pest, including noxious weeds, is considered a public nuisance. It is unlawful for any persons to maintain the nuisance. It should be abated (California Food and Agriculture Code Sections 5401-5403). Noxious weeds were identified for the project area. In order to control post-construction establishment of noxious weeds on disturbed soils, a noxious weed control plan would be incorporated into the construction plans. Noxious weeds would be controlled within the construction area until native plants are established and conditions are unfavorable for the establishment of noxious weeds.
CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT
California Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, identifies California as a substantial source of GHG emissions and requires a significant emissions reduction. GHG emissions levels must be reduced to 2000 levels by 2010, to 1990 levels by 2020 and to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. The emissions reduction is expected to be achieved through the continuation of existing State policies, and through the enforcement of a State-wide GHG emissions limit incorporated in 2012.
Existing policies aimed at limiting GHG emissions include Assembly Bill 1493, which requires CARB to define standards for cars and light trucks manufactured after 2009, and is projected to result in an 18 percent reduction in emissions. In addition, SB 97, enacted in 2007, requires that CEQA guidelines be amended to incorporate analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions in CEQA documents. The Natural Resources Agency adopted the CEQA Guideline Amendments on December 30, 2009, under §15064.4.
The action alternatives would result in a temporary increase in GHG emissions as a result of project-related construction. These impacts would be reduced to less than significant through mitigation. Additional analysis of staging area location, truck routes and detours would be conducted during the PED phase to minimize potential impacts on local traffic. The Project could result in minor traffic delays during construction, but would not permanently increase travel times through the affected areas. FRM would primarily be extended to currently developed areas and future development, beyond urban in-fill, would not induce or otherwise result in a long-term, indirect increase in vehicle-related GHG emissions.
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC)
The CPUC regulates privately owned telecommunications, electric, natural gas, water, railroad, rail transit and passenger transportation companies. CPUC is responsible for ensuring that California utility customers have safe, reliable utility service at reasonable rates, protects utility customers from fraud and promotes the health of California’s economy. CPUC establishes service standards and safety rules, and authorizes utility rate changes. CPUC also enforces CEQA compliance for utility construction and regulates the relocation of power lines by public utilities under its jurisdiction. CPUC works with other State and Federal agencies in promoting water quality, environmental protection and safety. The LSJR Project is in full compliance with CPUC standards and rules when relocating public utilities.
CALIFORNIA SEISMIC HAZARDS MAPPING ACT
The California Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (California PRC Sections 2690–2699.6) addresses seismic hazards other than surface rupture, such as liquefaction and induced landslides. It specifies that the lead agency for a project may withhold development permits until geologic or soils investigations are conducted for specific sites and mitigation measures are incorporated into plans to reduce hazards ATTACHMENT D 1450
Lower San Joaquin River
7-12
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans associated with seismicity and unstable soils. As described in Chapter 5, there are no active faults in the LSJR Project area. In the North Stockton area, the RP includes construction of seismic remediation on and along levees to increase the seismic resilience of the levees. As a result, there would be no significant effects on the project due to seismicity. The Project is in full compliance with this Act.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION (CDPR)
In an effort to address pesticide-related impairments and their effects, the CDPR developed a water monitoring program. In 1991, SWRCB signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the CDPR to ensure that pesticides registered for use in California are used in a manner that protects water quality while recognizing the need for pest control. This agreement was revised in 1997 to facilitate implementation of the original agreement. The use of pesticides to control noxious weeds in the project area would be conducted according to product labels and coordinated through the 401 State Water Quality Certification and NPDES General Permit application process.
CALIFORNIA SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT
The SMARA of 1975 (PRC Sections 2710–2719) is the principal legislation addressing mineral resources in California. Surface mining operations include, “…borrow pitting, streambed skimming, segregation and stockpiling of mined materials (and recovery of the same) …” (CCR, Title 14, Section 3501). Section 3501 further defines excavations for onsite construction as “earth material moving activities that are required to prepare a site for construction of structures, landscaping, or other land improvements (such as excavation, grading, compaction, and the creation of fills and embankments), or that in and of themselves constitute engineered works (such as dams, road cuts, fills, and catchment basins).” SMARA was enacted in response to land use conflicts between urban growth and essential mineral production. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive surface mining and reclamation policy to encourage the production and conservation of mineral resources, while ensuring that significant environmental effects of mining are prevented or minimized, mined lands are reclaimed, residual hazards to public health and safety are eliminated and consideration is given to recreation, watershed, wildlife, aesthetic and other related values.
Borrow activities associated with the LSJR Project would disturb more than 1 acre or remove more than 1,000 cubic yards of material through surface mining activities, including the excavation of borrow pits for soil material. Therefore, the project proponent(s) must comply with SMARA as it governs the use and conservation of a wide variety of mineral resources, although some resources and activities are exempt from its provisions, including excavation and grading conducted for farming, construction or recovery from flooding or other natural disasters. The State Mining and Geology Board reviews the local ordinances to ensure they meet the procedures established by SMARA. Cities and counties have authority to enforce SMARA and create additional regulations. San Joaquin County is the SMARA lead agency for surface mining operations in the project area. In general, SMARA permitting requires lead agency approval of a permit, reclamation plan and the posting of approved financial assurance for the reclamation of mined land.
Compliance would be achieved by either obtaining a SMARA permit or exemption. SMARA permits or exemptions would be obtained, as appropriate, for selected borrow sites. Borrow would be obtained from willing sellers within a 25-mile radius of the project. Excavation activities would not commence until all regulatory and compliance requirements for borrow activities have been met.
CALIFORNIA WATER CODE
The LSJR Feasibility Study is located within the Central Valley RWQCB’s jurisdiction, within the greater San Joaquin Valley Watershed. The preparation and adoption of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, and State-wide plans, is the responsibility of the SWRCB. State law requires that Basin Plans conform to policies set forth in the California Water Code beginning with Section 13000 and any State policy for water ATTACHMENT D 1451
Lower San Joaquin River
7-13
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans quality control. These plans are required by the California Water Code (Section 13240) and supported by the Federal CWA. Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards that "consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." According to Section 13050 of the California Water Code, Basin Plans consist of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified area of beneficial uses to be protected and water quality objectives to protect those uses. Adherence to Basin Plan water quality objectives protects continued beneficial uses of water bodies. Because beneficial uses and corresponding water quality objectives can be defined per Federal regulations as water quality standards, the Basin Plans are regulatory references for meeting State and Federal requirements for water quality control (40 CFR 131.20). The potential effects of the proposed project on water quality were evaluated and are discussed in Chapter 5.
Compliance with the California Water Code will be accomplished by obtaining certifications from the Central Valley RWQCB and an internal 404 review by USACE.
CALIFORNIA WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS ACT OF 1972
The purpose of this Act is to preserve and protect wild and scenic rivers and their immediate environments for the benefit of present and future generations. The legislature must approve any action that would affect a designated river. The primary difference between this Act and the Federal Act is that the Federal Energy Regulating Committee may issue a license to build a dam on a State-listed river, thus overriding the State statute. None of the waterways within the study area are designated as a California Wild and Scenic River (California Public Resources Code Section 5093.50 et seq.).
CENTRAL VALLEY FLOOD PROTECTION BOARD ENCROACHMENT PERMIT Under California law, no reclamation project of any kind may be started or carried out on or near the Sacramento and San Joaquin Rivers or their tributaries until plans have first been approved by CVFPB. The CVFPB’s efforts focus on controlling floodwater, reducing flood damage, protecting land from floodwater erosion that would affect project levees and controlling encroachment into floodplains and onto floodcontrol works, such as levees, channels and pumping plants. Proposed measures would result in beneficial impacts by reducing flood damage risk and would not promote indirect development within the floodplain or onto flood control works.
Banks, levees and channels of floodways along any stream, its tributaries or distributaries may not be excavated, cut, filled, obstructed or left to remain excavated during the flood season, which is November 1 through July 15 for the San Joaquin River. The CVFPB, at prior written request of USACE, may allow work to be done during the flood season within the floodway, provided that, in the judgment of the CVFPB, forecasts for weather and river conditions are favorable.
Levees constructed, reconstructed, raised, enlarged or modified within a floodway shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the USACE manual, “Design and Construction of Levees” (EM 1110-2- 1913). Evaluation of levee embankment and foundation stability and a detailed settlement analysis must be conducted to ensure long-term stability during full flood stage. Additional standards for levee construction, including easement conditions, are provided in Title 23, Code of California Regulations, Division 1, Article 8, Section 120, Levees.
The CVFPB is a NFS of this Study; therefore, an encroachment permit would not be sought.
EO S-3-05
Signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 1, 2005, this Order asserts that California is vulnerable to the effects of climate change. It puts forth that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems and potentially cause a rise in sea ATTACHMENT D 1452
Lower San Joaquin River
7-14
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans levels. To combat those concerns, the EO established total GHG emissions targets. It also established the following GHG emissions reduction targets:
By 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels.
By 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels.
By 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80% below 1990 levels.
The EO directed the Secretary of the California Environmental Protection Agency to initiate a multi-agency effort to reduce GHG emissions to target levels. To comply, the Secretary created a Climate Act Team composed of members of various State agencies and commissions. The Climate Act Team released its first report in March 2006 (California EPA 2006). The report proposes achieving GHG targets through voluntary actions of California businesses, local government and community actions, and State incentive and regulatory projects. The LSJR Project would fully comply with this EO.
HAZARDOUS WASTE CONTROL ACT
The Act created the State Hazardous Waste Management Project, which is similar to but more stringent than the Federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Project. The Act is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 CCR, which describes the following elements required for the proper management of hazardous waste:
Identification and classification;
Generation and transportation;
Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities; Treatment standards;
Operation of facilities and staff training; and
Closure of facilities and liability requirements.
These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging and disposing of such waste. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from generator to transporter to the ultimate disposal location. Copies of the manifest must be filed with the California Department of Toxic Substances and Control. The LSJR Project would properly manage the identification, transport and disposal of hazardous wastes during construction, and therefore, be in full compliance with this Act.
PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 established the SWRCB and nine RWQCBs within California. These groups are the primary State agencies responsible for protecting California water quality to meet present and future beneficial uses, and regulating appropriative surface rights allocations. The preparation and adoption of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, and State-wide plans, is the responsibility of the SWRCB. State law requires that Basin Plans conform to the policies set forth in the California Water Code beginning with Section 13000 and any State policy for water quality control. These plans are required by the California Water Code (Section 13240) and supported by the Federal CWA.
Section 303 of the CWA requires states to adopt water quality standards which "consist of the designated uses of the navigable waters involved and the water quality criteria for such waters based upon such uses." According to Section 13050 of the California Water Code, Basin Plans consist of a designation or establishment for the waters within a specified area of beneficial uses to be protected, and water quality objectives to protect those uses. Adherence to Basin Plan water quality objectives protects continued ATTACHMENT D 1453
Lower San Joaquin River
7-15
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans beneficial uses of water bodies. The potential effects of the RP on water quality were evaluated and are discussed in Chapter 5.
In 1992, the State WQCB adopted a general NPDES permit (Order No. 92-08-DWQ, General Permit No.
CAS000002) that applies to construction projects resulting in land disturbance of 5 acres or greater. In order to obtain a State-wide NPDES general construction permit, an action must comply with CVRWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, the Central Valley Pesticide TMDL and Basin Plan Amendment, San Joaquin River Organophosphorus Pesticide TMDL, San Joaquin River Dissolved Oxygen TMDL, and the San Joaquin River Upstream Salinity and Boron TMDL. Prior to construction, USACE would obtain a NPDES general construction permit. Conditions of the permit would require development and implementation of a storm water pollution prevention plan to limit effluent discharge as a result of storm water runoff and performance of inspections of storm water pollution prevention measures during and after construction.
The Project expects to achieve full compliance with the Act by achieving compliance with RWQCB certification mandates for Section 401 of the Federal CWA.
RELOCATION ASSISTANCE AND PROPERTY ACQUISITION
The State of California’s Government Code Section 7260, et seq. brings the California Relocation Act into conformity with the Federal Uniform Act. In the acquisition of real property by a public agency, both the Federal and State Acts seek to: (1) ensure consistent and fair treatment of owners of real property, (2) encourage and expedite acquisition by agreement to avoid litigation and relieve congestion in the courts, and (3) promote confidence in public land acquisition. The Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Guidelines were established by 25 CCR 1.6. The guidelines were developed to assist public entities with developing regulations and procedures for implementing 42 USC 61—the Uniform Act, for Federal and Federally assisted projects. The guidelines are designed to ensure that uniform, fair and equitable treatment is given to people displaced from their homes, businesses or farms as a result of the actions of a public entity. Under the Uniform Act, persons required to relocate temporarily are not considered “displaced,” but must be reimbursed for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. In accordance with these guidelines, people will not suffer disproportionate injury as a result of action taken for the benefit of the public as a whole. Additionally, public entities must ensure consistent and fair treatment of owners of such property, and encourage and expedite acquisitions by agreement with owners of displaced property to avoid litigation. Property acquisition and relocation services, compensation for living expenses for temporarily relocated residents and negotiations regarding any compensation for temporary loss of business would be accomplished in accordance with the Uniform Act (see discussion above) and California Government Code Section 7267, et seq for the LSJR Project, providing full compliance.
TITLE 24 OF THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS: CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
The California Building Standards Commission (BSC) is an independent commission within the State and Consumer Services Agency that codifies and publishes approved building standards in one State building standards code (California Code of Regulations, Title 24). The California BSC provides guidance to architects, engineers, insurance companies, etc., when making decisions about the building industry. The BSC ensures that the California building codes effectively address areas such as health, fire and panic safety, employee safety, energy conservation and handicapped accessibility. The BSC determines if such codes and standards are in the public interest. Construction standards for levees are found within the California Code of Regulations. Additional analysis and design would be required during the PED phase.
ATTACHMENT D 1454
Lower San Joaquin River
7-16
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans
WILLIAMSON ACT AND FARMLAND SECURITY ZONE ACT
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of restricting specific parcels of land to agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are much lower than normal, because they are based on farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention of forgone property tax revenues from the State via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971.
The Williamson Act was amended in August 1998 to establish Farmland Security Zones. Under this Farm Bureau–sponsored Super Williamson Act, landowners can receive an additional 35 percent reduction in the land’s value for property tax purposes. This additional tax reduction can be earned only if farmers and ranchers keep their property in the conservation project for at least 20 years. Farmland Security Zone contracts are comparable to the Williamson Act contracts in that each year, another year is added to the agreement unless the landowner or county does not renew the contract. The legislation prohibits the annexation of land enrolled in a 20-year contract to a city, or a special district that provides nonagricultural services, or for use as a public school site.
Of California’s 58 counties, 52 adopted the Williamson Act Project. San Joaquin County is included in those that adopted the act. The location of these lands in the project vicinity is discussed in Chapter 5. The LSJR Project would not take any lands that are covered under the Williamson Act, and would, therefore, be in full compliance.
LOCAL PLANS AND POLICIES
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICTS
California has 35 local air pollution control districts throughout the State. Each district is responsible for establishing and enforcing air pollution regulations in order to attain and maintain all Federal and State ambient air quality standards. These districts permit stationary sources of air pollution and implement transportation control measures for their respective regions. In order to combat particular air quality problems within its region, each district adopts its own rules and regulations as the types of sources of air emissions vary from district to district. San Joaquin County is within the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD). The SJVAPCD made up of eight counties in California’s Central Valley: San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, Kings, Tulare and the valley portion of Kern. Federal and State laws require emission control measures in areas where air pollution exceeds standards; the San Joaquin Valley is one of these areas. The SJVAPCD developed air pollution control measures under three CARB-approved Air Quality Plans: the Extreme Ozone Attainment Demonstration Plan, Carbon Monoxide Maintenance Plan, and a PM10 Maintenance Plan. The RP would comply with all control measures to mitigate impacts to air quality to less than significant, including minimization of the construction footprint, wetting of soils and proper maintenance of construction equipment.
PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENTS
An encroachment permit must be obtained when encroachments are proposed within, under or over a county or city road, or cover rights-of-way. The NFS would consult the appropriate local agencies to obtain the encroachment permits once the project is authorized. Conditions of the encroachment permit would include measures to ensure public safety and the acceptable flow of traffic.
ATTACHMENT D 1455
Lower San Joaquin River
7-17
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans
MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT
The San Joaquin County Mosquito and Vector Control District is responsible for conducting mosquito abatement and vector control in San Joaquin County. In addition, San Joaquin County maintains a Mosquito Surveillance Task Force. Both of these organizations serve under the County Board of Supervisors.
SJAFCA is the local sponsor and would coordinate with the County to determine if any additional mosquito abatement is required by the RP. The only area identified as potentially of concern is the Smith Canal, where water exchange between the Canal and the San Joaquin River/Stockton DWSC would be reduced.
LOCAL GENERAL PLANS
Section 65300 of the California Government Code states that "Each planning agency shall prepare, and the legislative body of each county and city shall adopt, a comprehensive, long term general plan for the physical development of the county or city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears relation to its planning." The general plan is to consist of seven mandatory elements, and as many optional elements as the local jurisdiction deems desirable. The mandatory elements include land use, circulation, housing, open space, conservation, safety and noise. The San Joaquin County, Stockton, Lathrop and Manteca General Plans were consulted and considered during development and evaluation of the Alternatives and the RP. Where applicable, the policies and regulations established by the General Plans were incorporated into significance thresholds. The RP, including proposed mitigation measures, would comply with or enhance the achievement of most of the policies and regulations established by the General Plans. Some conflict exists between local policies regarding preservation of native vegetation and wildlife and the RP’s potential impact on these resources.
ATTACHMENT D 1456
Lower San Joaquin River
7-18
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 7 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Compliance with Applicable Laws, Policies and Plans This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT D 1457
Lower San Joaquin River
8-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
CHAPTER 8 — RECOMMENDED PLAN
This chapter describes the RP, as well as the procedures and cost sharing required for implementation if it is authorized and appropriated by Congress. A schedule and list of further studies are also included.
RECOMMENDED PLAN
The RP is Alternative 7a (Figure 8-1). This plan has a benefit to cost ratio of 7.0 to 1.0 and provides net annual FRM benefits of $295,730,000. This plan would allow the local community to continue to meet both FEMA certification requirements and at least a portion of the State of California’s criteria for funding of FRM projects, allowing for potential reduction in National Flood Insurance Program costs to the community and leveraging State bond funds for project implementation. Documentation of compliance with FEMA and State criteria are the responsibility of the NFS. The RP greatly reduces flood risk to people and property in the city of Stockton. The RP provides benefits to 162,000 residents by improving Federal and local levees that provide FRM. The RP also offers the area an estimated 83 percent reduction in expected annual property damage, while enhancing security at 486 critical infrastructure sites – 23 of which are essential to life-safety. There is residual risk of flooding from the Stockton Diverting Canal and Calaveras River levees that will not be improved by the RP. The RP is described briefly below, including the specific cost share requirements associated with approved policy. For more information, see Chapter 3 and the appendices (Appendix A: Economics
, Appendix B: Engineering, and Appendix C: Real Estate) and supporting documentation.
ATTACHMENT D 1458
Lower San Joaquin River
8-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
FEATURES AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The RP is shown in Figure 8-1. Features are listed below and additional detail may be found in the Appendix B: Engineering.
Delta Front
3.05 miles of fix in place improvements with soil-bentonite cutoff walls of various depths with 2.5 miles of geometry improvement.
1.1 miles of seismic fixes through deep soil mixing in North Stockton along two segments of Tenmile Slough, including approximately 1,200 feet along the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel. 1.33 miles of new setback levee along the Delta Front to eliminate the eastern portions of the Fourteenmile Slough levee in North Stockton.
0.59 miles of height improvements between 1.8 and 2.7 feet on the Delta Front. 5 miles of erosion protection.
Closure Structure on Fourteenmile Slough.
North Stockton
9.4 miles of fix in place improvements with soil-bentonite cutoff walls of various depths in North Stockton.
2.03 miles of height improvements between 1.4 and 1.6 feet in North Stockton.
Central Stockton
9.2 miles of fix in place improvements with soil-bentonite cutoff walls of various depths in Central Stockton.
2 miles of levee geometry improvements in Central Stockton along one segment of the Calaveras River and one segment of the San Joaquin River.
0.53 miles of height improvements of 1.8 feet in Central Stockton. 0.75 miles of new levee with soil-bentonite cutoff wall on Duck Creek to address flanking of flood waters from south of Central Stockton.
0.28 miles of height improvements of 4 feet on the RD 404 levee. Closure Structure at Smith Canal with 0.2 miles of floodwall.
The RP requires the non-Federal sponsors prepare a Floodplain Management Plan, including a FWEEP, as required for all USACE FRM projects per Sec 402 WRDA 86, as amended.
ATTACHMENT D 1459
Lower San Joaquin River
8-3
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
The RP also includes 5 miles of rock revetment for erosion protection to address wind and wave loading in North Stockton along Fourteenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Shima Tract, and Tenmile Slough. The RP includes establishment of USACE ETL 1110-2-583-compliant levees, as described in Chapter 4, and a commitment to evaluate the levees’ suitability for a vegetation variance to the ETL. Figure 8-2 details existing levees in the RP and delineates their status prior to project implementation. There are 14.2 miles of existing Federal levee segments within the RP. A total of 9.5 miles of existing non-Federal levee and
0.75 miles of newly constructed levee will be added to the Federal levee system as part of the RP. The RP is compatible with other local efforts to meet ULOP requirements mandated by California SB 5. The RP is designed to include a level of levee superiority upstream of French Camp Slough, providing increased resiliency to floods in excess of design.
ATTACHMENT D 1460
Lower San Joaquin River
8-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Figure 8-1: Recommended Plan and Design Feature
ATTACHMENT D 1461
Lower San Joaquin River
8-5
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Figure 8-2: Existing Federal, non-Federal becoming Federal and New Levees ATTACHMENT D 1462
Lower San Joaquin River
8-6
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
MITIGATION
Mitigation includes all measures that would avoid, minimize, offset or compensate for potential environmental effects. When considered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, these measures may be referred to as conservation measures. As required under NEPA, potential mitigation and conservation measures for each resource are described in Chapter 5. This section identifies those measures that are included in the RP. Mitigation assumes the levees will be determined to be suitable for a variance to USACE ETL 1110-2-583 that would allow 25% of the trees and shrubs on the lower levee slope and within the waterside easement to remain. During PED, Sacramento District will conduct appropriate engineering investigations to determine the suitability of RP levees for a variance.
The project would purchase credits at a local mitigation bank for permanent impacts to GGS uplands and aquatic habitat, riparian, SRA, Delta smelt shallow water, open water, and wetland habitats. The District has consulted with potential mitigation banks annually since 2013 to check on credit availability. The proposed project is within the service area of the USFWS/NMFS approved banks identified in Table 8-1.
Table 8-1: Mitigation Banks
Type of Credit Mitigation Bank Website Service Area
GGS habitat Grassland Mitigation Bank http://www.wesmitigation.com/advan ce-conservation-project-in-sanjoaquin-valley-will-boost-flood-andgiant-garter-snake-protection/ grasslands-ggs-serv ice-area 2017.pdf
Riparian habitat Cosumnes Floodplain Mitigation
Bank
http://www.wesmitigation.com/caban
ks/another-california-bank/
cosumnes-service-a
rea 2017.pdf
SRA Cosumnes Floodplain Mitigation
Bank
http://www.wesmitigation.com/caban
ks/another-california-bank/
Delta smelt
habitat
Liberty Island Conservation Bank
North Delta Fish Conservation Bank
https://www.fws.gov/sfbaydelta/Enda
ngeredSpecies/ConservationBanking/i
ndex.htm
liberty_isl_conservat
ion_bank_service_are
North Delta Service
Area 2017.pdf
Wetlands Cosumnes Floodplain Mitigation
Bank
http://www.wesmitigation.com/caban
ks/another-california-bank/
Environmental Commitments
Environmental commitments are relatively standardized and compulsory best practicesthat represent sound and proven methods to avoid or reduce potential effects. Although environmental commitments fall within ATTACHMENT D 1463
Lower San Joaquin River
8-7
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
the NEPA definition of mitigation through avoidance and minimization, the costs for implementing these measures are accounted for within the PED or Construction accounts, as appropriate, and are not included in the fish and wildlife habitat mitigation account. These measures were discussed in Chapter 5. The environmental commitments identified in Table 8-2 would be implemented to avoid or reduce short-term, construction-related effects.
ATTACHMENT D 1464
Lower San Joaquin River
8-8
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Table 8-2: Environmental Commitments
Environmental Commitment Timing Responsible Party
Nesting or roosting raptors survey Prior to construction USACE/SJAFCA in coordination with USFWS and CDFW
Nesting or roosting migratory birds
survey
Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with the
construction contractor
Invasive plant species prevention During and following
construction
USACE, in coordination with the
construction contractor
Invasive aquatic species prevention During and following construction
USACE, in coordination with the
construction contractor
Vegetation removal, particularly tree
removal, would be conducted between
September 16 and January 31, to the
extent feasible, to minimize potential
loss of active bird nests and bat
maternity roosts.
During construction USACE, in coordination with the
construction contractor, USFWS,
and CDFW.
Noise-reducing construction practices During construction USACE, in coordination with the construction contractor
Property acquisition compensation and
temporary resident relocation plan
Prior to and during
construction
SJAFCA
Traffic control and road maintenance
plan
During construction USACE, in coordination with its
contractor and the city and county
public works departments
Coordination to ensure minimal
overlap in disturbances to traffic
during construction
Prior to and during
construction
USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Construction area closure notification Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with construction contractor
Minimize construction-related effects
on navigation
During construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Minimize effects associated with
recreation
During construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with construction contractor
Bentonite Slurry Spill Contingency
Plan (Frac-out Plan)
Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Spill Prevention, Control, and
Countermeasure Plan
Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Turbidity Monitoring in Adjacent
water bodies
During construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Groundwater Well Protection
measures
During construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Soil Supply protection measures Prior to, during, and
following construction
USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Soil hazards testing and soil disposal
plan
Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
HTRW Contingency Plan Prior to construction USACE, in coordination with construction contractor
ATTACHMENT D 1465
Lower San Joaquin River
8-9
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Environmental Commitment Timing Responsible Party
In-water closure structure design and
operation coordinated with the
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW
During PED USACE
Giant Garter Snake and its habitat
effects minimization
Prior to and during
construction
USACE
Field surveys would be conducted to
identify and delineate jurisdictional
wetlands that could be directly or
indirectly affected by the RP.
Prior to construction USACE
Install exclusion fencing along the
perimeter of the construction work area
and implement general measures to
avoid effects on sensitive natural
communities and special-status species
Prior to and during
construction
USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Conduct mandatory contractor/worker
awareness training for construction
personnel
Prior to and during
construction
USACE, in coordination with
construction contractor
Retain a biological monitor During construction USACE, in coordination with construction contractor
Seed or plant areas disturbed by
construction with appropriate native
species
After construction USACE, in coordination with
contractor
Conservation Measures for Avoidance, Minimization, and Compensation (ESA) Measures to conserve Federally-listed species were developed with input from USFWS and NMFS during informal and formal Section 7 consultation. Avoidance and minimization measures that are part of the RP are identified in Chapter 5, Section 5.12.10. Some additional measures are specified in the terms and conditions included in the USFWS and NMFS biological opinions (see Environmental Addendum).
Construction would be scheduled when listed terrestrial and aquatic species are least likely to occur in the project area, approximately May or June through October depending on the species present on a sitespecific basis. If construction needs to extend into the timeframe that species are present, USACE would coordinate with the resource agencies. Compensatory conservation measures are part of the RP and are identified in Table 8-3. These measures are included in the Habitat Mitigation, Monitoring, and Adaptive Management Plan in the Environmental Addendum. Compensatory conservation measures for VELB would be accomplished at a mitigation area on-site. Compensatory measures to offset impacts to GGS upland and aquatic habitat, delta smelt and its designated critical habitat, California CV steelhead DPS and its designated critical habitat, North American green sturgeon Southern DPS and its designated critical habitat, and CV spring-run Chinook salmon ESU. USACE would purchase credits at a local conservation bank for impacts to GGS uplands and aquatic habitat, riparian, SRA, Delta smelt shallow water, open water, and wetland habitats. Table 8-3 displays mitigation, including to offset impacts on Federally listed species.
Compensatory mitigation recommended as part of this project is included in the Habitat Mitigation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan in the Environmental Addendum.
ATTACHMENT D 1466
Lower San Joaquin River
8-10
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation that is not required as part of ESA compliance was developed consistent with USACE mitigation policy and requirements specified in ER 1105-2-100, Appendix C. The goal is no net loss of habitat functions and values. This includes mitigation for impacts to riparian habitat and wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation would be implemented on site where feasible, and through purchase of mitigation bank credits off-site. Table 8-3 displays mitigation, including to offset impacts on Federally-listed species.
Compensatory mitigation recommended as part of this project is included in the Habitat Mitigation, Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan in the Environmental Addendum.
Table 8-3: Environmental Impacts and Compensatory Mitigation for the Recommended Plan Habitat Type Potential
Impacts
Duration of
Impact
Mitigation/ Compensation
(Acres/Linear Feet) Mitigation Cost
GGS Upland
GGS Aquatic
111.5 Acres
6 Acres
Single
Construction
Season
111.5 acres site restoration
6 acres site restoration
Hydroseeding/ Relocation
of drains – Construction
Cost
GGS Upland
GGS Aquatic
12.5 Acres
0.5 Acres Permanent 35.12 acres bank credit1.5 acres bank credit $2,107,200
$90,000
Riparian 139 Acres Permanent 72.13 bank credits $5,409,750 Shaded Riverine
Aquatic Habitat
(ESA Fish
Species)
19,630 LF Permanent 58,890 bank credits $5,594,550
Shallow Water
Habitat (ESA
Fish Species)
234 Acres
During operation
of closure
structure
123 acres bank credit $15,990,000
Elderberry
Shrubs
41 Shrubs/
96 stems Permanent
14 Acres created onsite, plus
monitoring and adaptive
management1
$2,040,000
Open Water 4 Acres Temporary 2 acres bank credits $260,000 Wetlands 10.75 Acres Permanent 7.68 bank credits $998,400 Total $32,742,000*
Total w/ Contingency $45,184,000
*Monitoring and adaptive management costs are included in the elderberry shrub compensation line item.
There are no additional monitoring or adaptive management costs associated with the other habitat types since they will be acquired through the purchase of mitigation bank credits. Monitoring and adaptive management costs are detailed in Addendum J.
ATTACHMENT D 1467
Lower San Joaquin River
8-11
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
OPERATION, MAINTENANCE, REPAIR, REPLACEMENT, AND REHABILITATION Existing project levees have continuing OMRR&R obligations, manuals and agreements. The local sponsors coordinated with the responsible OMRR&R districts and agencies of the RP levees. Annual OMRR&R cost is estimated to be $1,062,000 including an estimate for addressing subsidence. Some primary OMRR&R responsibilities and factors evaluated are listed below. Cutoff wall will not change long-term maintenance or replacement costs. Closure structures will increase management maintenance costs. Wet penetration encroachments will be improved or replaced along the entire levee reaches. Dry encroachments such as power poles and vegetation will be reduced. Right-of-way will be increased; so maintenance costs will increase to cover a larger vegetation management footprint.
Life cycle vegetation management maintenance costs will increase. Localized ground subsidence may require periodic placement of levee fill to maintain the levee crest elevation. The rate of subsidence would need to be evaluated during PED.
Upon construction completion, the project levees would again be turned over to the CVFPB with an amended OMRR&R manual and a revised agreement. The updated/revised documents will clearly articulate NFS requirements with specific emphasis on vegetation, burrowing animals and encroachments that have historically been problematic. The NFS would then be responsible for the continued OMRR&R of the levees with any amendments under the amended OMRR&R manuals and newly signed agreements.
Compliance with the amended manuals and agreements will be enforced through the Levee Safety Program inspections and participation in the PL 84-99 program. Additional detail on the OMRR&R requirements can be found in Appendix B: Engineering.
The design elevation would be maintained by the sponsor through normal operation and maintenance activities over the 100 year project life. As part of Operation and Maintenance the sponsor would be required to verify the crest elevation by conducting a high order survey every 10-years to update the National Levee Database. The sponsor would be required to restore the levee profile if it was found to have subsided more than 0.5 feet. This approach to addressing subsidence related issues is described as the “Managed adaptive approach” in ETL 1100-2-1. It is estimated the crest elevation would need to be restored every 25 years for reaches that subsided at the high rate and 50 years for reaches that subsided at the medium rate. No restoration would be anticipated for reaches that subsided at the low rate.
Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Overall, after implementing mitigation components, the mitigation sites would be monitored until success criteria specified in the HMMAMP are met and as specified in BO Terms and Conditions. Monitoring costs are estimated to be approximately $250,000 for five years of monitoring post-construction. Monitoring would be both quantitative and qualitative and would be conducted by a qualified ecologist, botanist, or biologist. The monitor would be objective and independent from the contractor responsible for maintenance of the site. Monitoring for endangered species would be performed in accordance with USFWS and NMFS guidelines. If the monitoring results shows that the mitigation site is not meeting its success criteria, as established in the HMMAMP (Environmental Addenda J), then adaptive management measures may be required. These measures are established and described in the HMMAMP. Adaptive management, if required, is estimated to cost approximately $599,700 over five years.
ATTACHMENT D 1468
Lower San Joaquin River
8-12
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
The combined monitoring and adaptive management costs at October 2017 price levels, as included in the certified total project cost summary under the 06 “fish and wildlife facilities” account, totals $70,904,000 for the Recommended Plan. These costs are proposed to be cost-shared rather than included as a nonFederal O&M cost, because all mitigation being created is associated with the terms and conditions of the USFWS BO that was issued to USACE. These costs are included in the mitigation costs for impacts to elderberry shrubs, as displayed in Table 8-3, above. An annual report will document monitoring results will be provided to the project partners (USACE, CVFPB, SJAFCA) USFWS, NMFS, and CDFW.
ATTACHMENT D 1469
Lower San Joaquin River
8-13
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
REAL ESTATE
Acquisition of 14 acres in fee title along with 24 acres of temporary work easements would be required for the RP (Table 8-4). The NFS would acquire these lands as part of the project. Additional easements for flood protection levees, roadways and channel improvements total 232 acres. Real estate acquisition for the RP is split among 427 landowners with the majority of the land owned by individuals. Facility and utility relocations are estimated to be about $108,447,000, which would consist of approximately 113 permanent relocations (PL 91-646), and relocation of affected utilities and infrastructure. No cost or credit was included for LERRDs provided for any previous USACE project. Further details are located in Appendix C: Real Estate.
Table 8-4: Recommended Plan Lands, Easements and Rights-of-Way Estate Type Acres (Approximate)
Flood Protection Levee Easement 194
Roadway Easement 36
Channel Improvement Easement 2
Fee 14
Temporary Work Easements 24
PLAN ECONOMICS AND COST SHARING
The project first cost, estimated on the basis of 2017 price levels, totals $1,070,309,000. Table 8-5 displays each cost by project feature. Estimated average annual costs of $49,295,000 were based on a 2.75% percent interest rate, an analysis period of 50 years, and construction ending in 2033. Table 8-6 shows the project first costs. The total average annual flood damage reduction benefits are $345,024,000 with a net annual benefit of $295,730,000 and a benefit to cost ratio of 7.0 to 1.0.
ATTACHMENT D 1470
Lower San Joaquin River
8-14
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Table 8-5: Estimated Costs of Recommended Plan ($1,000) MCACES
Account2 Description Total First Cost1
01 Lands and Damages3 80,654
02 Relocations4 85,000
06 Fish and Wildlife 70,904
11 Levees and Floodwalls 566,599
15 Floodway Control and Diversion Structure 53,183
30 Planning, Engineering, Design5 144,901
31 Construction Management6 69,069
Total First Cost7 1,070,309
Notes:
1 Based on October 2017 price levels, 2.75% interest rate, and a 50-year period of analysis. 2 Micro Computer-Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES) is the software program and associated format used by USACE in developing cost estimates. Costs are divided into various categories identified as “accounts.” Detailed costs estimates are presented in the Cost Engineering Addendum. 3
Real Estate land costs, which include no damages.
4 Relocations include relocating affected utilities and irrigation ditches. 5 16 percent of 06, 11, and 15 accounts. 6
10 percent of 06, 11, and 15 accounts. 7 Numbers reported may be slightly different than those presented in the appendices due to rounding.
Table 8-6: Annual Costs and Benefits for Recommended Plan ($1,000) First Costs $1,070,309
Interest During Construction $231,829
Total Investment Cost $1,302,138
Interest and Amortization1 $48,232
OMRR&R $1,062
Total Annual Cost $49,294
Total Annual Benefits $345,024
Net Annual Benefits $295,730
Benefit to Cost Ratio 7.0 1 October 2017 price levels, 2.75% interest rate and a 50 year period of analysis.
ATTACHMENT D 1471
Lower San Joaquin River
8-15
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Table 8-7: Summary of Cost Sharing Responsibilities for the Recommended Plan ($1,000s) Working Level Estimates
MCACES
Account Item Federal1,2 Non-Federal1 Total1
01 Lands and Damages3 10,675 69,979 80,654
02 Relocations 0 85,000 85,000
06 Fish and Wildlife Facilities 70,904 0 70,904
11 Levees and Floodwalls 566,599 0 566,599
15 Flood Control and Diversion
Structure 53,183 0 53,183
30 Planning, Engineering, Design 144,901 0 144,901
31 Construction Management 69,069 0 69,069
Subtotal 907,575 154,979 1,070,309
Minimum 5% Cash Contribution 53,515
Additional Cash Contribution (219,629) 219,629
Subtotal (NED Plan Cost Sharing) 695,701 374,608
Cost Sharing (%) 65 35 100
Total (NED Plan Cost Sharing)4 695,701 374,608 1,070,309 Notes:
1 October 2017 price levels, 2.75% interest rate, and a 50-year period of analysis. 2 Federal Project First Costs are based on 65% of the NED Plan of $1,070,309,000. 3 Lands, Easements, Rights of Way, Relocations and Disposal Areas. 4 Numbers reported may be slightly different than those presented in the appendices due to rounding.
ATTACHMENT D 1472
Lower San Joaquin River
8-16
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
RISK AND UNCERTAINTY
In general, the ability of the plan to provide the expected accomplishments depends on the following: the validity of pertinent assumptions, base data, and analytical techniques used in this study; the successful completion of future studies, designs, and construction; and appropriate OMRR&R after construction.
There is an estimated 83 percent reduction in economic flood risk. With the RP in place, the North Stockton impact area improves from a 15% annual chance of flooding in the highest risk areas to less than 1% annual chance. The Central Stockton impact area improves from a 12% annual chance of flooding in the highest risk areas to a 2% annual chance. Further information about specific AEP and the performance of levees for a range of hydrologic events within sub-impact areas can be found in Appendix A: Economics .
RESIDUAL RISK
Residual risk is the risk of inundation in the study area after the implementation of the RP. This risk would be in the form of overtopping or flanking of levees during very infrequent events. The RP greatly reduces the risk of flooding within the city of Stockton and areas immediately adjacent. With the RP in place, residual risk is driven by flooding from the Calaveras River and Diverting Canal, which were not improved.
The estimated residual annual economic damages for the RP are $66,449,000. It is anticipated that the residual risk would increase over time, due to sea level change. The 2014 Lower San Joaquin River and Delta South Regional Flood Management Plan describes measures and plans the non-Federal sponsor can provide to further reduce residual risk, through non-structural efforts such as flood warning systems and evacuation services. Currently, San Joaquin County has evacuation routes mapped online for the entire study area, along with flood zone maps, hazard maps and personal readiness checklists. The 2014 plan also recommends improvements to the San Joaquin Alert System, establishing a flood fight supply system and training, and establishing mutual aid policies. These plans are routinely updated based on assessments of changing conditions within the County. As part of the NFS’s responsibilities in undertaking this project, they are required to publicize floodplain information in the area and provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for use in adopting regulations, or taking other actions to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the project.
The potential for induced flooding from the RP was evaluated by comparing with-project and no action plans throughout the system. USACE policy allows mitigation for induced flooding to be recommended as a project feature when it is economically justified or there are overriding reasons of safety, economic or social concerns, or a determination of a real estate taking has been made (ER 1105-2-100, para.3- b.(5)). It was determined that the changes were not significant and no mitigation features would be required.
EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988
To comply with E.O. 11988, projects are formulated and recommended that, to the extent possible, avoid, minimize and/or mitigate adverse effects associated with use of the floodplain, and avoid inducing incompatible development in the floodplain unless there is no practicable alternative. Achieving flood and coastal storm risk management objectives generally cannot avoid locating actions in riverine or coastal floodplains. The requirements below are consistent with the EO 11988 decision process displayed in Figure 8-1 in Water Resources Council, Floodplain Management Guidelines for Implementing EO 11988, February 10, 1978 (43 FR 6030).
ER 1165-2-26 provides the general guidance and policy for USACE’s implementation of EO 11988 for all civil works projects. Paragraph 7 of the regulations states: “It is the policy of the Corps of Engineers to formulate projects which, to the extent possible, avoid or minimize adverse impacts associated with use of the base floodplain and avoid inducing development in the base floodplain unless there is no practicable ATTACHMENT D 1473
Lower San Joaquin River
8-17
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
alternative. The decision on whether a practicable alternative exists will be based on weighing the advantages and disadvantages of floodplain sites and non-floodplain sites. Factors to be taken into consideration include, but are not limited to, the functional need for locating the development in the floodplain. The test of practicability will apply to both the proposed Corps action and to any induced development likely to be caused by the action.”
Based on the analysis conducted in Chapter 3, Section 3.6, Alternative 7a, the RP is compliant with the EO.
ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING PRINCIPLES
The RP supports each of the seven USACE Environmental Operating Principles (EOPs). The EOPs are:
Foster sustainability as a way of life throughout the organization. Proactively consider environmental consequences of all USACE activities and act accordingly. Create mutually supporting economic and environmentally sustainable solutions. Continue to meet our responsibility and accountability under the law for activities undertaken by USACE, which may impact human and natural environments. Consider the environment in employing a risk management and systems approach throughout the life cycles of projects and programs.
Leverage scientific, economic, and social knowledge to understand the environmental context and effects of USACE actions in a collaborative manner.
Employ an open, transparent process that respects views of individuals and groups interested in USACE activities.
The environmental operating principles are met in the following ways:
Environmental balance and sustainability (EOP 1, 2, 3, &4) Project avoids or minimizes environmental impacts while maximizing future safety and economic benefits to the community.
Planning with the environment (EOP 1, 2, 4, and 5)
Worked with local resource agencies during planning phase to minimize impacts to the environment.
Integrate scientific, economic, and social knowledge base (EOP 6) All pertinent, best available information was used during plan formulation and selection.
Seeks Public input and Comment (Win-win solutions) (EOP 7) Held stakeholder meetings and public workshops throughout the process.
Worked with local groups to achieve a balance of project goals and public concerns.
USACE CAMPAIGN PLAN
The mission of USACE is to provide vital public engineering services in peace and war to strengthen the Nation’s security, energize the economy and reduce risks from disasters. In order to meet this mission, the agency has developed the USACE Campaign Plan (FY13-18) as a component of the corporate strategic ATTACHMENT D 1474
Lower San Joaquin River
8-18
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
management process to establish priorities, focus on the transformation initiatives, measure and guide progress, and adapt to the needs of the future. The goals of the Campaign Plan are:
Goal 1 - Support National Security
Objective 1a – Support Combatant Commands and other U.S. government agencies Objective 1b – Partner with Installation Management Communities Objective 1c – Achieve National/Army energy security and sustainability goals Objective 1d – Support the Engineer Regiment
Goal 2 - Transform Civil Works
Objective 2a – Modernize the Civil Works project planning program and process Objective 2b – Enhance Civil Works budget development with a systems Watershed–Informed approach
Objective 2c – Deliver quality solutions and services
Objective 2d – Deliver reliable, resilient and sustainable infrastructure systems Goal 3 - Prepare for Tomorrow
Objective 3a – Enhance interagency disaster response and risk reduction capabilities Objective 3b - Enhance interagency disaster recovery capabilities Objective 3c - Enhance interagency disaster mitigation capabilities Objective 3d – Strengthen Domestic Interagency Support
Goal 4 - Reduce Disaster Risk
Objective 4a – Maintain and advance DoD and Army critical enabling technologies Objective 4b – Build trust and understanding with strategic engagement, communication, and cyber-security
Objective 4c – Streamline USACE business, acquisition and governance processes Objective 4d – Build ready and resilient people and teams through talent management / leader development
The RP is responsive to these goals and objectives by accomplishing the following:
Deliver reliable, resilient and sustainable infrastructure systems. Designing a project which avoids or minimizes environmental impacts while maximizing future safety and economic benefits to the community.
Deliver quality solutions and services.
Designing a project which avoids or minimizes environmental impacts through fix-in-place levee alternatives while providing FRM for public safety of North and Central Stockton.
Build trust and understanding with strategic engagement, communication, and cyber-security. The Feasibility Study team organized and participated in stakeholder meetings and public workshops throughout the process and worked with local groups to achieve a balance of project goals and public concerns.
Build ready and resilient people and teams through talent management / leader development. The study successfully employed the use of District Quality Control, ATR, Risk Analysis, and IEPR to assist in the review of the development of a technically sound recommendation of Federal Interest.
ATTACHMENT D 1475
Lower San Joaquin River
8-19
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
This section describes the remaining steps to potential authorization of the Project by Congress.
REPORT COMPLETION
The FR/EIS/EIR and DEIS/DEIR was circulated for public and agency review for 45 days. A public meeting was held for the public, agencies, and other interested parties on April 8, 2015. After completion of the public review period, comments have been considered and incorporated into the FR/EIS/EIR, as appropriate. The Final FR/EIS/EIR will be provided to any public agency that provided comments on the Draft Report. SJAFCA is responsible for certifying that the Final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA.
REPORT APPROVAL
This Final FR/EIS/EIR will be circulated for 30 days to agencies, organizations, and individuals who have an interest in the proposed project. All comments received will be considered and incorporated into the Final FR/EIS/EIR, as appropriate. This project is being coordinated with all appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies. USACE HQ will coordinate the public comments, receive comments from affected Federal and State agencies, and complete its own independent review of this final report.
After its review of the Final FR/EIS/EIR, including consideration of public comments, USACE HQ will prepare the Chief of Engineers' Report. This report will be submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA(CW)), who will coordinate with the Office of Management and Budget and submit the report to Congress.
PROJECT AUTHORIZATION AND CONSTRUCTION
Once the final report is approved by the Chief of Engineers and if the project is authorized by Congress, construction funds must be appropriated by Congress before a PPA can be signed by USACE and the NFS to begin construction.
The following tables disclose the expected project construction schedule and anticipated economic benefits by construction year. Since the Delta Front represents the greatest risk, construction of the project would begin with the Delta Front levees.
Implementation Strategy
Construction of the Recommended Plan is estimated to take 14 years under optimum funding.
Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) for the Delta Front levee work would begin in 2021 with construction being initiated in 2025 and finishing in 2029. The Fourteen Mile Slough Closure Structure would also be designed in 2021 with its construction beginning in 2025 and finishing in 2026.
North Stockton features would begin PED in 2023 with construction being initiated in 2027 and being completed in 2028.
PED for the right bank of the Calaveras River would begin in 2025. Construction would begin in 2029 and be completed by 2031.
RD 404 and Duck Creek levees would begin PED in 2026 with construction being initiated in 2030 and being completed by 2032.
The Smith Canal Closure Structure would being PED in 2027 with construction taking place between 2031 -2032.
ATTACHMENT D 1476
Lower San Joaquin River
8-20
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
PED for the left bank of the Calaveras River would be initiated in 2028 with construction beginning in 2032 and lasting two years.
This construction schedule represents a forecast of optimal funding whereby the limiting factors are not budgetary but are construction resource availability, windows for environmental compliance, or on-site limitations.
TABLE 8-8: INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION‡ RECOMMENDED PLAN - NORTH STOCKTON (INCLUDING DELTA FRONT) ($1,000)
YEAR
PRESENT
WORTH
FACTOR
COSTS
PRIOR TO
BASE
PRESENT
VALUE OF
COSTS
INTEREST
2021 1.442297 $62,203 $89,715 $27,513
2022 1.403695 $62,203 $87,314 $25,111
2023 1.366127 $62,203 $84,977 $22,774
2024 1.329564 $62,203 $82,703 $20,500
2025 1.293979 $62,203 $80,490 $18,286
2026 1.259347 $62,203 $78,335 $16,132
2027 1.225642 $62,203 $76,239 $14,036
2028 1.192839 $62,203 $74,198 $11,995
2029 1.160914 $62,203 $72,212 $10,009
2030 1.129843 $62,203 $70,280 $8,077
2031 1.099604 $62,203 $68,399 $6,196
2032 1.070174 $0 $0 $0
2033 1.041532 $0 $0 $0
2034 1.013657 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL $684,233 $864,862 $180,629
† Interest calculated using FY2018 discount rate of 2.75% ATTACHMENT D 1477
Lower San Joaquin River
8-21
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
TABLE 8-9: INTEREST DURING CONSTRUCTION‡ RECOMMENDED PLAN - CENTRAL STOCKTON ($1,000)
YEAR
PRESENT
WORTH
FACTOR
COSTS
PRIOR TO
BASE
PRESENT
VALUE OF
COSTS
INTEREST
2026 1.259347 $42,897 $54,023 $11,125
2027 1.225642 $42,897 $52,577 $9,679
2028 1.192839 $42,897 $51,169 $8,272
2029 1.160914 $42,897 $49,800 $6,903
2030 1.129843 $42,897 $48,467 $5,570
2031 1.099604 $42,897 $47,170 $4,273
2032 1.070174 $42,897 $45,908 $3,010
2033 1.041532 $42,897 $44,679 $1,782
2034 1.013657 $42,897 $43,483 $586
TOTAL $386,073 $437,276 $51,200
† Interest calculated using FY2018 discount rate of 2.75% ATTACHMENT D 1478
Lower San Joaquin River
8-22
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
TABLE 8-10: BENEFITS DURING CONSTRUCTION‡ RECOMMENDED PLAN($1,000)
YEAR FEATURES CONSTRUCTED
PRESENT
WORTH
FACTOR
BENEFITS
PRIOR TO
BASE
PRESENT
VALUE OF
BENEFITS
2021-2024 PED, INVESTIGATIONS, RE ACQUISITIONS FOR
DELTA FRONT
- $0 $0
2023-2026 PED, INVESTIGATIONS, RE ACQUISITIONS FOR
NORTH STOCKTON
- $0 $0
2025
CUTOFF WALLS/LEVEE WORK ON DELTA FRONT
FM_60_L; FOURTEENMILE SLOUGH CLOSURE
STRUCTURE
- $0 $0
2026
CUTOFF WALLS/LEVEE WORK ON DELTA FRONT
FM_40_L; PED, RE ACQUISITION FOR CENTRAL
STOCKTON; FOURTEENMILE SLOUGH CLOSURE
STRUCTURE COMPLETE
-
$0 $0
2027 CUTOFF WALLS/LEVEE WORK ON DELTA FRONT
FM_30_L;
- $0 $0
2028 CUTOFF WALLS/LEVEE WORK ON DELTA FRONT
FM_30_L
- $0 $0
2029
COMPLETE DELTA FRONT LEVEE WORK; CUTOFF
WALLS/LEVEE WORK ON N. STOCKTON MC_10_L;
CR_10_R; CR_20_R TO CR_60_R; SEISMIC ON
TS_10_L
-
$0 $0
2030 CUTOFF WALLS/LEVEE WORK ON N. STOCKTON
CR_50_R, CR_60_R, TO CR_80_R;
- $0 $0
2031
CUTOFF WALL/LEVEE WORK ON C. STOCKTON
SJR_30_R TO SJR_60_R; SJR_70_R; FCS_10_R
TO DC_10_R; NORTH STOCKTON LEVEE WORK
COMPLETE; SMITH CANAL CLOSURE STRUCTURE
BEGINS
-
$0 $0
2032 CUTOFF WALL/LEVEE WORK ON C. STOCKTON
CR_10_L TO CR_30_L; CR_40_L TO
CR_70_L; SJR_10_R; SMITH CANAL CLOSURE
STRUCTURE COMPLETE
1.084790 $245,469 $266,283
2033
CUTOFF WALL/LEVEE WORK ON C. STOCKTON
COMPLETE SJR_30_R TO SJR_60_R; SJR_70_R;
FCS_10_R TO DC_10_R
1.055756 $245,469 $259,156
2034 DEMOBILIZATION AND PUNCHLIST 1.027500 $245,469 $252,220 2035 CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE 1.000000 $0 $0
TOTAL $736,407 $777,659
† Interest calculated using FY2018 discount rate of 2.75%
DIVISION OF RESPONSIBILITIES
Federal Responsibilities
USACE would accomplish PED studies. Once the project is authorized and funds are appropriated, a PPA would be signed with SJAFCA and CVFPB as the NFS. After the sponsors provide the cash contribution, lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas, as well as assurances, the Federal Government would begin construction of the project.
Non-Federal Responsibilities
ATTACHMENT D 1479
Lower San Joaquin River
8-23
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
Specific items of local cooperation are identified in Chapter 9.
Views of Non-Federal Sponsor
The NFS, SJAFCA and the CVFPB, support the RP. Throughout development of this feasibility report, there has been significant coordination with SJAFCA, the State of California, San Joaquin County, and other stakeholders.
Financial Capability of Sponsor
The total estimated non-Federal first cost of the project is $374,608,000 including LERRDs using 2017 price levels. Actual costs may be slightly greater at the time of construction due to inflation. The total estimated value for the project lands, including LERRDs, is $165,654,000. The NFS will be required to provide self-certification of financial capability for the final report as required by USACE guidance.
Project Cost-Sharing Agreements
Prior to PED, a Design Agreement must be executed between USACE and the NFS in order to cost share the development of detailed plans and specifications. Before construction is started, USACE and the NFS would execute a PPA. This agreement would define responsibilities of the NFS for project construction as well as OMRR&R, and other assurances. The scope for this project includes OMRR&R directly required for project features defined in this report as well as indirectly required to ensure the ongoing operation of the project as designed. Should both SJAFCA and the CVFPB sign the PPA, the two parties would be subject to several joint liabilities for compliance, with the obligations embodied by the agreement.
However, the PPA would further designate CVFPB as the party physically responsible for OMRR&R of this project. If either SJAFCA or the CVFPB is a sole signatory of the PPA, that agency would assume OMRR&R responsibilities for the components of this project.
SCHEDULE
If the project is authorized in 2017, construction activities could start as early as 2019. Table 8-11 contains a schedule showing the approval and construction phases of the project.
Table 8-11: Project Schedule
Phase Scheduled Dates
Division Commander’s Transmittal to HQ USACE 2017
Chief of Engineers Report 2018
Potential Authorization 2019
USACE and Sponsor Sign Design Agreement 2019
Preconstruction Engineering and Design 2020-2023
USACE and Sponsor Sign Project Partnership Agreement 2021 Initiate Construction 2025
Complete Physical Construction 2033
ATTACHMENT D 1480
Lower San Joaquin River
8-24
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 8 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Recommended Plan
FURTHER STUDIES
During the PED phase, several additional studies would be conducted as part of developing detailed designs for the project. These studies include:
Additional geotechnical analysis of underlying substrates and estimate potential localized subsidence rates.
Additional hydraulic analysis including most current modeling data. Additional localized erosion and related sedimentation analysis during design of project features. Use of the analysis of sedimentation and erosion regime in the study area indicates little likelihood of departure in sedimentation behavior from the existing conditions for the proposed measures that would affect plan selection. It is, therefore, not likely that sediment will have significant impacts on project construction or performance. Activities that would be required to do the risk based analysis of vegetation on the levees for a vegetation variance include: determine species of trees present in the proposed variance zone; determine maximum size that the trees would grow to; root ball size analysis for the trees once fully matured; analysis of the amount of additional scour that could occur in a flood event; seepage and stability analysis; and development of cross-sections illustrating the trees, root systems, and levee prism.
Topographic and ground surveys for project design.
Preconstruction surveys to avoid direct impacts to nesting birds and other sensitive species. Water quality analysis of construction activities and methods. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment to identify potential hazardous materials and wastes within the project area.
Intensive cultural resources survey, evaluations, and mitigation as appropriate, in consultation with SHPO, and Native American Tribes; as specified in the PA.
As mentioned in Chapter 1, this study would only partially address the San Joaquin River Basin Authority, and is therefore called an “Interim Feasibility Report” which indicates that the study is addressing the issues of a specific area within the authority rather than the entire area authorized for study. RD 17 is undertaking levee improvements to address through and underseepage of the existing levee system. Upon completion of that work, RD 17 intends to request USACE participation in achieving compliance with SB 5’s urban standard of 200-year performance for the 0.5 percent ACE to address residual flood risk. Consideration of future Federal participation would be subject to the demonstration of Federal interest.
ATTACHMENT D 1481
Lower San Joaquin River
9-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
CHAPTER 9 — RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter describes the Items of Cooperation for a Structural FRM (Single Purpose) Project that will be specifically authorized. I recommend that the Recommended Plan (Alternative 7a) be authorized for implementation, as a Federal project, with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Commander, USACE, may be advisable. The estimated first cost (2017 price level) of the Recommended Plan (RP) is $1,070,309,000 with an estimated Federal cost of $695,701,000 (includes $7,563,000 in cultural resources data recovery costs) and an estimated non-Federal cost of $374,608,000. The estimated annual OMRR&R cost is $1,062,000 (2017 price levels). Federal implementation of the RP would be subject to the NFS complying with applicable Federal laws and policies, including but not limited to:
a. Provide a minimum of 35 percent, but not to exceed 50 percent of total project costs as further specified below:
1. Provide 35 percent of design costs in accordance with the terms of a design agreement entered into prior to commencement of design work;
2. Provide, during construction, a cash contribution of funds equal to 5 percent of total project costs;
3. Provide all lands, easements and rights-of-way, including those required for relocations, the borrowing of material and the disposal of dredged or excavated material; perform or ensure the performance of all relocations; and construct all improvements required on lands, easements and rights-of-way to enable the disposal of dredged or excavated material all as determined by the Government to be required or to be necessary for the construction and O&M of the project;
4. Provide, during construction, any additional funds necessary to make its total contribution equal to at least 35 percent of total project costs;
b. Shall not use funds from other Federal programs, including any non-Federal contribution required as a matching share, to meet any of the non-Federal obligations for the project unless the Federal agency providing the Federal portion of such funds verifies in writing that expenditure of such funds for such purpose is authorized;
c. Not less than once each year, inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by the project;
d. Agree to participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs;
e. Comply with Section 402 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701b-12), which requires a non-Federal interest to prepare a floodplain management plan within 1 year after the date of signing a project cooperation agreement, and to implement such plan not later than 1 year after completion of construction of the project; f. Publicize floodplain information in the area and provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for use in adopting regulations, or taking other actions to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the project; ATTACHMENT D 1482
Lower San Joaquin River
9-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
g. Prevent obstructions or encroachments on the project (including prescribing and enforcing regulations to prevent such obstructions or encroachments) such as any new developments on project lands, easements and rights-of-way or the addition of facilities that may reduce the level of protection the project affords, hinder O&M of the project, or interfere with the project’s proper function;
h. Comply with all applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Public Law 91-646, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655), and the Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR Part 24, in acquiring lands, easements and rights-of-way required for construction and O&M of the project, including those necessary for relocations, borrowing of material or disposal of dredged or excavated material; and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies and procedures in connection with said Act; i. For so long as the project remains authorized, OMRR&R the project, or functional portions of the project, including any mitigation features, at no cost to the Federal Government in a manner compatible with the project’s authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, and any specific directions prescribed by the Federal Government; j. Give the Federal Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon property that the NFS owns or controls for access to the project for the purpose of completing, inspecting, operating, maintaining, repairing, rehabilitating, or replacing the project; k. Hold and save the U.S. free from all damages arising from the construction, OMRR&R of the project and any betterments, except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the U.S. or its contractors;
l. Keep and maintain books, records, documents or other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to the project, for a minimum of 3 years after completion of the accounting for which such books, records, documents or other evidence are required, to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total project costs, and in accordance with the standards for financial management systems set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Cooperative Agreements to State and local governments at 32 CFR, Section 33.20; m. Comply with all applicable Federal and State laws and regulations, including but not limited to:
Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d) and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto; the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6102); the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended (29 U.S.C. 794) and Army Regulation 6007 issued pursuant thereto; and 40 U.S.C. 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C. 3701-3708 (labor standards originally enacted as the Davis-Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act);
n. Perform, or ensure performance of, any investigations that are determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), Public Law 96-510, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601-9675), that may exist in, on or under lands, easements or rights-of-way that the Federal Government determines to be required for construction and O&M of the project.
However, for lands that the Federal Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude, only the Federal Government shall perform such investigations unless the Federal Government provides the NFS with prior specific written direction, in which case the NFS shall perform such investigations in accordance with such written direction; ATTACHMENT D 1483
ATTACHMENT D
1484
Lower San Joaquin River
9-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT D 1485
Lower San Joaquin River
10-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
CHAPTER 10 — LIST OF RECIPIENTS
The following Federal, State and local agencies and organizations will either receive a copy of the Final FR/EIS/EIR, or a notification of the document’s availability. Individuals who may be affected by the project or have expressed interest through the public involvement process will also be notified. The notification will provide the location of hardcopies and a web address for accessing an electronic version. Comments received during the 30-day public and agency comment period will be reviewed and considered in preparation of the Final FR/EIS/EIR.
ELECTED OFFICIALS AND REPRESENTATIVES
Governor of California
Honorable Edmund G. Brown
United States Senate
Honorable Barbara Boxer
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
United States House of Representatives
Honorable Jeffery Denham
California State Senate
Honorable Anthony Cannella
California State Assembly
Honorable Cathleen Galgiani
San Joaquin County
Supervisor Carlos Villapudua (Vice-Chairman) (District 1) Supervisor Katherine Miller (District 2)
Supervisor Tom Patti (District 3)
Supervisor Chuck Winn (District 4)
Supervisor Bob Elliot (Chairman) (District 5)
City of Stockton
Mayor – Michael Tubbs
Vice Mayor Elbert Holman Jr. (District 1)
Councilmember Dan Wright (District 2)
Councilmember Susan Lofthus (District 3)
Councilmember Susan Lenz (District 4)
Councilmember Christina Fugazi (District 5)
Councilmember Jesus Andrade (District 6)
ATTACHMENT D 1486
Lower San Joaquin River
10-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
City of Lathrop
Mayor Sonny Dhaliwal
Vice Mayor Paul Akinjo
Councilmember Martha Salcedo
Councilmember Steve Dresser
Councilmember Mark Elliott
City of Manteca
Mayor Steve DeBrum
Councilmember Rich Silverman
Councilmember Gary Singh
Councilmember Debby Moorhead
Councilmember Mike Morowit
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Emergency Management Agency
National Marine Fisheries Service
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
ATTACHMENT D 1487
Lower San Joaquin River
10-3
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
STATE OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT AGENCIES
California Air Resources Board
California Bay-Delta Authority
California Department of Conservation
California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Parks and Recreation
California Department of Transportation
California Department of Water Resources
California State Clearinghouse
California State Lands Commission
California State Office of Historic Preservation
California State Water Resources Control Board
Central Valley Flood Protection Board
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
Governor’s Office of Emergency Services
Native American Heritage Commission
REGIONAL, COUNTY, AND CITY AGENCIES
City of Lathrop
City of Manteca
City of Stockton
San Joaquin County
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA)
RD 1608 – Smith Tract
RD 1614 – Smith Tract
RD 17 – Mossdale Tract
RDD 2074 – Sargent Barhardt Tract
RD 2042 – Bishop Tract
Water Resources Control Board, Central Valley Region
ATTACHMENT D 1488
Lower San Joaquin River
10-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 10 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Recipients
NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
Wilson Rancheria
Nototomne/Northern Valley Yokuts
California Valley Miwok tribe
Ione Band of Miwok Indians
United Auburn Indian Community
Buena Vista Rancheria Me-Wuk Indians
ATTACHMENT D 1489
Lower San Joaquin River
11-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 11 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Preparers
CHAPTER 11 — LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by the USACE, Sacramento District, with participation from ESA consulting, California DWR and the SJAFCA. The following sections identify individuals who prepared technical analyses, wrote sections of the Draft Report or provided technical or policy review of the final report.
USACE
Name Title Education/Experience Role in Report
Anne Baker
Social Science
Environmental
Manager
B.A. English; 7 years
USACE
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
& Report Writing
Peter Blodgett, P.E. Civil Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering;
California Licensed Civil
Engineer; 18 years
USACE
Hydraulics and Flood
Risk Analysis,
Technical Appendix
Preparation,
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(H&H)
Anne L. Burman
Deputy District
Council, Civil Works
and Real Estate
J.D.; LL.M
Environmental Law; 32
years Federal practice;
21 years environmental
law practice
Legal review of Study
and NEPA Documents
David Colby Fisheries Biologist
B.S. Freshwater
Fisheries; 1 year
USACE; 10 years U.S.
Fish and Wildlife
Service
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(Fisheries and Special
Status Species)
Matt Davis NEPA Regional
Specialist
M.S. Biological
Sciences; B.A. Zoology;
30 years’ experience in
environmental planning
NEPA/CEQA/ESA
Technical Review
Benjamin F. Dorsinvil Economist
MBA Finance; B.A.
Economics; 2 years
USACE
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(Socioeconomics and
Environmental Justice)
William Doyle, P.E. Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering; 4 years USACE
Engineering Technical
Lead; Technical
Appendix Preparation
James Elsberry Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering; 4 years USACE
Civil Engineering
Technical Appendix
Preparation and Report
Review
ATTACHMENT D 1490
Lower San Joaquin River
11-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 11 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Preparers
Name Title Education/Experience Role in Report
Jerry Fuentes
Plan Formulation
Regional Technical
Specialist
M.A., B.A. Social
Studies; 28 years
USACE
Review Planner,
Planner
Amanda Fuller Assistant District
Council
J.D.; B.A. Government,
History, Philosophy
Real Estate Legal
Reviewer
Victoria Hermanson Biological Science
Intern B.S. Biology Report Preparation
John High Supervisory
Hydrologist
B.A. Environmental
Science; 16 years
hydrologist
Technical Review
(H&H)
Elizabeth Holland
Senior Social Science
Environmental
Manager
A.A. Social Science; 29
years USACE
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
Brad Johnson
Biological Science
Environmental
Manager
B.S. Landscape
Architecture; 3 years
USACE, Environmental
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(Special Status
Species)
Glen Johnson Civil Engineer B.S. Civil Engineering
Geotechnical Engineer
and Geotechnical
Appendix Preparation
Hunter Merritt Water Resources
Planner
B.A. English Literature;
M.S. Recreation
Administration; 8 years
USACE, Planning
Planner and Report
Editing (all chapters);
Transmittal Package to
Senior Leader Briefing
Scott Miner Ecosystem Restoration
Specialist
M.S. Wildland Resource
Science; 35 years
USACE
Policy Review
Shaleatha Palmore Technical Writer B.A. English Technical Editor, Report Preparation
Nikki Polson Archaeologist
M.A. Anthropology; B.S.
Anthropology; 5 years
USACE; 15 years
Archaeologist
Lead Cultural
Resources and
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(Cultural Resources)
ATTACHMENT D 1491
Lower San Joaquin River
11-3
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 11 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Preparers
Name Title Education/Experience Role in Report
Glen Reed Project Manager
M.S. Construction
Management; B.S.
Industrial Technology;
35 years U.S. Army/U.S.
Air Force
Final Project
Management and
Report Review
Stacy Samuelson Water Resources
Planner
B.S. Natural Resource
Management; B.S.
Biology; 15 years
USACE
Lead Planner and
Report Writing
(Chapters 1, 2, 3, 8,
and 9)
Joana Saviñon Project Manager
M.S. Biology; B.A.
Environmental Studies; 7
years USACE, Project
Management and Water
Resources Planning
Initial Project
Management and
Report Review
Aaron Schlein Regional Economist B.A. Economics; 7 years USACE
Lead Economist and
Consequence Analyst;
Technical Appendix
Preparation
Lynne Stevenson
Biological Science
Environmental
Manager
M.S. Water Science;
MLS Library Science;
B.A. Biological Science
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(Geology, Seismicity,
Soils)
Shellie Sullo Social Science Study
Manager
B.A. Anthropology; 6
years USACE
Cultural Resources
Review
Tanis Toland Ecosystem Restoration
Regional Specialist
M.S. Wildland Resource
Science; B.A. Biology;
25 years USACE
NEPA Manager and
NEPA/CEQA Analysis
and Report Writing
(Vegetation, Wildlife,
Water Quality, Waters
of the U.S.,
Groundwater)
Robert D. Vrchoticky
Jr., P.E. Civil Engineer
B.S. Civil Engineering;
13 years Civil Design
Engineer; 9 years
Hydraulic Design
Engineer; 10 years Cost
Engineer
Cost Engineering,
Technical Appendix
Preparation
Elizabeth Youn Senior Real Estate
Specialist
B.A. Liberal Arts; 21
years USACE
Senior Realty
Specialist, Technical
Appendix Preparation
Casey Young GIS Specialist
GIS Certificate; B.A.
Geography; 7 years
USACE; 3 years private
Lead GIS; Map and
Figure Preparation
ATTACHMENT D 1492
Lower San Joaquin River
11-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 11 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Preparers
ESA CONSULTING
Name Title Education/Experience Role in the Study
Erick Cooke Senior Managing
Associated
M.S. Environmental
Coastal and Ocean
Science; B.A. Biology;
16 years’ experience
NEPA/CEQA
Technical Review
Catherine C. McEffee Vice President/Director
M.S. Environmental
Policy Analysis and
Planning; B.S. Water
Science; 26 years’
experience
NEPA/CEQA
Technical Review
Tim Rimpo Senior Air Quality
Program Manager
M.S. Economics
(Environmental and
Natural Resources
Specialization); B.A.
Economics; 29 years’
experience
NEPA/CEQA
Analysis and Report
Writing (Air Quality
and Green House
Gases)
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCES
Name Title Education/Experience Role in the Study
Ruth Darling Environmental Project
Manager
B.S. Biology; 9 years’
experience
CEQA Manager;
CEQA Technical
Review
Paul Larson Water Resources
Engineer
Water Resources
Engineer DWR, Project
Management
Robert E. Scarborough
Section Chief, Flood
Risk Reduction
Projects Branch,
Division of Flood
Management
B.S Civil Engineering,
26 years private sector in
Engineering, H&H,
Waste Water, Water,
Grading, Construction,
Project and Program
Management;
7 Years DWR Program
Management
DWR Project
Management
Oversight
ATTACHMENT D 1493
Lower San Joaquin River
11-5
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 11 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA List of Preparers
SJAFCA
Name Title Education/Experience Role in the Study
James Giottonini Executive Director
M.B.A., B.S. Civil
Engineering;
Professional Civil
Engineer; 47 years’
experience
Project Management
Roger Churchwell Deputy Executive
Director
B.S. Civil Engineering;
Professional Civil
Engineer; 27 years’
experience
Project Management
Juan Neira Project Manager
M.S. Civil Engineering,
B.S. Civil Engineering;
Professional Civil
Engineer; 17 years’
experience
Project Management
PETERSON BRUSTAD ENGINEERING, INC.
Name Title Education/Experience Role in the Study
Dave Peterson, P.E. Principal
B.S. and M.S. Civil
Engineering; 33 years’
experience
Engineering
Consultant for
SJAFCA
ATTACHMENT D 1494
Lower San Joaquin River
12-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
CHAPTER 12 — REFERENCES
The following sources were used in preparation of this document.
Adams, P. B., C. B. Grimes, J. E. Hightower, S. T. Lindley, and M. L. Moser. 2002. Status review for North American green sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris. National Marine Fisheries Service, Santa Cruz, California.
AECOM Phase 3-RD 17 100 Year Levee Seepage Area Project. 2010. Environmental Impact Statement/ Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, and Reclamation District No.17.
Aerometric Data Analysis and Management System. 2014. Top 4 Summary for San Joaquin County.
Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/adam/.
Air Toxicology and Epidemiology. 2013. Available: http://oehha.ca.gov/air/allrels.html.
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds, 6th edition. Allen Press, Inc., Lawrence, Kansas. pp. 877.
American River Flood Control Project, Special Evaluation Report. April 1994. Vegetation InundationMortality Study of the Proposed Auburn Flood Control Facility. Prepared by Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc. and Jones & Stokes.
Anderson, D., R. Anderson, M. Bradbury, C. Chun, J. Dinsdale, J. Estep, K. Fien, and R. Schlorff. 2005.
California Swainson’s Hawk Inventory: 2005–2006. 2005 Progress Report. Sacramento:
California Department of Fish and Game.
ARB Fact Sheet: Air Pollution Sources, Effects, and Control. 2009. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/health/fs/fs2/fs2.htm.
ARB Programs, Climate Change Assembly Bill 32: Global Warming Solutions Act. 2012. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/ab32/ab32.htm.
Area Designation Map, State/National. 2002. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm#state.
Area Designation Maps. 2013. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm.
Assembly Bill 1493 Climate Change Backgrounder: The Greenhouse Effect and California. 2012.
Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/factsheets/ccbackground.pdf.
Attachment D Final Supplement to the AB32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. 2011.
Background Report. San Joaquin River Restoration Study. 2002.
Baerwald M.R., M.R. Stephens, K.S. Bork, M.H. Meek, K. Tomalty, B. May 2011. Spring-run Chinook salmon genetic management plan for the CDFW.
Baker, P.T., T. P. Speed, and F.K. Ligon. 1995. Estimating the influence of temperature on thesurvival of Chinook salmon smolts migrating through the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta of California.
Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 52:855-863.
Bakic, T. and P. Lewiston. 2000. Historic Property Survey Report for the Route 99 Improvement Project, San Joaquin County, California. Prepared for San Joaquin Department of Public Works, Stockton, California.
ATTACHMENT D 1495
Lower San Joaquin River
12-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Banks, Peter M., Robert Orlins, and Helen McCarthy. 1984. Final Report, Walnut Creek Project: Test Excavation and Evaluation of Archaeological Site CA-CCO-431, Contra Costa County, California. California Archaeological Consultants, Inc., Oakland, California. On file, United States Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District. On file, Northwest Information Center, California Historical Resources Information System, California State University, Sonoma, Rohnert Park.
Beck, A. and Y. Hasse. 1974. Historical Atlas of California. Third printing. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Beedy, T. 2008. Tricolored Blackbird Portal. Information Center for the Environment (ICE) - University of California, Berkley. Available: http://tricolor.ice.ucdavis.edu/node/440.
Bennett, W. 2005. Critical assessment of the dela smelt population in the San Francisco Estuary, California. San Francisco Estuary and Watershed Science. Vol. 3, Issue 2 (September 2005) Article 1.
Bennyhoff, J.A. 1986. A Delta Intrusion to the Bay in the Late Middle Period in Central California. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A.
Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by R. E. Hughes. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility No. 52. Berkeley, California.
Bennyhoff, J.A. 1994a. Central California Augustine: Implications for Northern California Archaeology.
In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A Frederickson, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp. 15-24. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley.
Bennyhoff, J.A. 1994b. A Delta Intrusion to the Bay in the Late Middle Period in Central California. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A.
Bennyhoff and David A Frederickson, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp. 7-13. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley.
Bennyhoff, J.A. 1994c. Variation within the Meganos Culture. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A Frederickson, edited by R.E. Hughes, pp. 81-89. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley.
Bennyhoff, J. A., and R. E. Hughes. 1987. Shell Beads and Ornament Exchange Networks Between California and the Western Great Basin. Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History 64(2). New York.
Broughtan. J., Bennyhoff, J.A., and R.E. Hughes. 1997. Widening Diet Breadth, Declining Foraging Efficiency, and Prehistoric Harvest Pressure: Ichthyofaunal Evidence from the Emeryville Shellmound, California. American Antiquity 71(274):845-862.
Bjornn, T.C. and D. W. Reiser. 1991. Habitat requirements of salmonids in streams. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19: 139-179.
Brandes, P.L. and J.S. McLain. 2001. Juvenile Chinook salmon abundance, distribution, and survival in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary. Contributions to the Biology of Central Valley Salmonids.
R.L. Brown editor. California Department of Fish and Game. Fish Bulletin 179. Vol. 2:39-138.
Brown, J.L. 2009. Bald Eagle Species Profile. California State University, Stanislaus Endangered Species Recovery Program. Available online: http://esrp.csustan.edu.
ATTACHMENT D 1496
Lower San Joaquin River
12-3
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Bryant, M., and K. Souza. 2004. Summer townet survey and fall midwater trawl survey status and trends.
Interagency Environmental Program Newsletter 17: 14-17.
Bulletin 118, California’s Groundwater, Hydrologic Region, Groundwater Basin, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Eastern San Joaquin Subbasin, Last Update 1/20/06. Available:
http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5-22.01.pdf.
CALFED Bay-Delta Program. 2000. Multi-Species Conservation Strategy. Programmatic EIS/EIR Technical Appendix. CALFED Bay-Delta Program, Sacramento, California. July 2000.
Available: http://calwater.ca.gov/calfed/library/Archive_ROD.html.
California 1990 Greenhouse Gas Emissions Level and 2020 Limit. 2012. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/1990level/1990level.htm.
California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). 2013. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/research/aaqs/aaqs2.pdf.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2006. Emergency sturgeon regulations will take effect on Monday, March 20. CDFG News Release. 17 March.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2013. Fisheries Branch. Anadromous Resources Assessment. GrandTab. California Central Valley. Sacramento and San Joaquin River Systems.
Chinook Salmon Escapement. Hatcheries and Natural Areas.
California Department of Water Resources. 2006. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118. San Joaquin Hydrologic Region, North American Subbasin. Last updated January 20, 2006. Sacramento, CA:
California Resources Agency.
California Department of Water Resources and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (DWR and USBR). 1994.
Effects of the Central Valley Project and State Water Project on Delta Smelt and Sacramento Splittail. Biological Assessment for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 230 pp.
California Energy Consumption Database. 2011. Available: http://www.ecdms.energy.ca.gov/.
California Environmental Resources Evaluation System (CERES). 2007. CEQA Guidelines Appendices, Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form. Available:
http://ceres.ca.gov/ceqa/guidelines/pdf/appendix_g-3.pdf.
California Geologic Survey. 2007. Fault-rupture Hazard Zones in California. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones Maps. Special Publication 42.
California’s Groundwater Update. 2009. Working Draft. Volume 3, Regional Reports. Chapter 7 San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region.
California Invasive Plant Council. 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. California Invasive Plant Council. Berkeley, California.
California Map for Local Air District Websites. 2009. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/capcoa/dismap.htm.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2008. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7-08c-interim). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Tue, Aug. 26, 2008. Available: http://www.cnps.org/inventory.
ATTACHMENT D 1497
Lower San Joaquin River
12-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
California Natural Diversity Database. 2010 (February 28). Results of electronic database search.
Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. Accessed:
June 24, 1010.
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2014. Results of electronic database search and GIS data for sensitive species occurrences for California in polygon format. Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch. Available:
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/rf_ftpinfo.asp. Accessed June 23, 2014.
California Reptiles and Amphibians. 2008. Masticophis (Coluber) flagellum ruddocki - San Joaquin Coachwhip. Available: http://www.californiaherps.com/snakes/pages/m.f.ruddocki.html.
Central Valley Flood Protection Plan Consolidated Final Environmental Impact Report. 2012.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). 2011. Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Basins.
Central Valley Vision, California State Parks and the Great Central Valley. April 2004. Available:
http://www.parks.ca.gov/pages/22545/files/cvreport.pdf.
Chevron Environmental Management Company. 2008. Historical Pipeline Portfolio. Available:
http://hppinfo.com/Historical%20Pipeline%20Portfolio.htm.
City of Lathrop. 2001 (June). Final Environmental Impact Report for the Lathrop Water, Wastewater, and Recycled Water Master Plan. Sacramento, CA. Prepared for the City of Lathrop, CA.
City of Newman. 2007. Newman 2030 General Plan. City of Newman, California.
City of Stockton Bicycle Master Plan. November 2007.
City of Stockton General Plan Update. Final Environmental Impact Report. August 2007.
City of Stockton. 2011. Available: http://www.stocktongov.com/discover/history/hist.html. Accessed 6/4/14.
Civil Works Environmental Desk Reference. IWR Report 96-PS-3. Institute for Water Resources.
Alexandria, VA. 1996.
Climate Change. 2007. Available: http://www.energy.ca.gov/. Accessed July 2008.
CNDDB RareFind. California Natural Diversity Database. CDFG, Biogeographic Data Branch. Data Date: November 5, 2012.
CNRFC, 2013 Weather Forecast Office (WFO) Hydrologic Products. Available:
http://www.cnrfc.noaa.gov/wfo_hydro.php.
Coe Park. 2008. Henry W. Coe State Park’s Official Web Site. Available: http://coepark.org.
Community Health Air Pollution Information System (CHAPIS) Emissions map ver. 1.0. Control Plan, 2006 PM10. Available: http://www.valleyair.org/Air_Quality_Plans/06PM10.htm.
Constantine, D. G., 1959. Ecological observations on lasiurine bats in the north bay area of California.
Journal of Mammalogy 40(1):13-15.
Consultation Handbook: Procedures for Conducting Consultation and Conference Activities under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. USFWS and NMFS. Final. March 1998. Available:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/chapis1/chapis2.htm, June 2008.
ATTACHMENT D 1498
Lower San Joaquin River
12-5
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Cook, L., and L. D. Buffaloe. 1998. Delta Agricultural Diversion Evaluation. Summary Report 1993- 1995. Technical report (Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary); 61.
Daniels, R.A., and P.B. Moyle. 1983. Life history of splittail (Cyprinidae: Pogonichthys macrolepidotus) in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary Fishery Bulletin 81(3): 647-653.
Diesel programs and activities. 2008. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/diesel.htm.
Division of Land Resource Protection. 2007. San Joaquin County Williamson Act Lands.
Division of Mines and Geology. 1988. Mineral Land Classification of Portland Cement Concrete Aggregate in the Stockton-Lodi Production-Consumption Region, Special Report 160.
Draft Recovery Plan for the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnopsis gigas). 1999. USFWS, Portland, Oregon. pp. 192.
EDAW. 2002. Delineation of Waters of the United States for the Orestimba Creek Project Site Stanislaus County California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Infrastructure Services Group, Sacramento, CA.
Eilers, C.D. 2008. Review of Present Steelhead Monitoring Programs in the California Central Valley.
Prepared for California Department of Fish and Game.
Elsberry, J. 2014. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Excel spreadsheet attachment (AQ DATALSJRFS_rev.xlsx) to June 13, 2014 e-mail sent to T. Toland, U.S. Corps of Engineers.
Encyclopweedia. Last accessed August 26, 2008. Available:
www.cdfa.ca.gov/phpps/ipc/weedinfo/winfo_table-sciname.htm.
Endangerment and Cause or Contribute Findings for Greenhouse Gases under Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. 2013. Available: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/endangerment/.
Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 10 Distinct Population Segments of West Coast Steelhead: Final Rule. January 5, 2006.
Endangered and Threatened Species: Threatened Status for Two ESUs of Steelhead in Washington, Oregon, and California. Final Rule. March 19, 1998.
England, A. S., M. J. Bechard, C. S. Houston. 1997. Swainson’s Hawk (Buteo swainsoni). I n: Birds of North America, No. 265 (A. Poole and F. Gill [eds.]). Philadelphia, PA: The Academy of Natural Sciences, and Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Ensminger, M. 2007. California Department of Pesticide Regulation. Surface Water Quality Monitoring – Orestimba and Del Puerto Creek Watersheds.
Environmental Considerations for Vegetation in Flood Control Channels, ERDC TR-01-16. 2001.
Prepared by J. C. Fischenich and R.R. Copeland, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Flood Damage Reduction Research Program, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Available: http://www.wes.army.mil/el/elpubs/pdf/tr01-16.pdf.
EPA and NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration) Propose Historic National Program to Reduce Greenhouse Gases and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks. 2012. Available:
http://epa.gov/otaq/climate/regulations/420f09047.pdf.
ATTACHMENT D 1499
Lower San Joaquin River
12-6
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Espeland, E. K. and T.M. Carlsen. 2003. Population Characteristics of Eschscholzia rhombipetala. U.S.
Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Library.
Estep, J. A. 1984. Diurnal Raptor Eyrie Monitoring Program. Project Report W-65-R-1, Job No. II-2.0.
Sacramento: California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Wildlife Investigations.
Everest, F. H., and D. W. Chapman. 1972. Habitat selection and spatial interaction by juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead trout in two Idaho streams. Journal of the Fisheries Research Board of Canada 29(1): 91-100.
Facility At-A-Glance Report for the Stockton Regional WW Control Facility. California Integrated Water Quality System Project. 2013. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resources Control Board. Available:
http://ciwqs.waterboards.ca.gov/ciwqs/readOnly/publicReportfacilityAtGlance.jsp?placeid=2587
39. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that occur or may be affected by Projects in the Stanislaus County. 2008. Sacramento Ecological Services Field Office. Last Updated January 31, 2008.
Fickeworth, A.A. 1992. California Railroads: An Encyclopedia of Cable Car, Common Carrier, Horsecar, Industrial Interurban, Logging, Monorail, Motor Road, Short Lines, Streetcar, Switching Terminal and Railroads in California (1851-1992). San Marino, CA: Golden West Books.
Final 2008 Clean Water Act Section 303(d)/305(b) Integrated Report for the Central Valley Region. 2009.
Available: www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/water_issues/tmdl/impaired_waters_list/303d_list.shtml.
Final Environmental Impact Report on the Natomas Levee Improvement Program, Landside Improvements Project. 2007.
Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, October 1999.
Foss, S., and L. Miller. 2001. Growth of larval striped bass in the San Francisco Estuary. Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary (IEP) Vol. 14, Number 4, Fall 2001.
Frederickson, D. A. 1966. The Archaeology of A Middle Horizon Site in Interior Contra Costa County, CA. M. A. Thesis. Davis: Department of Anthropology, University of California.
Frederickson, D.A. 1968. Archaeological Investigations at CCo-30 Near Alamo, Contra Costa County, California. Davis: University of California, Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 1.
Frederickson, D.A. 1974. Cultural Diversity in Early California: A View from the North Coast Ranges.
Journal of California Anthropology. 1(1):41–53.
Frederickson, D.A. 1994a. Archaeological Taxonomy in Central California Reconsidered. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A. Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 93–103. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 52, Berkeley.
Frederickson, D.A. 1994b. Spatial and Cultural Units in Central California Archaeology. In Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A.Fredrickson, edited by Richard E. Hughes, pp. 25–47. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility, No. 52, Berkeley.
ATTACHMENT D 1500
Lower San Joaquin River
12-7
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Fresno Bee. 2014. Young San Joaquin River salmon catch a truck ride from Friant Dam. Available:
http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/04/16/3881286/young-salmon-catch-aride.html?sp=/99/217/&ihp=1).
Fugro-McClelland (West), Inc. and Andrew Leiser, Ph.D. December 1991. “Analysis of Potential Vegetation Mortality Resulting from Operation of the Proposed Auburn Flood Control Dam”.
Submitted to the Reclamation Board, State of California.
Galloway, D., Jones, D.R., Ingebritsen S.E. 2005 Land Subsidence in the United States, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1182. United States Geological Survey.
Garrett, K., and Dunn, J. 1981. Birds of Southern California: Status and Distribution. Los Angeles Audubon Soc., Los Angeles.
Geology of Northern California, Bulletin 190, California Division of Mines and Geology, San Francisco, CA. 1966.
Green Book. 2008c. Available: http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/, July 2008.
Gregory, Steven D., Erin K. Espeland, Tina M. Carlsen, Erin K. and Bissell. 2001. Demography and Population Biology of a Rare Tarplant, Blepharizonia plumosa (Asteraceae) a California Summer Annual Forb. U.S. Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Library.
Grimaldo, L., R. Miller, C. Peregrin, Z. Hymanson, and J. Toft. 2000. How does Brazilian waterweed (Egeria densa) influence the fish assemblage in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (CA)?:
Potential conflicts with ecosystem restoration. Abstract from the 2000 Missouri Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, St. Louis, MO.
Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Berkeley,CA: The Cooper Ornithological Club. Reprinted in 1986. Lee Vining, CA:Artemisia Press.
Hallock, Richard J., R. F. Elwell, and D. G. Fry. 1970. Migrations of Adult King Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the San Joaquin Delta As Demonstrated by the Use of Sonic Tags. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, CA.
Hansen, G. E. and J. M. Brode. 1980. Status of the giant garter snake, Thamnophis couchi gigas. Inland Fisheries Endangered Species Program Special Publication Report No. 80-5. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Hansen, E. 2002. Year 2001 Investigations of the Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas) in the Greater American Basin: Sutter County. Prepared for Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency, Sacramento, California.
Harris, Miller, Miller and Hanson, Inc. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Prepared for the Federal Office of Transit Administration.
Hays, D.W., K.R. McAllister, S.A. Richardson, and D.W. Stinson. 1999. Washington State Recovery Plan for the Western Pond Turtle. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia Washington. August 1999.
Healy, M.C. 1991. Life history of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), pp. 311-393. In C.
Groot and L. Margolis, Pacific Salmon life histories. Vancouver, British Columbia: UBC Press. 564 pp.
ATTACHMENT D 1501
Lower San Joaquin River
12-8
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Holland R. F. 1994. The Western Pond Turtle: Habitat and History. Final Report. DOE/BP-62137-1. 25 U.S. Department of Energy, Bonneville Power Administration, and Oregon Department of Fish 26 and Wildlife, Wildlife Diversity Program, Portland, OR.
Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch, and W.N. Abeloe. 1990. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Howard, J.L. 1996. Athene cunicularia. In: Fire Effects Information System. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fire Sciences Laboratory.
Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/.
Hughes, R., ed. 1994. Toward a New Taxonomic Framework for Central California Archaeology: Essays by James A. Bennyhoff and David A Frederickson. Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 52, Berkeley.
Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. Report 550/9-74-004. 1974.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 2007. Climate Change 2007: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Parry, Martin L., Canziani, Osvaldo F., Palutikof, Jean P., van der Linden, Paul J., and Hanson, Clair E. (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2007.
Inventory Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990 to 2004. Staff Final Report. 2006.
Israel, J.A. and A.P. Klimley. 2008. Life History Conceptual Model for North American Green Sturgeon.
University of California, Davis. December 27, 2008.
Jackson, T.A. 1992. Microhabitat Utilization by Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in Relation to Stream Discharges in the Lower American River of California. M.S. thesis submitted to Oregon State University.
Jackson, Z. J., and J. P. Van Eenennaam. 2013. 2012 San Joaquin River sturgeon spawning survey.
Stockton Fish and Wildlife Service, Anadromous Fish Restoration Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lodi, California.
Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California.
California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova, CA.
Jennings, M. R., M. P. Hayes, and D. C. Holland. 1992. A Petition to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to Place the California Red-legged Frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the Western Pond Turtle (Clemmys marmorata) on the List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants.
Johnsgard, P.A. 1990. Hawks, Eagles, and Falcons of North America. Biology and Natural History.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington and London.
Jones, K., K. Bartoy, H. Blind, and J. Holson. 2006. Draft Report. Archaeological Investigation and Evaluation at CA-SJO-301, CA-SJO-302H, and CA-SJO-303 State Route 99 and Hammer Lane Interchange, Stockton, San Joaquin County, California. Prepared for: Parsons Brinckerhoff, Stockton.
Jones & Stokes. 2004. March Lane Extension: Draft Environmental Impact Report. Prepared for the City of Stockton, California.
ATTACHMENT D 1502
Lower San Joaquin River
12-9
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Jurisdiction Diversion/Disposal Rate Detail. Stockton, San Joaquin County California. 2008. Available:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/reports/diversionprogram/JurisdictionDiversionDetail.as px?JurisdictionID=517&Year=2006.
Kaufman, R.C., A.G. Hauck, and J.J. Cech. 2006. Effects of Temperature and Carbon Dioxide on Green Sturgeon Blood-Oxygen Equilibria. Environmental Biology of Fishes 76:119-127.
Keefe, T. 2004. Archaeological Survey Report for the Stockton 99 Median Project State Route 99, San Joaquin County, California. Prepared for Caltrans District 10, Stockton, California.
Knopf, F.L. and J.R. Rupert. 1995. Habits and Habitats of Mountain Plovers in California. The Condor 97:743-751.
Leidy, R.A. 2007. Ecology, assemblage structure, distribution, and status of fishes in streams tributary to San Francisco Estuary, California. SFEI Contribution #530. San Francisco Estuary Institute.
Oakland, CA.
Life History Accounts and Range Maps - California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Edited by Zeiner, D.C. et al. 1988-1990. Available: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx.
List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS 2006 CWA Section 303(d). Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. Approved June 2007.
Matern, S. A., P. B. Moyle, and L. C. Pierce. 2002. Native and alien fishes in a California estuarine marsh: twenty-one years of changing assemblages. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 797-816.
McCaskie, G., DeBenedictis, P.,Erickson, R., and Morlan, J. 1979. Birds of northern California: An annotated field list, 2nd ed. Golden Gate Audubon Soc., Berkeley.
McElhiney, M. A. 1992. Soil Survey of San Joaquin County, California, United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC.
McEwan, D., and T.C. Bjornn. 1996. Steelhead restoration and management plan for California.
Management Report. California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Sacramento.
Meehan, W.R., and T.C. Bjornn. 1991. Salmonid distributions and life histories. Pages 47082 in W.R.
Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management on salmonids fishes and their habitats. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 19. Bethesda. MD.
Meyer, J., and J. S. Rosenthal. 1998. An Archaeological Investigation of Artifacts and Human Remains from CA-CCO-637, Los Vaqueros Project Area, Contra Costa County, California. Report prepared by Anthropological Studies Center, Sonoma State University Academic Foundation, Rohner Park, California.
Mid-Valley Engineering, Inc. April 2001. Hydrology Appendix to Feasibility Report, West Stanislaus County, California. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, by MidValley Engineering, Inc., Modesto, CA.
Mills, T. J., D. R. McEwan, and M. R. Jennings. 1997. California salmon and steelhead: beyond the crossroads. Pages 91-111 in D. J. Stouder, P. A. Bisson and R. J. Naiman, editors. Pacific salmon and their ecosystems: status and future options. Chapman and Hall, New York.
Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
ATTACHMENT D 1503
Lower San Joaquin River
12-10
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Moyle, P. 1976. Inland Fishes of California. University of California Press. Berkley and Los Angeles, CA.
Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D.E. Stevens, and L.W. Miller. 1992. Life History and Status of Delta Smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:67-77.
Moyle, P. B., R. M. Yoshiyama, J. E. Williams, and E. D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish species of special concern in California. Final Report. Prepared by Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California, Davis for California Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova.
Moyle, P.B. 2002. Inland Fishes of California, Revised and Expanded. University of California Press.
Moyle, P.B., and J. Isreal. 2005. Untested assumptions. Fisheries: Vol. 30, No. 5 pp. 20-28.
Moyle, P.B., B. Herbold, D. E. Stevens, and L. W. Miller. 1992. Life history and status of delta smelt in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, California. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:67-77.
Moyle, P.B., R.M. Yoshiyama, J.E. Williams, and E.D. Wikramanayake. 1995. Fish Species of Special Concern in California. Second edition. Final report to CA Department of Fish and Game, contract 2128IF.
Myrick, C.A., and J.J. Cech, Jr. 2001. Temperature Effects on Chinook Salmon and Steelhead, A Review Focusing on California’s Central Valley Populations. Sacramento, CA: California Department of Water Resources.
Napton, L. K. 1980. Cultural Investigations of the Proposed Orestimba Creek Wayside Park, Stanislaus County, California. California State College, Stanislaus, Institute of Archeological Research, Department of Anthropology, Turlock, California.
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) - Air and Radiation - USEPA. 2008a. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1996. Factors for decline. A supplement to the Notice of Determination for West Coast steelhead under the Endangered Species Act. NMFS Protected Species Branch (Portland, OR) and NMFS Protected Species Management Division (Long Beach, CA). pp. 82.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1998 (March). Endangered Species Act Consultation Handbook.
Procedures for Conducting Section 7 Consultations and Conferences. Final. Washington, DC.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2003. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: 12- month finding on a petition to list North American green sturgeon as a threatened or endangered species. Federal Register 68: 4433-4441.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005a. Endangered and threatened species: designation of critical habitat for seven evolutionary signification unites of Pacific salmon and steelhead in California, final rule. Federal Register 70: 52488-52586.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005b. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Long Beach, California.
ATTACHMENT D 1504
Lower San Joaquin River
12-11
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005c. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
proposed threatened status for Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American green sturgeon. Federal Register 70: 17386-17401.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2005d. Green sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) status review update. NOAA Fisheries, Southwest Fisheries Science Center, Long Beach, California.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2006. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants:
threatened status for southern distinct population segment of North American green sturgeon:
final rule. Federal Register 71: 17757-17766.
National Park Service. 2002. How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
National Water Information System: Web Interface. USGS Real-Time Water Data for the Nation.
Available: http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/rt. Last Accessed 26 August, 2008.
Newman, K., and J. Rice. 1997. Statistical Model for Survival of Chinook Salmon Smolts Out-Migrating Through the Lower Sacramento-San Joaquin System. Technical Report 59. Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Bay/Delta Estuary. California Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, CA.
Newman Watershed Work Plan, Stanislaus County. April 1976.
Nobriga, M., and P. Cadrett. 2001. Differences Among Hatchery and Wild Steelhead: Evidence From Delta Fish Monitoring Programs. Interagency Ecological Program for the San Francisco Estuary, Sacramento, CA. IEP Newsletter 14(3):30-38. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. 2003.
Assessment of Sediment Budget of Sacramento San Joaquin Delta.
Nobriga, M. L., Z. Motica, and Z. P. Hymanson. 2004. Evaluating entrainment vulnerability to agricultural irrigation diversions: a comparison among open-water fishes. American Fisheries Society Symposium 39:281-295.
Northeastern San Joaquin County Groundwater Banking Authority. 2004. Eastern San Joaquin Groundwater Basin Groundwater Management Plan. Stockton, CA: San Joaquin County Department of Public Works. National Register Bulletin 15.
Office of Planning and Standards. General conformity. 2008b. Available:
http://www.epa.gov/air/genconform/index.htm. June 2008.
Orestimba Creek Hydrology, A Reevaluation Based on Updated Peak and Volume Frequency Curves. For the West Stanislaus Feasibility Study, Orestimba Creek Damsite and Floodplain Evaluation, February 2008. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Water Management Section, Sacramento, California.
Pacific Fishery Management Council. 1999. Pacific Coast Salmon Plan. Amendment 14. Appendix A.
Identification and description of essential fish habitat, adverse impacts, and recommended conservation measures for salmon.
Pierson, E. D., W. E. Rainey, and C. Corben. 2000. Distribution and status of red bats, Lasiurus blossevillii in California. Report to Species Conservation and Recovery Program, Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 40 pp.
ATTACHMENT D 1505
Lower San Joaquin River
12-12
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Pierson, E.D. and W.E. Rainey. 2003. The distribution, status and management of Townsend's big- eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) in California. California Department of Fish and Game, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program Rep. 96-7. 49 pp.
Polson, Nikki and Richard M. Perry. 2014. Draft: Results of the Cultural Resources Record Search and Reconnaissance Survey for the Lower San Joaquin River Feasibility Study, San Joaquin County, California. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District.
Popper, A. N. 2006. What do we know about pile driving and fish? In Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Ecology and Transportation (Irwin, C. L., Garrett, P. & McDermott, K. P., eds.) pp. 26-28. Raleigh, NC: Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University.
Population Division. 2007a. Annual County Resident Population Estimates by Age, Sex, Race and Hispanic Origin: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (CC-EST2006-ALLDATA). Released August 9, 2007.
Population Division. 2007b. Table 4: Annual Estimates of Housing for Counties in California: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2006 (HU-EST2006-04-06). Released August 15, 2007.
Population Division. 2008b. Table 4: Annual Estimates of the Population for Incorporated Places in California, Listed Alphabetically: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2007 (SUB-EST2007-04-06). Released July 10, 2008.
Population Division. 2009. State and County QuickFacts. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06099.html. Accessed September 14, 2009.
Port of Stockton. 2014. Available: http://www.portofstockton.com/historye-tour. Accessed June 4, 2014.
Raleigh, R. F., T. Hickman, R. C. Soloman, and P. C. Nelson. 1984. Habitat suitability information:
rainbow trout. Biological Report 82 (10.60). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington DC. (FWS/OBS-82/10.60, 64 pp.).
Reclamation District No. 17. 2009 (June). Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration of the Phase II-RD 17 100-year Levee Seepage Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2009062021. Stockton, CA. Prepared by EDA W, Sacramento, CA.
Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1, USFWS, Portland, Oregon. 1998.
Rich, A. A. 1987. Report On Studies Conducted by Sacramento County to Determine Temperatures Which Optimize Growth and Survival in Juvenile Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha).
Sacramento, CA: McDonough, Holland, and Allen, 555 Capitol Mall, Sacramento.
Ricketts, M. and B. Kus. 2000. Yellow-breasted Chat (Icteria virens). In The Riparian Bird Conservation Plan: a strategy for reversing the decline of riparian-associated birds in California. California Partners in Flight. Available: http://www.prbo.org/calpif/htmldocs/riparian_v-2.html.
Rosenthal, J.M and A. Whittaker. 2009. Data Recovery Excavations at CA-SJO-3 for the Mossdale I-5 Widening Project, San Joaquin County, California I-5/SR-120, PM 13.9-15.6. Report prepared for California Department of Transportation, District 6. Fresno.
Sacramento Ecological Services Field Office. 2008. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that Occur or may be Affected by Projects in the Stanislaus County. Last Updated January 31, 2008.
ATTACHMENT D 1506
Lower San Joaquin River
12-13
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office Species Account Riparian Woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes riparia). 2008b. Available: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/animal_spp_acct/riparian_woodrat.htm.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. 2013. Road Construction Emission Model.
Available: http://airquality.org/ceqa/ Accessed January 2, 2014.
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, California, Interim Report, December 2002.
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basin Comprehensive Study, California, Post-Flood Assessment, March 1999.
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins Comprehensive Study, California, Technical Studies Documentation, December 2002.
Sandoval, T.M., D.F. Williams, and G.W. Colliver. 2006. Species Profile [for] Riparian Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius). Endangered Species Recovery Program, California State University, Stanislaus, CA. Available:
http://esrp.csustan.edu/speciesprofiles/profile.php?sp=syba. Accessed March 1, 2011.
San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. 2008. Groundwater Report, Fall 1999- Spring 2007. San Joaquin County Public Works.
San Joaquin County General Plan. Public Review Draft Background Report. 2009. Available:
http://www.sjcgpu.com/pdf/backgroundreport/.
San Joaquin River Group Authority. 2009. Annual Technical Report on the Implementation and Monitoring of the San Joaquin Agreement and Vernalis Adaptive Management Plan. Davis, CA.
Prepared for the California State Water Resources Control Board, Sacramento CA.
San Joaquin River Hydrologic Region. California’s Groundwater Update 2003. Bulletin 118.
San Joaquin River Restoration Program. 2011. Reintroduction Strategy for Spring Run Chinook Salmon.
San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. 2012. Guidance for Assessing and Mitigating Air Quality Impacts – 2012. Available: http://www.valleyair.org/transportation/GAMAQIDRAFT2012/GAMAQI-2012-Draft-May312012.pdf.
San Joaquin Valley and Foothill Eco-Regional Plan Draft, January 1998.
San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Delta-Mendota Subbasin. California’s Groundwater. Bulletin 118. Last updated January 20, 2006.
Santos, NR, J Katz, et al. 2014. A programmable information system for management and analysis of aquatic species range data in California. Environmental Modeling & Software. 53. (2014); 13-26.
Print. Available: http://pisces.ucdavis.edu/fish.
Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1997. A Manual of California Vegetation. Available:
http://davisherb.ucdavis.edu/cnpsActiveServer/index.html.
Seesholtz, Alicia. Personal communication. Department of Water Resources, DES, Feather River Special Studies. 05 February 2014.
Schenck, W. E., and E. J. Dawson. 1929. Archaeology of the Northern San Joaquin Valley. University of California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 25(4):289–413.
ATTACHMENT D 1507
Lower San Joaquin River
12-14
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Schlightmann, Margaret and Irene Pader. 1986. The Big Oak Flat Road to Yosemite. Awani Press, Texas.
Schlorff, R., and P. H. Bloom. 1984. Importance of riparian Systems to Nesting Swainson’s Hawks in the Central Valley of California. Pages 612-618 in R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds.), California Riparian Systems: Ecology Conservation, and Productive Management. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Section 205 Reconnaissance Study for Flood Control, Salado Creek, Patterson, California, November, 1991.
Seesholtz, A., M. Manuel, and J. Van Eenennaam. 2012. 2011 and 2012 Lower Feather River Green Sturgeon Spawning Survey. Draft Report. Department of Water Resources, West Sacramento, CA.
ShakeMap Archives. ShakeMaps in N. California. Available:
http://earthquake.usgs.gov/eqcenter/shakemap/list.php?x=1&n=nc. Last Updated July 31, 2013.
Shump, K. A., Jr., and A. U. Shump. 1982. Lasiurus borealis. American Society of Mammalogists, Mammalian Species 183:1-5.
San Joaquin Council of Governments (SJCOG). 2014. Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy. Adopted by SJCOG Board of Directors on June 26, 2014.
Slotten, D.G., S.M. Ayers, T.H. Suchanek, R.D. Weyand, A.M. Liston, C. Asher, D.C. Nelson, and B.
Johnson. 2003. The Effects of Wetland Restoration on the Production and Bioaccumulation of Methylmercury in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California. University of California, Davis, Davis, CA.
Smith, D.A., Rall, K., Cypher, B.L., Clark, H.O. Jr., Kelly, P.A., Williams, D.F., Maldonado, J.E. 2006.
Relative Abundance of Endangered San Joaquin Kit Foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica) Based on Scat-detection Dog Surveys. The Southwestern Naturalist. Volume 1, Issue 2. pp. 210-219.
Soil Conservation Service. 1996. National Food Security Act Manual, 3rd ed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington DC. 1996.
Soil Survey of Stanislaus County California. 2002.
Solid Waste Characterization Database: 1999 Data. Stockton. Available:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteChar/JurisSel.asp.
Sommer, T., R. Baxter, and B. Herbold. 1997. Resilience of splittail in the Sacramento–San Joaquin Estuary. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 126:961–976.
Sommer, T.R., L. Conrad, G. O’Leary, F. Feyrer, and W.C. Harrell. 2002. Spawning and Rearing of Splittail in a Model Floodplain Wetland. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:966-974.
“Stanislaus County Code”. Available: http://www.co.stanislaus.ca.us/BOARD/TBLCONT.HTM.
Stanislaus County General Plan. 1994. Available: http://www.stancounty.com/planning/pl/generalplan.shtm.
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011 (October). Section 303(d) list for California.
Sacramento, CA.
ATTACHMENT D 1508
Lower San Joaquin River
12-15
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2010 (April). Water Quality Conditions in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta and Suisun and San Pablo Bays during 2006. Sacramento, CA.
Stebbins, R. C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Third edition. Houghton Mifflin Company. New York, New York.
Stillwater Sciences. 2006. Proposed approach for the Programmatic Biological Assessment for remaining SRBPP construction authority. Memorandum to Mike Dietl, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers from Laura Cholodenko and Noah Hume, Stillwater Sciences, California. 15 August.
Swainson’s Hawk Technical Advisory Committee. 2000. Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in California’s Central Valley. May 31, 2000.
Swanson, C., and J. J Cech. 1995. Environmental Tolerances and Requirements of Delta Smelt (Hypomesus transpacifus). Final report, Department of Water Resources. Pp. 77.
Swanson, C., P. S. Young, and J. J. Cech. 2004. Swimming in two-vector flows: performance and behavior of juvenile Chinook salmon near a simulated screened water diversion. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 133:265–278.
Swanson, C., P. S. Young, and J. J. Cech. 2005. Close encounters with a fish screen: integrating physiological and behavioral results to protect endangered species in exploited ecosystems.
Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 134:1111–1123.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2000. Orestimba Creek Reconnaissance-Level Sediment Engineering/Channel Stability Analysis, September 2000. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Infrastructure Services Group.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 2001. West Stanislaus Feasibility Study; Existing Condition Floodplain Analysis and Delineation. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, by Tetra Tech, Inc., Infrastructure Services Group, Sacramento, CA.
The Definition and Location of Central California Sycamore Alluvial Woodland. California Department of Fish and Game. October 17, 1995.
The Effects of a Proposed Flood Control Dam on the Sycamore Alluvial Woodland at Orestimba Creek, California. Richard Harris and Will Stockard, U.C. Cooperative Extension, December, 2003.
The Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region. The Sacramento River Basin and The San Joaquin River Basin. Revised October 2007 (with Approved Amendments).
Thompson, J. 1957. The Settlement and Geography of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, California.
University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor, MI.
Time Schedule Order No. R5-2008-0155. 2008.
Tinkham, G., H. 1880. A History of Stockton from its Organization up to the Present Time, Including a Sketch of San Joaquin County. W. M. Hinton, San Francisco, California.
Traffic Data Branch. Traffic Volumes for all vehicles on California State Highways. 2009. Available:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/saferesr/trafdata/index.htm.
Union Pacific. 2013. Stockton Terminal and Eastern Railroad STE #739. Available:
http://www.uprr.com/customers/shortline/lines/ste.shtml.
ATTACHMENT D 1509
Lower San Joaquin River
12-16
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
University of California. 2003. California Fish Website Species Search: Sacramento Splittail, Pogonichthys macrolepidotus. Regents of the University of California, Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Communication Services. Available:
http://calfish.ucdavis.edu/calfish/SacramentoSplittail.htm.
USACE and Reclamation District No. 17. 2011. Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Phase 3-RD 17 100-Year Levee Seepage Area Project.
USACE and Sutter Butte Flood Control Agency. 2013. Administrative Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report. Sutter Basin Pilot Feasibility Study.
USFWS. 1993. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of threatened status for the Delta smelt. Federal Register 58: 12854-12863.
USFWS. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; critical habitat determination for the Delta smelt. Federal Register 59: 65256-65278.
USFWS. 1996. Recovery plan for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta native fishes. Technical/Agency Draft. Prepared by Delta Native Fishes Recovery Team, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
USFWS. 1996. Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Native Fishes Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR.
USFWS. 2004 (August 6). Biological Opinion Issued for Delta Smelt on the Revised CVP/SWP Operating Plan. Prepared for the Regional Environmental Officer, Bureau of Reclamation, MidPacific Regional Office, Sacramento, CA. Prepared by Acting Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, CA.
USFWS Critical Habitat Portal. 2008a. Available: http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov/.
USFWS. 1997. Programmatic formal consultation for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 404 permitted projects with relatively small effects on the giant garter snake within Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Fresno, Merced, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, and Yolo counties, CA.
File number 1-1-F-97-149. Sacramento, California.
USFWS. 2014. List of Endangered and Threatened Species That May Occur in The Stockton East and West, Lodi South, Waterloo, Manteca, and Lathrop USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangles.
USFWS. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1, Portland, Oregon.
USFWS. 1999. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. (July 9). Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Sacramento, CA. Available:
http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/documents/velb_conservation.htm. Accessed July 2014.
USGS and California Geological Survey. 2010. Quaternary Fault and Fold Database for the United States, accessed September 2013. Available: http//earthquakes.usgs.gov/regional/qfaults/.
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation. USFWS, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. September 2006.
Van Steyn, Ora. Personal communication, December 10, 2015. District Conservationist, Stockton Field Office, NRCS.
ATTACHMENT D 1510
Lower San Joaquin River
12-17
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Velson, F. P. J. and D. F. Alderdice. 1978. Relation between temperature and incubation time for eggs of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). J. Fish. Res. Board Can.
Wallace, W. J. 1978. Northern Valley Yokuts. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 462–470.
Handbook of North American Indians, Vol. 8, William G. Sturtevant, general editor, Smithsonian Institution, Washington DC.
Wang, J. C. S. 1986. Fishes of the Sacramento-San Joaquin estuary and adjacent waters, California: a guide to the early life histories. Technical Report 9. Prepared for the Interagency Ecological Study Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary by California Department of Water Resources, California Department of Fish and Game, U. S. Bureau of Reclamation and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Wang, J. C. S. 1991. Early life stages and early life history of the delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary, with comparison of early life stages of the longfin smelt, Spirinchus thaleichthys. Technical Report 28. Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
Wang, J. C. S., and R. L. Brown. 1993. Observations of early life stages of delta smelt, Hypomesus transpacificus, in the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary in 1991, with a review of its ecological status in 1988 to 1990. FS/BIO-IATR/93-35. Interagency Ecological Studies Program for the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
Wastewater Master Plan. October 2008.
Water Master Plan. July 2008.
Wentworth, C.M., Blake, M.C., Jr., McLaughlin, R.J., and Graymer, R.G. 1999. Preliminary geologic map of the San Jose 30 x 60 minute quadrangle, California: A digital map image: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 98-795.
West Stanislaus Sediment Reduction Plan, Stanislaus County, California, February, 1992.
Wetlands Delineation Manual. Wetland Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1. 143 pp. 1987.
White House Council on Environmental Quality. 2010. Draft NEPA Guidance on Consideration of the Effects of Climate Change and Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Available:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ceq/20100218-nepa-considerationeffects-ghg-draft-guidance.pdf.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Council. 2009. River mileage classification for components of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Williams, D.F., and G.E. Basey. 1986. Population Status of the Riparian Brush Rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani riparius). Sacramento: Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal Section.
Williams, D.F. 1988. Ecology and Management of the Riparian Brush Rabbit in Caswell Memorial State Park. Final Report. Interagency Agreement 4-305-6108. Lodi: California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Williams, D.F. 1993. Population Censuses of Riparian Brush Rabbits and Riparian Woodrats at Caswell Memorial State Park during January 1993. Final Report. Lodi: California Department of Park and Recreation.
ATTACHMENT D 1511
Lower San Joaquin River
12-18
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 12 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Willis, J. Permitting Section, San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District. November 14, 2013 phone conversation regarding SJVAPCD thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions.
Wilson, Craig M. April 2013. Gates and Barriers in the Delta; A Report to the State Water Resources Control Board and the Delta Stewardship Council.
Yoshiyama, R. M., F. W. Fisher, and P. B. Moyle. 1998. Historical abundance and decline of Chinook salmon in the Central Valley region of California. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 18: 487-521.
Young, P. S. and J. J. Cech. 1996. Environmental tolerances and requirements of splittail. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 125:664–678.
Zamora, C., C. Kratzer, M. Majewski, and D. Knifong. 2003. Diazinon and Chlorpyrifos Loads in Precipitation and Urban and Agricultural Storm Runoff during January and February 2001 in the San Joaquin River Basin, California (U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Investigations Report 03-4091).
Zeiner DC, Laudenslayer WF, Mayer KE, et al. California's Wildlife (Vol. 3): Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System 1990. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA
ATTACHMENT D 1512
Lower San Joaquin River
13-1
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 123 - January
2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
CHAPTER 13 — INDEX
Affected Environment ................................................................................................................................... 7 Agriculture ................... 1-15, 1-17, 5-114, 5-203, 5-213, 5-215, 5-294, 7-8, 7-11, 12-8, 12-9, 12-14, 12-16 AIR QUALITY ........................................................................................................................................ 5-67 Alternative 1 - No Action5-5, 5-9, 5-12, 5-47, 5-53, 5-59, 5-81, 5-118, 5-133, 5-139, 5-174, 5-205, 5-207, 5-216, 5-226, 5-239, 5-243, 5-249, 5-256, 5-266, 5-282
Alternative 1 – No Action .............................................................................................. 3-19, 3-27, 4-23, 5-1 Alternative 7axi, xii, xiii, 5, 7, 12, 15, 16, 3-19, 3-20, 3-27, 3-41, 3-42, 3-44, 3-46, 4-1, 4-2, 4-23, 4-28, 4- 33, 5-1, 5-13, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 5-36, 5-40, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-54, 5-55, 5-60, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5- 65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-81, 5-83, 5-84, 5-86, 5-88, 5-90, 5-91, 5-94, 5-95, 5-98, 5-99, 5-102, 5-103, 5-106, 5-107, 5-119, 5-120, 5-121, 5-122, 5-123, 5-124, 5-125, 5-133, 5-134, 5-135, 5-140, 5-141, 5-142, 5-152, 5-153, 5- 175, 5-176, 5-177, 5-179, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 5-186, 5-187, 5-207, 5-217, 5-218, 5-219, 5-220, 5-226, 5- 227, 5-228, 5-230, 5-232, 5-233, 5-240, 5-241, 5-243, 5-244, 5-245, 5-246, 5-249, 5-250, 5-256, 5-258, 5- 259, 5-260, 5-261, 5-267, 5-268, 5-269, 5-276, 5-278, 5-282, 5-283, 5-288, 5-308, 7-6, 8-1, 8-17, 9-1 Alternative 7bxi, xiii, 5, 16, 3-19, 3-21, 3-27, 4-2, 4-23, 4-28, 5-1, 5-13, 5-34, 5-35, 5-49, 5-50, 5-54, 5-55, 5-61, 5-62, 5-63, 5-64, 5-82, 5-88, 5-89, 5-90, 5-91, 5-121, 5-122, 5-124, 5-126, 5-134, 5-135, 5-141, 5-142, 5- 143, 5-176, 5-183, 5-184, 5-186, 5-188, 5-218, 5-219, 5-220, 5-227, 5-228, 5-231, 5-233, 5-240, 5-241, 5- 244, 5-245, 5-246, 5-250, 5-259, 5-260, 5-268, 5-269, 5-282 Alternative 8axi, xiii, 5, 7, 16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-22, 3-27, 3-41, 3-42, 3-44, 4-2, 4-28, 4-29, 5-1, 5-13, 5-36, 5- 37, 5-38, 5-50, 5-55, 5-63, 5-82, 5-91, 5-93, 5-94, 5-95, 5-122, 5-123, 5-134, 5-142, 5-176, 5-184, 5-185, 5- 207, 5-219, 5-228, 5-229, 5-240, 5-245, 5-250, 5-259, 5-268, 5-283 Alternative 8bxi, xiii, 6, 16, 3-18, 3-19, 3-23, 3-27, 4-2, 4-28, 4-29, 5-1, 5-13, 5-38, 5-39, 5-50, 5-55, 5-64, 5-82, 5-96, 5-97, 5-98, 5-99, 5-123, 5-124, 5-134, 5-142, 5-176, 5-186, 5-219, 5-220, 5-229, 5-230, 5-240, 5-245, 5-250, 5-260, 5-268, 5-283
Alternative 9axi, xii, xiii, 6, 16, 3-19, 3-24, 3-27, 3-41, 3-42, 3-44, 4-2, 4-30, 5-1, 5-13, 5-40, 5-41, 5-42, 5-50, 5-55, 5-65, 5-66, 5-83, 5-100, 5-101, 5-102, 5-103, 5-124, 5-125, 5-134, 5-142, 5-176, 5-186, 5-187, 5- 188, 5-207, 5-220, 5-230, 5-231, 5-241, 5-246, 5-250, 5-260, 5-268, 5-283 Alternative 9bxii, xiii, 6, 16, 3-19, 3-25, 3-27, 4-2, 4-31, 5-1, 5-13, 5-42, 5-43, 5-51, 5-55, 5-66, 5-67, 5-83, 5-104, 5-105, 5-106, 5-107, 5-125, 5-126, 5-135, 5-143, 5-176, 5-188, 5-220, 5-221, 5-231, 5-232, 5-241, 5- 246, 5-250, 5-260, 5-261, 5-269, 5-283
Alternatives 7a6, 7, 3-18, 3-38, 3-40, 4-10, 4-23, 4-28, 4-33, 5-6, 5-10, 5-13, 5-50, 5-126, 5-187, 5-189, 5- 207, 5-209, 5-233, 5-234, 5-242, 5-262, 5-264, 5-265, 5-269 borrow sites ..................................... 4-34, 5-10, 5-13, 5-14, 5-109, 5-116, 5-117, 5-173, 5-196, 5-305, 7-12 ATTACHMENT D 1513
Lower San Joaquin River
13-2
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 123 - January
2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
CDFWxv, 5-51, 5-81, 5-118, 5-127, 5-128, 5-129, 5-131, 5-133, 5-139, 5-144, 5-145, 5-152, 5-160, 5-161, 5-162, 5-174, 5-177, 5-178, 5-192, 5-196, 5-197, 5-198, 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, 7-5, 7-9, 7-10, 8-8, 8-9, 8-12, 12-1, 12-3
Central Valley steelhead ....... 5-138, 5-151, 5-160, 5-161, 5-182, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 5-186, 5-188, 5-304 Chinook salmon24, 5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-140, 5-151, 5-160, 5-161, 5-165, 5-166, 5-167, 5-168, 5-169, 5- 171, 5-181, 5-182, 5-304, 7-3, 8-9, 12-1, 12-2, 12-6, 12-7, 12-15, 12-17, 12-18 climate change ................................................. 1-1, 2-10, 5-72, 5-77, 5-139, 5-174, 5-289, 5-302, 6-1, 7-13 closure structure8, 29, 4-15, 4-19, 4-21, 4-24, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 5-48, 5-120, 5-121, 5-140, 5-141, 5-142, 5- 176, 5-177, 5-181, 5-182, 5-244, 5-249, 5-250, 5-258, 5-308, 8-9, 8-10, 8-22 Closure structure ............................................................................................................................ 5-60, 5-182 consultation and coordination ............................................................................................................ 6-1, 6-2 cultural resources7, 8, 1-17, 5-215, 5-270, 5-271, 5-273, 5-276, 5-277, 5-280, 5-281, 5-282, 5-283, 5-284, 5-307, 5-308, 8-24, 9-1
cumulative impacts ......................................... 5-286, 5-300, 5-301, 5-303, 5-305, 5-306, 5-307, 5-308, 6-1 cutoff wall5, 6, 2-10, 3-9, 3-10, 3-46, 4-4, 4-9, 4-10, 4-22, 4-32, 5-36, 5-42, 5-54, 5-55, 5-119, 5-120, 5- 121, 5-122, 5-123, 5-124, 5-227, 5-228, 5-229, 5-230, 5-232, 5-258, 8-2, 8-22 Deep Water Ship Channelxvi, 1-13, 4-16, 5-20, 5-34, 5-38, 5-45, 5-65, 5-66, 5-109, 5-112, 5-210, 5-251, 5- 256, 5-264, 5-275, 5-292, 5-300, 8-2
Delta smelt24, 5-137, 5-151, 5-163, 5-166, 5-167, 5-168, 5-169, 5-170, 5-182, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 5-186, 5-188, 5-294, 5-304, 7-3, 8-6, 8-9, 12-16
environmental consequences5-1, 5-3, 5-6, 5-10, 5-14, 5-44, 5-52, 5-55, 5-107, 5-128, 5-135, 5-200, 5-209, 5-221, 5-234, 5-242, 5-246, 5-251, 5-263, 7-2, 7-6, 8-17 environmental justice ....................................................................................5-200, 5-202, 5-204, 5-205, 7-4 ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATORY FRAMEWORK ........................................................................ 1-16 Erosion Protection ...................................................................................................... 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 4-3, 4-11 Federal law ......................................................................................................................................... 7-2, 7-9 Fisheries Resources .................................................................................................................... 5-302, 5-305 Flood Bypass ............................................................................................. 7, 4-25, 4-30, 5-50, 5-51, 5-65, 5-66 Floodwall ................................................................................................29, 4-3, 4-14, 4-25, 4-27, 4-29, 4-35 Fourteenmile Slough closure structure ...................................................................................... 5-141, 5-182 ATTACHMENT D 1514
Lower San Joaquin River
13-3
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 123 - January
2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Fourteenmile Slough Closure Structure ................................................................................................... 4-28 geology ....................................................................................................................... 7, 5-3, 5-6, 5-10, 5-299 giant garter snake ............................................................................................................ 8, 5-130, 12-7, 12-16 Giant Garter Snake ....................................... xvi, 5-153, 5-176, 5-183, 5-185, 5-192, 5-305, 8-9, 12-5, 12-7 green sturgeon5-136, 5-137, 5-140, 5-160, 5-161, 5-162, 5-169, 5-171, 5-181, 5-182, 5-183, 5-184, 5-185, 5-186, 5-188, 5-304, 7-3, 8-9, 12-1, 12-10, 12-11
hazardous wastes .......................................................................................................................... 5-263, 7-14 Hydrology and Hydraulics ................................................................................................... 17, 5-288, 5-300 Intended Uses of this Document ................................................................................................................ 1-2 invasive species ....................................................................................... 5-45, 5-49, 5-114, 5-131, 5-293, 7-4 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES ............................... 5-309 Land use and agriculture ........................................................................................................................ 5-288 Levee Encroachments and Vegetation ........................................................................................................ 11 Levee erosion ......................................................................................................................................... 5-282 levee overtopping ........................................................................................................................... 2-7, 5-266 List of Acronyms .......................................................................................................................................... 8 local laws and regulations .......................................................................................................................... 7-7 minerals .................................................................................................................................................. 5-265 Mormon Channelxi, xiii, 6, 7, 22, 23, 25, 1-5, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-19, 3-27, 4-2, 4-3, 4-14, 4-21, 4-29, 4-30, 4-31, 5-1, 5-40, 5-42, 5-50, 5-51, 5-55, 5-65, 5-66, 5-67, 5-125, 5-126, 5-142, 5-143, 5-186, 5- 187, 5-188, 5-195, 5-220, 5-223, 5-231, 5-232, 5-241, 5-246, 5-268, 5-269 Native American Consultation ............................................................................................................... 5-280 navigation ........................................................................ 1-15, 2-8, 5-20, 5-48, 5-57, 5-109, 5-292, 8-8, 9-2 No Action Alternative5, 5-1, 5-5, 5-6, 5-9, 5-12, 5-30, 5-31, 5-34, 5-38, 5-47, 5-53, 5-59, 5-81, 5-118, 5- 133, 5-139, 5-174, 5-205, 5-206, 5-216, 5-226, 5-239, 5-249, 5-256, 5-266, 5-267 Noisexii, xiii, 10, 30, 5-139, 5-175, 5-177, 5-180, 5-251, 5-252, 5-253, 5-254, 5-255, 5-256, 5-257, 5-260, 5-262, 5-288, 5-295, 5-306, 5-308, 7-7, 8-8, 12-7, 12-8 Non-structural measures .................................................................................................................. 3-1, 3-30 ATTACHMENT D 1515
Lower San Joaquin River
13-4
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 123 - January
2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Notice of Intent ...................................................................................................................... xvii, 8, 1-1, 6-1 Notice of Preparation ....................................................................................... xvii, 8, 1-1, 5-282, 5-298, 6-1 OMRR&R ............................................................ xvii, 14, 15, 4-35, 8-11, 8-14, 8-16, 8-23, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9 Programmatic Agreement ................................................................................................ xvii, 32, 5-280, 6-2 Project Location and Study Area ............................................................................................................... 1-5 Protection of Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 5-56, 7-3 Public involvement ....................................................................................................................................... 8 PURPOSE AND NEED ............................................................................................................................. 1-1 RD 17xii, xiii, 5, 6, 7, 12, 1-3, 1-8, 2-1, 2-8, 2-10, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-8, 3-9, 3-10, 3-18, 3-19, 3-27, 3-29, 3- 30, 3-31, 3-33, 3-34, 3-35, 3-37, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-41, 3-42, 3-45, 3-46, 4-2, 4-23, 4-28, 4-29, 4-31, 5-1, 5-7, 5-11, 5-18, 5-34, 5-38, 5-42, 5-45, 5-46, 5-49, 5-54, 5-55, 5-57, 5-58, 5-61, 5-62, 5-64, 5-66, 5-67, 5-109, 5-110, 5-111, 5-113, 5-114, 5-121, 5-122, 5-124, 5-126, 5-129, 5-133, 5-134, 5-136, 5-138, 5-141, 5-142, 5- 143, 5-146, 5-147, 5-148, 5-149, 5-153, 5-154, 5-155, 5-157, 5-158, 5-159, 5-160, 5-176, 5-183, 5-184, 5- 186, 5-188, 5-194, 5-201, 5-202, 5-205, 5-207, 5-209, 5-210, 5-211, 5-216, 5-218, 5-219, 5-223, 5-237, 5- 238, 5-239, 5-240, 5-241, 5-244, 5-245, 5-248, 5-250, 5-251, 5-259, 5-260, 5-262, 5-268, 5-276, 5-282, 5- 283, 5-285, 5-286, 5-290, 5-291, 5-294, 5-295, 5-298, 5-299, 5-300, 5-304, 5-305, 5-306, 5-307, 6-4, 6-6, 8-24, 10-3, 12-1, 12-12, 12-16
recreation6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 28, 3-34, 5-137, 5-213, 5-224, 5-242, 5-243, 5-244, 5-245, 5-246, 5-247, 5-306, 5-310, 6-6, 7-12, 8-8
references ....................................................................................................................................... 1-18, 7-13
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SHORT-TERM USES OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND LONG-TERM PRODUCTIVITY .................................................................................................................................. 5-310 riparian3, 7, 8, 21, 22, 1-9, 1-10, 1-14, 1-15, 2-8, 3-40, 3-41, 4-30, 5-57, 5-60, 5-88, 5-91, 5-95, 5-99, 5- 103, 5-107, 5-109, 5-110, 5-112, 5-113, 5-116, 5-117, 5-118, 5-119, 5-120, 5-121, 5-122, 5-123, 5-124, 5- 125, 5-126, 5-127, 5-128, 5-129, 5-132, 5-133, 5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-139, 5-143, 5-144, 5-147, 5-149, 5- 150, 5-152, 5-153, 5-154, 5-155, 5-156, 5-157, 5-158, 5-174, 5-175, 5-177, 5-181, 5-182, 5-183, 5-190, 5- 191, 5-194, 5-195, 5-198, 5-199, 5-213, 5-247, 5-249, 5-250, 5-289, 5-293, 5-294, 5-302, 5-304, 5-308, 5- 310, 6-4, 7-10, 8-6, 8-9, 8-10, 12-12, 12-13, 12-14
Scope of Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 1-1 Scoping Meetings....................................................................................................................................... 6-1 Seepagexiii, xvi, 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 4-3, 4-4, 4-8, 4-12, 4-26, 5-60, 5-62, 5-109, 5-136, 5-257, 5-290, 12-1, 12- 12, 12-16
seepage berm .................................................................................. 6, 3-9, 3-10, 4-8, 4-10, 5-36, 5-42, 5-117 ATTACHMENT D 1516
Lower San Joaquin River
13-5
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 123 - January
2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
Seismicity ............................................................................................................................... 16, 5-300, 11-3 Setback Levee ........................................................................................................ 3-2, 3-3, 3-5, 4-10, 5-299 slope stability ................................................................................................5, 1-2, 4-16, 4-23, 5-109, 5-174 Smith Canal Closure Structure ............................................................................................... 4-25, 4-29, 8-19 socioeconomics .........................................................................................7, 5-200, 5-204, 5-207, 5-209, 6-1 soils7, 17, 18, 31, 2-7, 4-5, 4-8, 5-8, 5-9, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-17, 5-50, 5-51, 5-59, 5-119, 5-139, 5-140, 5-149, 5-150, 5-182, 5-266, 5-270, 5-300, 7-11, 7-16 special status species7, 8, 22, 1-10, 4-23, 5-129, 5-131, 5-135, 5-139, 5-144, 5-145, 5-173, 5-174, 5-303, 6- 1, 6-6
special-status plant ............................................................................................... 5-115, 5-159, 5-172, 5-198 special-status plants ................................................................................................................... 5-197, 5-198 SRA habitat5-110, 5-120, 5-121, 5-126, 5-136, 5-137, 5-138, 5-141, 5-142, 5-143, 5-182, 5-183, 5-184, 5- 185, 5-186, 5-187, 5-188, 5-218, 5-303, 5-304
Stability Berm ............................................................................................................................. 3-2, 3-3, 3-5 STUDY AUTHORITY .............................................................................................................................. 1-2 Swainson’s hawk .................................................................... 5-129, 5-130, 5-148, 5-157, 5-177, 5-195, 7-10 transportation7, 8, 3-31, 3-34, 3-38, 5-72, 5-74, 5-203, 5-221, 5-222, 5-225, 5-226, 5-228, 5-233, 5-234, 5- 238, 5-286, 5-305, 5-308, 5-309, 7-7, 7-8, 7-11, 7-14, 7-16, 12-13 under-seepage ......................................................................................................................... 2-7, 4-4, 5-174 Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act ......................... 5-201, 7-8, 9-2 utilities and public services .................................................................................................... 7, 5-234, 5-239 Valley elderberry longhorn beetle.......................................................................................................... 5-146 Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle5-152, 5-153, 5-175, 5-183, 5-185, 5-186, 5-187, 5-188, 5-190, 5-191, 5-303, 12-16
vegetation and wildlife ........................................................................................... 5-127, 5-247, 5-302, 7-17 vegetation removal23, 24, 28, 1-8, 5-47, 5-59, 5-134, 5-144, 5-182, 5-200, 5-246, 5-250, 5-292, 5-303, 5- 304, 5-308
Visual resources ..................................................................................................................................... 5-288 ATTACHMENT D 1517
Lower San Joaquin River
13-6
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 123 - January
2018
San Joaquin County, CA References
water quality7, 18, 3-33, 3-39, 3-40, 4-23, 5-13, 5-31, 5-44, 5-45, 5-46, 5-47, 5-48, 5-49, 5-50, 5-51, 5-52, 5-54, 5-56, 5-59, 5-110, 5-143, 5-165, 5-169, 5-236, 5-237, 5-266, 5-292, 5-300, 6-1, 6-3, 7-2, 7-11, 7-12, 7-14
ATTACHMENT D 1518
This page intentionally left blank
ATTACHMENT D 1519
San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and
Maintenance Assessment
(LCMA)
PRELIMINARY ENGINEER’S REPORT
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Date: March 16, 2023
ATTACHMENT E 1520
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx ii Table of Contents
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................................ 1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1 Purpose of this Engineer’s Report .................................................................................................................. 6 Report Organization........................................................................................................................................ 6
2. Authority and Process................................................................................................................................. 8
3. Proposed Services..................................................................................................................................... 10 Services Funded by the Proposed Assessment............................................................................................. 10 Levee O&M Services ................................................................................................................................. 10 Levee Capital Services............................................................................................................................... 10 Delta Front: ........................................................................................................................................... 10 North Stockton:..................................................................................................................................... 11 Central Stockton: .................................................................................................................................. 11
4. Financing And Funding Plan...................................................................................................................... 12 Annual Budget for Levee O&M Services....................................................................................................... 12 Budget for Zone 9 Project Levee O&M ..................................................................................................... 12 Budget for LSJRP Levee O&M ................................................................................................................... 14 Financing Plan for Levee Capital Services..................................................................................................... 16 Initial LSJRP Cost Estimate ........................................................................................................................ 16 Cost Sharing .............................................................................................................................................. 17 Smith Canal Gate....................................................................................................................................... 19 LERRDs ...................................................................................................................................................... 19 Project Implementation Timing ................................................................................................................ 19 Assessment Timing.................................................................................................................................... 20 Bond Plan .................................................................................................................................................. 20 Cash Flow Analysis.................................................................................................................................... 20 Total Estimated LCMA Budget ...................................................................................................................... 20
5. Assessment Methodology......................................................................................................................... 22 ATTACHMENT E 1521
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx iii General Discussion........................................................................................................................................ 22 Requirements of Proposition 218............................................................................................................. 22 Special Benefits vs. General Benefits........................................................................................................ 22 Assessment Boundary................................................................................................................................... 24 Hydraulic Analyses Performed to Support the Assessment Methodology............................................... 24 Levee Breach Analysis for Levee O&M Services on Zone 9 Project levees........................................... 24 Levee Breach Scenarios for Levee Capital Services on LSJRP and 100-year Accreditation Assurance . 25 Assessment District Boundary Diagram................................................................................................ 27 Accounting for Uncertainty in the Breach Analysis Results.................................................................. 28 Assessment Apportionment Methodology............................................................................................... 28 Property Characteristics............................................................................................................................ 31 Land Use Categories.............................................................................................................................. 31 Parcel Size ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Average Structure Size per Land Use Type ........................................................................................... 34 Levee Capital and O&M Benefit Units .......................................................................................................... 34 Levee O&M Benefit Units ......................................................................................................................... 34 Minimum OBU within Zone 9 ............................................................................................................... 34 Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre.................................................................................................... 36 Structure Damage Rate......................................................................................................................... 36 Levee Capital Benefit Units....................................................................................................................... 36 Minimum flood depth........................................................................................................................... 36 Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre.................................................................................................... 41 Structure Damage Rate......................................................................................................................... 41 SCAAD Factor ............................................................................................................................................ 41 Equivalent Levee Benefit Unit (LBU)......................................................................................................... 41 General Benefits............................................................................................................................................ 43 Thoroughfare Damages Calculation.......................................................................................................... 43 Federal Properties..................................................................................................................................... 43 Evaluation of Funding Sources for General Benefit.................................................................................. 46 Proposed Special Benefit Assessment Calculation ....................................................................................... 46 ATTACHMENT E 1522
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx iv Example Parcel Assessment...................................................................................................................... 46 Summary of Assessments......................................................................................................................... 48 Special Considerations.................................................................................................................................. 48 Public Parcels ............................................................................................................................................ 48 Multiple Use Parcels ................................................................................................................................. 48 Minimum Assessment Amount................................................................................................................. 48 Application of the Assessment Boundary to Parcels ................................................................................ 50 Updating the Annual Assessment Roll...................................................................................................... 50
6. Assessment Administration ...................................................................................................................... 51 Schedule for Collection ................................................................................................................................. 51 Assessment Revenue Distribution ................................................................................................................ 51 Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property ................................................................................................. 51 Impact of Appeals..................................................................................................................................... 52 Duration of the Assessment.......................................................................................................................... 52 Annual Escalation of the Assessments.......................................................................................................... 52
7. Conclusions............................................................................................................................................... 54 Example Assessment Calculations............................................................................................................ 56 ATTACHMENT E 1523
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx v List of Tables
Table 1 Levee O&M Services Budget for Zone 9 - FY 2023/24 ..................................................................... 13 Table 2 Levee Capital Services Incremental O&M Budget for LSJRP Features............................................. 15 Table 3 Lower San Joaquin River Project Base Budget................................................................................. 18 Table 4 Assessment District Budget - FY 2023/24 ........................................................................................ 21 Table 5 Representative Levee Lengths......................................................................................................... 26 Table 6 Summary of Assessed Property Characteristics............................................................................... 32 Table 7 Average Structure Size per Acre ...................................................................................................... 35 Table 8 Relative Land Damage Rate ............................................................................................................. 37 Table 9 Structure Replacement Value and Depth Damage .......................................................................... 38 Table 10 Contents Replacement Value and Depth Damage....................................................................... 39 Table 11 Summary of Resulting Levee Benefit Units.................................................................................. 40 Table 12 Protected Throughfares............................................................................................................... 44 Table 13 Thoroughfare General Benefit Calculation .................................................................................. 45 Table 14 Initial Proposed Assessment Rate Calculation – FY 2023/24....................................................... 47 Table 15 Summary of Proposed FY 2023/24 Assessments by Land Use Category ..................................... 49 Table 16 Assessment Parcel Equations and Example Calculations............................................................. 55 List of Figures
Figure 1 Zone 9 Levees and Channels........................................................................................................... 2 Figure 2 Lower San Joaquin River Project.................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3 FEMA Shaded Zone X “Protected by Levee" Area.......................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Combined USACE 100-year Floodplain and FEMA Shaded Zone X .............................................. 29 Figure 5 LCMA Assessment Boundaries and Benefiting Parcels................................................................ 30 Figure 6 Smith Canal Area Assessment District Boundary......................................................................... 42 Appendices
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Appendix E:
Appendix F:
KSN, Technical Memorandum, LCMA, Incremental O&M Costs LSJRP, February 23, 2023 LCMA Cash Flow and Financing Analysis
R&F, Technical Memorandum, LCMA, Floodplain Analysis, March 16, 2023 Assessment District Boundary Diagram
San Joaquin County Use Codes & Assessment Land Use Categories List of Parcels & FY2023/24 Assessment Roll (Under Separate Cover) ATTACHMENT E 1524
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Background
The San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD) was formed in 1956 to plan, construct, operate, and maintain flood control, water supply, drainage, and groundwater recharge projects. On December 19, 1961, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors created Flood Control Zone No. 9 (Zone 9) to provide maintenance of existing channels, levees, and associated structures (Figure 1).
SJCFCWCD Zone 9 currently maintains 119 miles of Project Channels and 112 miles of Project Levees1in accordance with agreements with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). Zone 9 also contains approximately 152 miles of non-project channels and 3 miles of Non-Project Levees maintained by SJCFCWCD as resources allow. Zone 9 is currently funded by a combination of property assessments and a small allocation of property taxes. The current property assessments include the Zone 9 Flood Control Benefit Assessment established in 1988 and an assessment levied by the San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) established in 1996.
SJAFCA is a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formed in 1995 between the City of Stockton, San Joaquin County, and SJCFCWCD with the initial goal of restoring a 100-year level of flood protection to the greater Stockton metropolitan area. In February 1995 the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) issued preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that placed a majority of the greater Stockton metropolitan area within a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA). To prevent the SFHA designation from becoming effective, the JPA parties recognized that a coordinated regional effort was needed. SJAFCA was formed to plan, design, and construct a suite of projects that became known collectively as the Flood Protection Restoration Project (FPRP). The FPRP consists of flood wall and levee improvements along 40 miles of existing levees, 12 miles of new levees, modifications to 24 bridges, and the construction of two major detention basins and pump stations. To fund construction and provide for the long-term operation and maintenance (O&M) of the FPRP, SJAFCA formed an Assessment District No. 96-1 (AD 96-1) in 1996. The completed FPRP is operated and maintained by SJCFCWCD on behalf of SJAFCA using funds generated by AD 96-1. In November 2017, SJAFCA expanded to include the Cities of Lathrop and Manteca to address the requirements of Senate Bill 5.
After significant flood damage from hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, as well as other major storms, State and Federal policies were adjusted effectively creating more stringent levee maintenance requirements. The new requirements have increased necessary levee maintenance efforts resulting in increased O&M costs. The current funding sources described above have not been sufficient to provide for the increased maintenance efforts causing both SJAFCA and Zone 9 to rely on reserve funds to maintain Project Levees. In addition, support from SJAFCA is needed by SJCFCWCD to ensure that obligations associated with the FPRP are complied with and flood protection levels are maintained consistent with the increasingly stringent regulatory requirements.
1 Project levees are those facilities that are part of the State Plan of Flood Control as defined by the 2010 State Plan of Flood Control Descriptive Document, Central Valley Flood Management Planning Program, November 2010.
ATTACHMENT E 1525
2 ATTACHMENT E
1526
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 3 Additionally, in response to the aforementioned policy changes, in 2009, SJAFCA partnered with the Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB) and the USACE to study and evaluate ways to improve the region’s flood risk. This resulted in the San Joaquin River Basin, Lower San Joaquin River, CA Final Integrated interim Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Impact Report (Feasibility Study), completed by the USACE in January 20182. The recommended plan contained within the Feasibility Study was subsequently authorized by Congress and signed into law under the Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act (Public Law 115-270) Title 1, Subtitle D, Section 1401(2), dated October 23, 2018.
Implementing the plan defined in the Feasibility Study is expected to reduce flood risk to 122,000 people, over 80,000 structures, and $28.7 billion in property. USACE uses benefit-to-cost ratios for feasibility study implementation plan recommendations. In this case, the study resulted in a benefit-to-cost ratio of 7.0, meaning that for every dollar invested in the flood risk reduction project, the region receives seven times that in economic benefit. Additionally, implementation of the Feasibility Study’s recommendations is expected to reduce expected annual damages within north and central Stockton by 83 percent.
The Congressionally authorized recommended plan found in the Feasibility Study, referred to as the Lower San Joaquin River Project (LSJRP) consists of 23 miles of levee improvements and two closure structures (Figure 2). Construction at one of those closure structures, the Smith Canal Gate, was advanced early by SJAFCA and is a critical component of the implementation and funding approach as defined in this Engineer’s Report.
After the Feasibility Study authorization, the USACE, CVFPB and SJAFCA entered into a Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) on September 30, 2020, which defines the requirements, obligations, and responsibilities of the Federal government and the Non-Federal Sponsor (NFS), which is defined as both CVFPB and SJAFCA. The CVFPB and SJAFCA entered into a Local Project Partnership Agreement (LPPA) on September 30, 2020, that specifies the obligations of each party; this includes CVFPB’s and SJAFCA’s commitment to contribute 24.5% and 10.5%, respectively, of the total project cost.
However, the LSJRP improvements do not improve all FEMA Accredited Levees providing protection to North and Central Stockton. Figure 3 shows the area designated by FEMA as Shaded Zone X (FEMA Shaded Zone X).
The FEMA Shaded Zone X area is the area of the accredited levee system currently designated by FEMA as protected by levees from a 100-year flood. To ensure long-term accreditation and keep up with increasing regulatory requirements and engineering standards, SJAFCA will need to complete additional capital project planning, engineering, design, and implementation of projects to FEMA Accredited Levees. Ensuring continued long-term accreditation becomes more important as the impacts of flood frequency and severity worsen over time, as the system reaches its useful life, and as regulatory compliance standards become more stringent.
2 https://www.spk.usace.army.mil/Portals/12/documents/civil_works/lower_sj_river/final_eiseir/01_San%20Joaquin%20River%20Basin%20Lower%20San%20Joaquin%20River_CA%20FINAL%20IIFR_EIS_EIR.pdf?ver=201 8-02-01-184425-453
ATTACHMENT E 1527
4 ATTACHMENT E 1528
5 ATTACHMENT E
1529
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 6 To address the funding for the activities described above, SJAFCA and SJCFCWCD jointly investigated a strategy for generating additional revenue to provide funding for levee capital improvements and O&M services. A formal arrangement for the joint investigation and implementation of a new special benefit assessment was memorialized in an MOU between the two agencies in July 2022. The result of the coordinated effort is the Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA or Proposed Assessment) described further within this Engineer’s Report.
Purpose of this Engineer’s Report
This Engineer’s Report describes, in detail, the methodology for levying an assessment upon parcels that receive special benefit from the LCMA Services as defined within this Engineer’s Report. In combination with the Zone 9 Flood Control Benefit Assessment, property tax revenues allocated to SJCFCWCD Zone 9, and SJAFCA’s AD 96-1 Assessment, this assessment is intended to provide sufficient funding for:
1. Annual O&M services necessary to maintain SJCFCWCD Zone 9 Project levees, establish a reserve fund to support routine repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of the infrastructure, and O&M services associated with the LSJRP capital improvements.
2. Capital improvements within the greater Stockton area as defined in the LSJRP and other system improvements to ensure long-term compliance and accreditation of the FEMA accredited levees.
Report Organization
This report is divided into seven sections with tables and a section for figures as well as five appendices, all described further below.
Section1 provides the background, purpose of this Engineer’s Report, and describes the report’s organization.
Section 2 outlines the authorization and process for imposing the Proposed Assessment.
Section 3 details the services to be funded by the Proposed Assessment.
Section 4 describes the financing and funding plan for LCMA Services.
Section 5 details the methodology for levying an assessment that is proportional to the special benefits received by each parcel assessed.
Section 6 describes how the annual assessment administered process.
Section 7 Provides the special benefit findings and certification by the Assessment Engineer as required by Article XIIID Section 4 (b) of California Constitution.
Appendix A provides a technical memorandum prepared by Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc. (KSN) that describes the incremental cost to operate and maintain the LSJRP levees.
Appendix B provides the financial plan cash flow model for the Capital Services funded by the Proposed Assessment.
ATTACHMENT E 1530
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 7 Appendix C provides a technical memorandum prepared by R&F Engineering (R&F) that describes the supporting floodplain analyses utilized as part of special benefit analysis.
Appendix D provides the Assessment District Boundary Diagram Appendix E provides the list of the County Assessor’s use codes and identifies the assignment of Land Use Categories for use as part of the assessment methodology described herein.
Appendix F provides the list of parcels by reference to assessor parcel number (APN) subject to the Proposed Assessment as well as a schedule of the proposed assessment amountsfor FY 2023/2024 (the initial maximum annual assessment roll for assessment balloting purposes).3 3 The proposed Assessment Roll included with Appendix F is reflective of the Record Owners of parcels as defined by Government Code 53753 (j) which is based upon the last equalized secured property tax assessment roll. The last equalized secured property tax assessment roll of San Joaquin County prior to the mailing of the notice is the 2022 roll (as of lien date July 1, 2022). The 1st year of the assessments collection will be fiscal year 2023/24 and thus reflective of July 1, 2023 equalized secured property tax assessment roll. SJAFCA will be responsible for applying the assessment methodology described in this Engineer’s Report to the 2023 roll and updating the roll presented in Appendix F should the assessment be levied in fiscal year 2023/24.
ATTACHMENT E 1531
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 8
2. AUTHORITY AND PROCESS
The Levee Construction & Maintenance Assessment (LCMA) would be imposed by SJAFCA pursuant to the authority of Government Code §54703 – 54719, the Benefit Assessment Act of 1982 (1982 Act), and consistent with the requirements of Article XIIID of the California Constitution4(Proposition 218), Government Code §53750 et. seq. (Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act). Specifically, Government Code §54710(a) of the 1982 Act authorizes SJAFCA to levy an assessment to fund the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) costs for levees. Furthermore, under Government Code §54710.5, the assessment may include the cost of installation and improvement of the levees. As further detailed herein, the Proposed Assessment will fund levee construction, a portion of the annual cost of levee O&M, as well as create a reserve for routine repairs, rehabilitation, and replacement of the levees.
Government Code §54711, requires that:
1. The amount of the assessment imposed on any parcel be related to the benefit received by the parcel;
2. The aggregate amount of the assessment not exceed the estimated annual cost of providing the service; and
3. The revenue derived from the assessment be used only for the services identified as the basis for assessment.
In addition, all special benefit assessments must also comply with Proposition 218 and the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act. These requirements outline the process for imposing the Assessment, including the requirement that this Engineer’s Report document the special benefits conferred by the service provided, the process for imposing the Assessment, and property owner approval through a balloting process.
This Engineer’s Report has been prepared to:
1. Contain the information required pursuant to Government Code §54716(a), including; a. a description of the services proposed to be financed through the revenue derived from the Assessment;
b. a description of each lot or parcel of property to be subject to the Assessment; c. the amount of the Proposed Assessment for each lot or parcel; d. the basis of the Assessment; and,
e. the schedule of the Assessment;
2. Determine the special benefits from the services received by benefiting properties; and,
3. Assign a method of apportioning the Proposed Assessment to benefiting parcels.
Following submittal of this report to the SJAFCA Board of Directors(Board) for preliminary approval, the Board may, by resolution, call for an assessment ballot proceeding and public hearing on the establishment of the Proposed Assessment.
4 Article XIIID of the California Constitution is a portion of the California constitution added by Proposition 218 that addresses the requirements of benefit assessments and is applicable here.
ATTACHMENT E 1532
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 9 If the Board approves such a resolution, the SJAFCA staff will initiate the notice, protest, and hearing procedure required by Government Code §54716 and Article XIIID. A notice and assessment ballot will be mailed to property owners within the Proposed Assessment boundary. Such notice will include a description of the services to be funded, the total Proposed Assessment amount, the Proposed Assessment amount for each parcel owned, the duration of the Proposed Assessment, an explanation of the method of voting, and the name and telephone number of the person designated by the Board to answer inquiries regarding the Proposed Assessment and ballot proceeding process. Each notice will specify the date, time, and place of the public hearing and a summary of the ballot return procedures. Each notice will include a ballot upon which the property owner can vote for approval or disapproval of the Proposed Assessment and affix his or her signature. Finally, each notice will include an official postage prepaid security envelope in which the ballot must be returned.
The balloting and notice period will extend for a minimum of 45 days. Government Code 53750 (i) deems that notice is given and the 45-day period commences upon the deposit of the notice and ballot with the United States Postal Service. On the last day of the balloting period, the public hearing will be held for the purpose of receiving public testimony from property owners regarding the Proposed Assessment. Property owners will have the opportunity to provide testimony to the Board and submit their ballots at the public hearing, however, in order to be included within the tabulation, all ballots must be submitted prior to the close of the public hearing. At the public hearing, and at any time prior to the close of the public hearing, property owners may also revise previously submitted ballots.
If the votes received in favor of the Assessment, weighted by the proportional financial obligation of the properties for which the ballots are submitted, outweigh the votes received opposing the Assessment, then the Board may continue with the formation of the Proposed Assessment district, the process of imposing the Proposed Assessment and its future levy. If the assessments are so confirmed and approved by the Board, the Assessment roll will be submitted to the San Joaquin County Auditor Controller for inclusion on the secured property tax rolls or may be directly billed by SJAFCA to the property owner for the Assessment pursuant to Government Code §54718. As outlined in Government Code §53739, the Board may levy the Assessment in future years without conducting a new ballot proceeding so long as the Assessment is within the stated inflation-adjusted Assessment Rate authorized by the original balloting proceeding.
ATTACHMENT E 1533
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 10
3. PROPOSED SERVICES
Services Funded by the Proposed Assessment
The services to be funded by the Proposed Assessment include:
1. Levee O&M Services: O&M services are required to ensure that the design level of flood protection is maintained over time for Zone 9 Project Levees maintained by SJCFCWCD, LSJRP levees, and other levees improved in the future by SJAFCA. As footnoted in the Introduction, Project Levees are those facilities that are part of the State Plan of Flood Control. LSJRP levees are those built as part of the Federally authorized LSJRP as further defined under the Levee Capital Services section below.
2. Levee Capital Services: All work associated with the planning, design, implementation and construction of the LSJRP and other future capital improvements completed within the benefit area that ensure continued FEMA accreditation of levees providing 100-year protection into the future.
Levee O&M Services
Levee O&M Service activities may include, but are not limited to, levee inspections and evaluations, debris removal that restricts flow or damages the system, vegetation removal and control, rodent control, levee patrols, levee road resurfacing, erosion protection material replacement, flood fighting, and embankment repair. In addition, Levee O&M Services also includes all activities associated with maintaining the current level of flood protection received by benefiting properties. These activities include compliance with any existing permits, obtaining new permits, permit enforcement, removal of encroachments, coordination with State and Federal floodplain regulators and policy makers, and coordination and reporting activities that ensure compliance with FEMA, DWR, and USACE standards. These services will be performed by SJAFCA and/or local maintaining agencies, including SJCFCWCD. These agencies may utilize SJAFCA resources or other contractors to support Levee O&M Services with funding from the Proposed Assessment.
In addition to the regular on-going O&M services, the proposed assessment will also provide adequate reserves to support routine repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of levees and appurtenant facilities.
Levee Capital Services
Levee Capital Services activities include the local contribution to the Federally authorized LSJRP and other capital improvement planning, design, and construction efforts along the flood protection system to support long-term FEMA accreditation of levees providing 100-year protection to North and Central Stockton.
The LSJRP consists of 23 miles of levee improvements and two closure structures. Construction at one of those closure structures, the Smith Canal Gate (SCG), was advanced early by SJAFCA and is a critical component of the implementation and funding approach defined in this Engineer’s Report. The 23 miles of levee improvement as described in the Feasibility Study currently include:
Delta Front:
• 2.05 miles of fix-in-place improvements with soil-bentonite cutoff walls of various depths with
2.5 miles of geometry improvements.
• 1.1 miles of seismic fixes along two segments of Tenmile Slough.
ATTACHMENT E 1534
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 11 • 1.33 miles of new setback levee along the Delta Front to eliminate the eastern portions of the Fourteenmile Slough levee.
• 0.59 miles of height improvements between 1.8 and 2.7 feet on the Delta Front. • 5 miles of erosion protection.
• Control structure on Fourteenmile Slough.
North Stockton:
• 9.4 miles of fix-in-place improvements with soil-bentonite cutoff walls of various depths. • 2.03 miles of height improvements between 1.4 and 1.6 feet in North Stockton.
Central Stockton:
• 9.2 miles of fix- in-place improvements with soil-bentonite cutoff walls of various depths. • 2 miles of levee geometry improvements along one segment of the Calaveras River and one segment of the San Joaquin River.
• 0.53 miles of height improvements of 1.8 feet.
• 0.75 miles of new levee with soil-bentonite cutoff wall on Duck Creek to address flanking of flood waters from South of Central Stockton.
• 0.28 miles of height improvements of 4 feet on the RD 404 levee. • Control structure at Smith Canal with 0.2 miles of floodwall.
As the USACE, the CVFPB, and SJAFCA advance implementation of the LSJRP, the final configuration of the improvements may be refined consistent with the intent of the original authorization or any future changed authorization by Congress. The Levee Capital Services are intended to provide the flood protection benefits of the authorized project in its final configuration. In addition, any required project mitigation or permitting requirements of the project are included within the Levee Capital Services.
Capital improvements along other portions of the system for the purposes of ensuring the long-term FEMA accreditation may include feasibility studies, analyses, field investigations, engineering, design, and construction. Efforts have not yet been defined in detail for this work. Should the Proposed Assessment be approved, these efforts will be further investigated and defined over the coming years.
ATTACHMENT E 1535
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 12
4. FINANCING AND FUNDING PLAN
The financing and funding plan is based on an estimated annual budget for the Levee O&M Services as well as an estimated budget and financing plan for the LSJRP and other necessary capital improvements. Levee O&M Services include both the SJCFCWCD Zone 9 Project Levee O&M as well as the incremental additional Levee O&M associated with LSJRP and related improvements; however, the budget for the incremental O&M associated with the LSJRP are accounted for within the financing plan analysis for Levee Capital Services as further described below.
Annual Budget for Levee O&M Services
The annual budget for Levee O&M Services has been estimated in two parts. First, the County’s Public Works Department, in coordination with SJAFCA, prepared an updated budget for the SJCFCWCD, Zone 9 Project levees. Second, Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc (KSN) prepared an incremental O&M budget estimate for the levees improved by the LSJRP (Appendix A). The intent is that the incremental O&M budget for the LSJRP would supplement funds from local maintaining agencies who currently operate and maintain the existing levee system to ensure that the benefits received by the Levee Capital Services can be maintained into the future.
The budget for Levee O&M Servicesrepresents the current expectation of Fiscal Year (FY) 2023/24 costs based on both historical expenses and anticipated changes over the life of the assessment. It should be noted that the budget was developed for the purpose of determining the annual revenue required for the Proposed Assessment based on the increased costs SJCFCWCD has experienced associated with performing O&M of Zone 9 Project Levees and based on KSN’s experience operating and maintaining levees in the region. Future annual budgets approved by the Board may vary from year to year according to actual anticipated expenses and revenues.
Budget for Zone 9 Project Levee O&M
Table 1 provides a summary of the estimated FY 2023/24 budget. This budget takes into consideration the required level of currently unfunded O&M services associated with Project levees in conjunction with the available revenues described further below.
SJCFCWCD estimates that the required total cost of O&M is $5,954,000. This estimate includes the following services: O&M, ongoing engineering support, State & Federal coordination, administration, auditing & compliance, and the legal and insurance burden associated with all services SJCFCWCD provides for Zone 9 facilities. The existing revenues available to support O&M services total $4,470,000 and are provided by the current Zone 9 Flood Control Benefit Assessment, ad valorem property taxes received by the SJCFCWCD for Zone 9, and the SJAFCA AD 96-1 Assessment. The net difference, or shortfall, is $1,484,000. This shortfall is associated with the additional costs of providing the required level of Levee O&M Services for Zone 9 Project levees.
ATTACHMENT E 1536
Table 1
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Levee O&M Services Budget for Zone 9 ‐ FY 2023/24
Budget Item / Category
FY 2023/24
Budget
Operations & Maintenance [1] $5,426,000
Ongoing Engineering Support $70,000
State & Federal Coordination (Certifications, Policy & Funding) $305,000 Administration, Auditing & Compliance $65,000
Legal & Insurance Burden on Services $88,000
Subtotal Annual Services Budget $5,954,000
Current Zone 9 Assessment (Government Code 56901) ($2,716,000) Zone 9 Ad Valorem Tax Apportionment ($850,000)
SJAFCA AD 96‐1 (Government Code 57594) ($904,000)
Total Current Funding Sources ($4,470,000)
Net equals Budget for Levee O&M Services $1,484,000
Source: San Joaquin County Public Works Dept. and SJAFCA [1] Includes Labor, Equipment, Supplies, Materials, Repair & Replacement for Equipment and Mitigation.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
13 ATTACHMENT E 1537
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 14 The current Zone 9 Flood Control Benefit Assessment is utilized by the SJCFCWCD to fund the O&M of Project Levees within Zone 9. Ad valorem property taxes, which come from a portion of the County’s base 1% of net assessed value property taxes apportioned to Zone 9 of SJCFCWCD, are also used to fund Project Levee O&M services. Finally, the SJAFCA AD 96-1 is an existing assessment for parcels with the SJAFCA service area to fund O&M of the FPRP. Revenue from AD 96-1, collected by SJAFCA, is utilized to contract for services provided by SJCFCWCD on behalf of SJAFCA for the O&M of those Project Levees improved as part of the FPRP.
The Proposed Assessment will be utilized to fund the increase in cost associated with Levee O&M Services.
The budget presented in Table 1 reflects the budget for the O&M of Zone 9 Project related Levees and Channels. As costs have increased over the years, SJCFCWCD has been required to prioritize the limited resources to those areas with the greatest risk in terms of life safety and flood damages. The assessment revenues and property taxes described above have generally been fully expended on Project Channels and Levees. Even with full expenditure of revenues on Project facilities, including depletion of reserve funding, essential maintenance for Project facilities is currently being deferred until additional funding is available. The Proposed Assessment will provide the SJCFCWCD with additional resources needed to address the increased cost of Levee O&M Services.
Budget for LSJRP Levee O&M
Table 2 provides a summary of the estimated budget for incremental O&M of the LSJRP levees. This is the increase in the estimated costs to O&M the levees to the standards required by USACE once the LSJRP is turned over to the NFS. A portion of this estimate was prepared by KSN through an evaluation of current local maintaining agency resources and estimated cost of levee O&M upon the completion of improvements (Appendix A). The total budget for the components of the LSJRP evaluated by KSN is $425,340 escalated to January 2023. SJAFCA has also worked as part of the implementation of the Smith Canal Gate Project to estimate the cost of ongoing O&M of the gate facility. This amount is expected to be similar to the O&M of a second gate structure at 14-Mile Slough. The cost to O&M both gates is expected to be $700,000 (in January 2023 $’s) therefore the total incremental O&M is expected to be $1,125,341. Because these costs are incurred as the LSJRP capital improvements are completed over time, the incremental O&M costs for each completed element has been incorporated into the financing plan for levee capital services, described below.
ATTACHMENT E 1538
Table 2
Budget Item / Category
Estimated
Budget
[1]
Mosher Slough $20,840
Shima Tract $17,475
Fivemile Slough $4,291
Fourteenmile Slough $138,403
Tenmile Slough $31,973
Calaveras River ‐ Right $42,783
Calaveras River ‐ Left $43,072
San Joaquin River $40,717
French Camp Slough $18,317
Duck Creek $67,470
Smith Canal Gate [2] $350,000
Fourteenmile Slough Structure [2] $350,000
Capital Project $1,125,341
Source: KSN Memo and SCAAD Engineer's Report
[1] Budget as of January 2023 and utilized as part of cash flow and financing plan analysis found in Appendix B.
[2] Estimated based on SCAAD budget for O&M of the SCG
Levee Capital Services Incremental O&M Budget for LSJRP Features Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
15 ATTACHMENT E 1539
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 16 Financing Plan for Levee Capital Services
To determine the annual funding requirements necessary to fund the SJAFCA share of new facility capital costs and the associated incremental O&M, LWA prepared a financing plan including a cash flow analysis. The financing plan incorporates several assumptions, such as initial cost estimates, cost sharing, SJAFCA project delivery responsibilities, implementation timeline, cost escalation, SJAFCA and State advancement of the Smith Canal Gate, and bonding. These costs are described further below. Importantly, this model incorporates the incremental O&M cost of the LSJRP levee system as the O&M responsibility and funding requirements are layered in over time as project features are completed and turned over the NFS for O&M.
Initial LSJRP Cost Estimate
Project cost estimates, including contingency values, are derived from the Feasibility Study “first cost” estimate of $1,070,309,000 (2017 price levels). These values serve as the basis for the escalated costs utilized in the financing plan. Because this cost estimate was based on feasibility level information with limited information on or consideration for prior analyses of the levee system, several assumptions associated with the estimate were modified, as described herein, to prepare a realistic, reasonable, and fiscally prudent base cost.
The Feasibility Study was performed under USACE’s 3x3x3 paradigm: defined as a study requiring no more than three years, with no more than three million dollars, and undergoing three levels of concurrent review.
USACE contrived this concept to streamline and accelerate feasibility analyses, but it has resulted in some unintended consequences.
Detailed and informative analyses were often left for the design phase of a project, resulting in overly conservative project cost estimates, assuming worst-case design conditions. Indeed, during the feasibility study phase, existing information about the levee system performed by the State of California’s Urban Levee Evaluation (ULE) that could have helped reduce the cost estimate went partially unused, and conservative assumptions were instead used.
For example, during the feasibility study phase, several reaches were identified as requiring a higher level of improvement than those identified from the ULE work. This resulted in higher estimated costs and higher contingencies. Although individual features were not analyzed in detail to determine specific reductions in program costs, several elements were identified as requiring much less robust re-build. These include the improvements near Brookside and Mosher Slough.
Further, recent cost projections of Ten Mile Slough, which is currently designed and awaiting environmental clearances, are now projected to come in below those prepared in the 2017 feasibility estimates. Further, comparing USACE cost-estimates to actual bid costs for over a dozen flood projects being implemented in the Sacramento area demonstrates that USACE estimates are always significantly conservative. In most cases, a conservative cost estimate is beneficial for future planning and helps minimize long-term financial risk; however, several principles of SJAFCA’s program are to be financially frugal with local funding and not raise more money from property owners than will be required. SJAFCA also notes that USACE is required by statute to regularly develop new costs estimates, and such estimates have a tendency to fluctuate wildly based on ATTACHMENT E 1540
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 17 market conditions, but these updated estimates do not generate actionable information until such time as USACE incorporates the use of actual site conditions. As such, SJAFCA has decided to program funding on the lower side of the “first cost” range (i.e., lower contingency).
SJAFCA has prepared several contingency plans to mitigate for any cost increases. These include leveraging other funding sources or locally leading future phases of design and construction.
There are other funding sources that may come to fruition over the next decade. These may be used to offset upfront bond financing and/or mitigate for future increased costs. SJAFCA is currently coordinating with other flood agencies to leverage their existing, excess in-kind credit. These inter-basin credit transfers require close coordination with USACE for approval as they would be applied to the NFS’s cost share, and they require negotiation on the amount. While the actual cost of these credits is not yet known, they would only be sold/purchased at a discount, and therefore they will “generate” additional resources for the program.
Secondly, SJAFCA is seeking credit for its prior work on Mosher Slough that would directly offset cost sharing obligation to USACE. These efforts could result in $5-$10 Million of local funding applicable toward the local cost share of the LSJRP.
It is also feasible that SJAFCA could receive a higher state-local cost share for work on this project. Although the current cost share (70%-30%) is generous, other areas within California have seen a higher than 70% state share. For example, an additional 10% State cost share would result in a 33% reduction in the local funding match.
Additionally, in close coordination with USACE, SJAFCA could lead design and construction of one or more project features. Throughout the valley, locally led projects have been completed on Federal levees, resulting in cost savings from the initial USACE estimate. However, the precise features, extents, and expected saving remain uncertain and can’t be quantified at this time.
The feasibility study estimates a “first cost” of $1.070 Billion (2017 price levels, not escalated) or estimated at $1,385 Billion in the PPA (fully escalated over time). This estimate includes a 38% contingency. For the reasons described above, SJAFCA is preparing this program estimate with 23% contingency (a 15% reduction), resulting in an initial cost of approximately $910 Million (Table 3), for use in the financing plan which escalates cost over the project implementation timeline.
Cost Sharing
As previously discussed, the LSJRP is Federally authorized and led. The USACE, DWR, and SJAFCA entered into a PPA defining the cost share obligations of USACE and the NFS. DWR and SJAFCA then entered into an LPPA, defining the cost sharing obligations between the NFSs. The Federal cost share is 65%, DWR cost share is
24.5%, and SJAFCA’s cost share is 10.5%.
SJAFCA’s cost share funding will come in the form of 1) cash contributions, 2) In-kind contributions (IKC) for work at Smith Canal and any other approved credit for work performed by the NFS, and 3) lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocations, and disposal areas (LERRDs) purchases. NFS cash contributions are estimated in the financing plan after accounting for LERRDs and IKC estimates.
ATTACHMENT E 1541
Table 3
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Lower San Joaquin River Project Base Budget
Budget Item / Category Cost Share $2017 Costs
[1]
Land and Damage $68,555,900
Relocation $72,250,000
Fish and Wildlife $60,268,400
Levees and Floodwalls $481,609,150
Floodway Control and Diversion Structure $45,205,550
Planning, Engineering, Design $123,165,850
Construction management $58,708,650
Capital Project $909,763,500
Federal 65.0% $591,346,275
State 24.5% $222,892,058
Local Share [2] 10.5% $95,525,168
Source: San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers [1] Cost estimate used from 2018 Feasibility Study, based on Oct 1, 2017 price levels, USACE "First Cost", with adjusted contingency to 23%; Utilized as part of financing plan found in Appendix B. [2] Local share simply based on "first cost" percent obligations, not accounting for credit from local work completed (e.g. Smith Canal Gate)
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
18 ATTACHMENT E 1542
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 19 Smith Canal Gate
SJAFCA and DWR are delivering the Smith Canal Gate (SCG) project as advanced work that directly supports the overall LSJRP. USACE recognizes this as IKC, and it is assumed all costs will be recognized and attributed toward the NFS cost sharing requirements. For the purposes of the cash flow financing plan for the LSJRP, the assumed creditable cost of the SCG project is $96.8 Million. It is assumed that upon review of project expenditures, USACE would approve credit in this full estimated amount. The $96.8 Million estimate is reflected in the total project cost for the purposes of calculating cost share percentages. It is also used as IKC to offset immediate NFS cash contribution requirements.
The costs of the SCG project have been funded from a combination of grant funding provided to SJAFCA by DWR and local funding from SJAFCA generated by the Smith Canal Area Assessment District (SCAAD). If the LCMA is approved by property owners and the assessment district if formed by the SJAFCA Board, the following actions would take place:
• Assessments authorized to be levied by the SCAAD would cease to be levied. In other words, the LCMA would supplant the SCAAD.
• The current outstanding bonds issued by SJAFCA to finance the local share of the project, which are secured by SCAAD assessment revenues would be redeemed by SJAFCA. See Bond Plan discussion below.
To account for and recognize the Levee Capital Services benefits provided to date by the SCAAD assessments, an adjustment factor has been applied to the properties located within the SCAAD. See SCAAD Factor discussion below.
LERRDs
LERRDs are a line-item estimate in the Feasibility Study and the timing and amounts of LERRDs purchases are incorporated into the financing plan. LERRDs have been escalated based on current project implementation assumptions as defined here and estimated at approximately $210 Million.
Project Implementation Timing
Project implementation timing has been revised from the initial estimates prepared for the Feasibility Study by USACE. The sequence of reach implementation and start timing has been updated to reflect recent project developments (including status of design efforts as of mid-2022, Federal funding commitments, and available personnel and project team resources).
Given the status of this program and timelines of similar programs in the Central Valley, the estimated time to project completion used for this engineer’s report is twenty years. Therefore, the LSJRP expenditures associated with construction continue into 2043 and may extend for several years to complete financial and project close-out with USACE and DWR.
Cost estimates are escalated in alignment with the estimated reach delivery timelines. LWA utilized construction cost escalation of 2.4%, based on the average annual growth rate from 2010 to 2020 from the Department of General Services (DGS) California Construction Cost Index (CCCI). This analysis excludes 2020- ATTACHMENT E 1543
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 20 present, which reflects the effects from aftermath of COVID-19 years and the current inflationary environment in favor of reflecting a longer-term average construction escalation over the entire period of the project.
Assessment Timing
The first year of assessment collection would occur in FY 2023/24. The duration of the capital component of the assessment is assumed and is to be authorized for 30 years from a final bond issuance, which is expected to take place in 2038.
Bond Plan
Based on the project implementation timeline, cash contributions to USACE, and the redemption of the outstanding SCAAD Assessment Revenue bonds, SJAFCA plans to issue bonds secured by LCMA assessment revenues as soon as feasible after the formation of the Assessment District. The timing of the project implementation dictates the timing and amount of bond financing versus pay-go revenues to cover expected costs. The next bond issuance is expected to occur in 2033. The financing plan currently assumes that annual assessment district revenues and IKC would cover much of the cost outlays and funding match to USACE. A third and final bond issuance would occur in 2038. The financing plan assumes that each bond issuance would be structured as a conventional 30-year financing and to be paid from annual assessment collections.
Cash Flow Analysis
A cash flow analysis was developed in quarterly periods for years 2022 through 2049, however, is presented in annual periods here. The cost projections were spread over time as described above. The financing plan assumes an initial assessment need of $6.2 Million beginning in FY 2023/24 for Capital Services. The initial Capital Services budget includes the LSJRP costs, District operational soft costs to deliver LSJRP, defeasance of the existing SCAAD bonds, as well as the incremental O&M required to support this project long-term. The initial O&M assessment need is $1.125 Million (2022) and is assumed to continue in perpetuity. The assessment is assumed to be escalated annually based on the Consumer Price Index (CPI-W) for San FranciscoOakland-Hayward, CA. For purposes of the cash flow analysis, escalation of the assessment was assumed to be 2.4% annually. Upon final payment of bonds and completion of the LSJRP, the capital portion of the annual assessment is assumed to end.
The financing and funding plan is detailed in the cash flow shown in Appendix B.
Total Estimated LCMA Budget
The total LCMA budget combines the FY2023/24 O&M budget for Zone 9 Project levees and the resultant capital FY2023/24 budget developed in the cash flow and financing plan analysis. These budgets are summarized in Table 4 and result in a total estimated LCMA FY 2023/24 budget of $7,684,000.
ATTACHMENT E 1544
Table 4
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Assessment District Budget ‐ FY 2023/24
Budget Item / Category
FY 2023/24
Budget
Levee O&M Services Budget [1] $1,484,000
Levee Capital Services Budget $6,200,000
Total Budget [2] $7,684,000
Source: San Joaquin County Public Works Dept. and SJAFCA [1] Includes Labor, Equipment, Supplies, Materials, Repair & Replacement for Equipment and Mitigation.
[2] Assessment can be escalated annually, according to CPI‐W San Francisco‐Oakland‐Hayward, not to exceed 4% (Reference Section 6, Annual Escalation of the Assessments) Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
21 ATTACHMENT E 1545
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 22
5. ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
General Discussion
Requirements of Proposition 218
To levy an assessment for a property related service such as flood control, Proposition 218 has certain substantive requirements that the local agency must comply with. The local agency must:
• Separate the general benefits provided by service(s) from the special benefits conferred on a parcel; • Identify the parcels that have special benefits conferred on them by the facility and/or service; • Calculate the proportionate special benefit for each parcel in relation to the entirety of the benefits provided by capital and O&M services being funded;
• Apportion the costs of services to each parcel that receives special benefit in relation to that proportion; and
• Ensure that the total assessment levied does not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportionate special benefit conferred on each parcel.
Special Benefits vs. General Benefits
Proposition 218 requires any local agency proposing to increase or impose a special assessment to “separate the general benefits from the special benefits conferred on a parcel.” (Cal. Const. art. XIIID §4). The rationale for separating special and general benefits is to ensure that property owners are not charged a special benefit assessment in order to pay for general benefits provided to the properties or general public at large. Thus, a local agency carrying out a project that provides both special and general benefits may levy an assessment to pay for the special benefits but must acquire separate funding to pay for the general benefits.5 A special benefit is a particular and distinct benefit over and above the general benefits conferred on real property located within the agency’s boundary or to the public at large. The total cost of the services must be apportioned among the properties being assessed based on the proportionate special benefit the properties will receive. Moreover, the governmental agency must demonstrate through a balloting process that the ballots submitted in opposition to the assessment do not exceed the ballots submitted in favor of the assessment, weighted according to the proportional special benefit and financial obligation of the affected properties.
Because flood control work has an obvious indirect relationship to the provision of general benefits and may, upon first blush, appear to be general benefits, the issue of general benefits merits further discussion. For example, the facilities to be funded by the assessment will protect parks that are used by people regardless of whether they own property within the floodplain or not (the general public). But this indirect relationship does not mean that these facilities or services will themselves provide any general benefits. Rather, they will provide special benefits to all parcels within the floodplain, including special benefits to public parcels (such as parks) that are themselves used in the provision of general benefits. 5 Silicon Valley Taxpayers’ Assn., Inc. v. Santa Clara County Open Space Authority, (2008) 44 Cal. 4th 431, 450.
ATTACHMENT E 1546
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 23 More to the point, the public at large will be paying for the special benefits provided to public property, and specially benefited property owners’ assessments will not be used to subsidize general benefits provided to the public at large or to property outside the district. All property that is specially benefited will be assessed, including schools, parks and other parcels used in the provision of general benefits. Assessing agencies are required to assess and levy the assessment on all specially benefited property, including publicly owned property, within the assessment district.6 Thus, the general public will pay for the provision of flood control services because the assessed public agencies within the assessment district will use general taxes or other revenues to pay their assessments.
In this instance, the Levee Capital and O&M Services provide both a general benefit to the public at large and a special benefit to those properties located within the boundaries of the Proposed Assessment by virtue of preventing flood waters due to uncontrolled flood from collecting on or flowing over a parcel and causing damages as a result of inundation. The special benefits provided by the services have been calculated for all parcels within the boundaries of the Proposed Assessment. The boundaries of the proposed district consists of only those parcels within the levee protected area.
The special benefit provided to each parcel varies based on the relative avoided damage from flooding. The relative avoided flood damages are based on an uncontrolled flood resulting from a breach along the levee system. The avoided flood damages are a function of parcel size, land use and the depth of flooding from each breach scenario, and, for Levee O&M services, the length of levee represented by each breach.
As noted above, special benefits are those “particular and distinct over and above general benefits conferred on real property located in the district or to the public at large.” Cal. Const. art. XIIID §2(i). By contrast, general benefits provided to the public at large could be discussed in terms of general enhanced property values, provision of general public services such as police and fire protection and recreational opportunities that are available to people regardless of the location of their property. See e.g., Cal. Const. art. XIIID §§2(i), 6(2)(b)(5); Silicon Valley Taxpayers, 44 Cal. 4th 431. 450–56. In this case, general benefits can be identified as the ability to move through and across the benefited area. The following considerations were evaluated to distinguish the general benefits by the Levee Capital and O&M Services.
Public Property
The Levee Capital and O&M Services will protect certain public properties (e.g., government buildings, schools, and parks). While the use of these public properties is a general benefit, the public properties themselves are protected by the flood protection system and receive a special benefit from the Levee Capital and O&M Services in the same manner as private property. All public properties have been included in the determination of special benefit, as described in more detail under the Assessment Apportionment Methodology below. With the exception of Federal Properties, there is no general benefit for Non-Federal public properties to be funded by the Proposed Assessment because the public properties will be assessed based on the special benefit received. As discussed further below, Federal properties are exempt from paying 6 Reference Cal. Const. art. XIIID §4(a) with respect to the requirement to assess and Manteca Unified School District v.
Reclamation District No. 17 (2017) 10 Cal.App.5th 730 with respect to the requirement to levy.
ATTACHMENT E 1547
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 24 an assessment levied by a local agency. While the special benefit and associated assessment is calculated without consideration of the Federal property exemption, the lost revenue cannot be reapportioned to assessed property owners. Therefore, the Levee Capital and O&M Services provide a general benefit by protecting federally owned property against flood damages, and the lost assessment revenue must be funded by other revenue sources.
Local Streets and Collectors
The Levee Capital and O&M Services will protect certain local streets and collectors. These roads are primarily used to access properties, as opposed to thoroughfares discussed separately below. The boundary of the Proposed Assessment has been narrowly drawn to include only those properties receiving special benefit from Levee Capital and O&M Services. Therefore, the benefit from Levee Capital and O&M Services to local streets and collectors is captured by assessing the properties they serve – as these roads have no value but in providing access to the specially benefitted parcels, and protecting these roads is a means to provide special benefit to these parcels.
Thoroughfares
The Levee Capital and O&M Services will also protect certain thoroughfares within the boundary of the Proposed Assessment. These roads are distinct from local streets and collectors in that these roads serve as primary transit routes within, through and across the community. These roads are used by the public at large regardless of residency, destination, or purpose. Therefore, the protection of these thoroughfares provides a general benefit that must be separated from the special benefit conferred on parcels by the Proposed Assessment and cannot be funded by the Proposed Assessment. Further discussion supporting the quantification and separation of this general benefit from the special benefit is provided below.
Assessment Boundary
The Proposed Assessment Boundary encompasses all properties that receive a special benefit from Levee Capital and O&M Services. Properties receiving special benefit from the Levee O&M Services were identified through the flood breach analyses prepared by R&F Engineering (R&F). Properties receiving special benefit from the Levee Capital Services were identified from a combination of floodplain mapping sources. The analyses completed by R&F have been documented and incorporated into this Engineer’s Report by reference and attached as Appendix C.
Hydraulic Analyses Performed to Support the Assessment Methodology Levee Breach Analysis for Levee O&M Services on Zone 9 Project levees To determine the avoided flood damages as a result of the Levee O&M Services on the Zone 9 Project levees, as described in Appendix C, R&F utilized an existing levee breach analysis that evaluated 72 different breach scenarios along the SJCFCWD Zone 9 Project levees. The resulting floodplain from each breach was overlaid on the San Joaquin County Geographic Information System (GIS) parcel shapefile to determine the average flood depth and area of flooding for each individual parcel for each breach scenario. The resulting average flood depth was used as one of the inputs to the USACE Depth-Damage functions to calculate avoided flood damage. R&F also identified the length of levee represented by each breach to apportion avoided flood ATTACHMENT E 1548
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 25 damages across the project levee reaches maintained by Zone 9. The representative levee lengths can be found in Table 5. To account for the situation where a Project levee was maintained by an agency other than SJCFCWCD, the portion of that reach of levee maintained by others was subtracted from the representative levee length. As a result, a 1.4-mile portion of levee along the Calaveras River maintained by Reclamation District 2074 was removed from the representative levee length associated with the CSR R1 breach analysis.
R&F’s hydraulic analysis included a channel overtopping scenario to determine flood depths with no levee breaches when the channels and levees overtop when their capacity is reached. As the channel overtopping is not prevented by Levee O&M services, this additional scenario presented in R&F’s analyses was not utilized in the analysis of special benefits.
Levee Breach Scenarios for Levee Capital Services on LSJRP and 100-year Accreditation Assurance Properties receiving special benefit from the Levee Capital Services (and associated incremental levee O&M for the LSJRP) were identified using a combination of floodplain mapping that included:
• The 100-year composite without project floodplain based on breaches of levees to be improved by the LSJRP7;
• The FEMA Shaded Zone X area within north and central Stockton; and, • Additional hydraulic modeling showing the extent of the inundation from breaches of upstream FEMA Accredited Levees prepared by R&F.
To determine the avoided flood damages as a result of the Levee Capital Services from the improvements to the levee system associated with the LSJRP and FEMA Accredited levees, the Assessment Engineer utilized the without project floodplain mapping from the Feasibility Study as well as the floodplain mapping for breaches of FEMA accredited levees. The Feasibility Study does not define one single protection level but looks at levee assurances at a suite of flood scenarios, including the 100-year event. For the purpose of this Engineer’s Report, the Assessment Engineer determined that the USACE’s 100-year mapping best represents the level of service provided by the improved project and provides an appropriate comparison to the FEMA Shaded Zone X area. A composite without-project floodplain map, utilizing USACE floodplain mapping data, was prepared to identify the specific area benefiting from the improvements of LSRJP Project levees. To determine the extent of the floodplain for properties benefiting from FEMA Accredited levees, next, the Assessment Engineer overlaid the composite floodplain from breaches along FEMA Accredited levees prepared by R&F Engineering.
This designated the extent of the area benefiting from Levee Capital Services for FEMA Accredited Levee.
Because different sources of floodplain mapping were combined, the floodplain mapping associated with the FEMA Accredited levee breaches was only utilized to inform the extent of the benefit area from Levee Capital Services, not the depth of flooding for the purpose of calculating avoided flood damages. 7 As noted above, floodplain mapping for these breaches is based on hydraulic modeling completed by the USACE. Reference the USACE Feasibility Study.
ATTACHMENT E 1549
Table 5
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Representative Levee Lengths
Breach name Levee Length (Miles) Breach name Levee Length (Miles) Brc L10 2.3563 Lmh R1 1.9343
Brc L11 0.4907 Mhc L1 0.4615
Brc L13 0.5117 Mhc L2 1.3213
Brc L14 1.2882 Mhc R1 2.4343
Brc L2 2.7578 Mhd L1 0.7099
Brc L3 0.9300 Mns L1 0.8855
Brc L4 1.2738 Mns L2 1.3696
Brc L5 0.6320 Mns R1 0.8117
Brc L6 0.8283 Mns R2 1.5242
Brc L7 0.4238 Mpc L1 0.4808
Brc L8 0.9540 Mpc L2 0.9664
Brc L9 1.6391 Pca L1 0.8861
Brc R1 1.4009 Pdc L1 0.4747
Brc R10 0.8685 Pdc L2 0.7654
Brc R11 1.5526 Pdc R1 0.4658
Brc R12 0.5926 Pdc R3 0.8128
Brc R13 1.1358 Pdc R6 1.3186
Brc R14 1.1888 Pxs L1 1.5965
Brc R3 2.0168 Pxs L2 0.8936
Brc R4 1.1972 Pxs R1 0.3875
Brc R5 0.6819 Pxs R2 1.2298
Brc R6 1.1045 Pxs R3 0.9059
Brc R7 1.0703 Sdc L1 0.7090
Brc R8 0.3499 Sdc L2 0.8142
Brc R9 1.4818 Sdc L3 0.4382
Csr L1 3.1824 Sdc L4 0.9177
Csr L2 1.7846 Sdc L5 0.6785
Csr L3 2.6353 Sdc L6 0.6670
Csr R1 2.4215 Sdc L7 0.5747
Csr R2 1.0034 Sdc R3 2.8152
Csr R3 0.9816 Sdc R4 0.8204
Csr R4 1.4676 Sdc R5 1.1742
Csr R5 1.0943 Spc L1 0.8003
Fcs L1 2.8398 Spc R1 0.3657
Fcs R1 3.1873 Wrs L1 0.8674
Lmh L1 1.9767 Wrs R1 0.2602
Source: Appendix C ‐ Assessment District Floodplain Analysis, DATE, prepared by R&F.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.01.24
26 ATTACHMENT E 1550
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 27 The Assessment Engineer considered all of this floodplain mapping to develop and designate the area receiving benefit from Levee Capital Services. Figure 4 superimposes these three floodplain mapping sources and identifies the boundary of the area receiving benefit from Levee Capital Services.
Assessment District Boundary Diagram
All of the mapping sources have been combined to identify the overall area of benefit from Levee Capital and O&M Services. Figure 5 identifies the designated boundaries of the Levee Capital and O&M Services as well as the overall Proposed Assessment Boundary. The official Assessment District Boundary Diagram is included within Appendix D.
Because the Proposed Assessment Boundary does not align with parcel boundaries and parcel boundaries can change over time, a process for regularly determining those parcels within the boundary subject to the assessment is warranted. (Reference
ATTACHMENT E 1551
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 28 Application of the Assessment Boundary to Parcels below, for further discussion.) Accounting for Uncertainty in the Breach Analysis Results To account for the uncertainty associated with the hydraulic modeling assumptions, the difference in modelling tools leveraged (i.e., R&F analysis vs. USACE analysis vs. FEMA maps), and the accuracy of underlying LiDAR data used to generate the floodplains from each breach scenario (for R&F analysis), all flood depths were rounded down to the nearest foot. This rounding down of flood depths also accounts for the affects that any elevation variation within an individual parcel would have on shallow flooding. Further, given the uncertainty of flood depths and assumptions, for any parcel that is flooded based the analyses conducted or the review of the three flood mapping sources, the Assessment Engineering assigned a minimum flood depth of one foot.
The R&F hydraulic model used a standardized approach of calculating the floodwaters from the levee breach on a 250-foot square (1.4 acre) grid pattern and reporting the average depth for each grid block. Based on this grid block size, multiple parcels may reside within a single grid block, or a single parcel may span multiple grid blocks. Therefore, for parcels that are partially flooded along the boundary of the floodplain from a levee breach, the level of accuracy for the area of flooding for these parcels is uncertain. To account for this uncertainty, flood damages were excluded for parcels along the fringe of the boundary with less than 95% of their boundary within Levee Capital and O&M Service Boundary.
Assessment Apportionment Methodology
The methodology for apportioning the Proposed Assessment to each parcel in the Proposed Assessment District is based first on quantifying the total benefits received, in terms of benefit units, by each parcel from the Levee Capital and O&M Services and then second, separating the General Benefits from the Special Benefits, then third, determining each parcel’s proportionate share of total benefits received, again in terms of benefits units, and finally allocating the Proposed Assessment, in terms of dollars to each parcel based upon its proportionate share of total benefit units. Through this approach, each parcel’s share of the total Proposed Assessment would be equivalent to its proportionate share of benefit received from the Services. Because the General Benefits have been separated from the Special Benefits and only the Special Benefits are assessed to parcels the requirement of Proposition 218 have been met.
ATTACHMENT E 1552
29 ATTACHMENT E 1553
30 ATTACHMENT E 1554
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 31 The special benefit conveyed to a parcel from Levee Capital and O&M Services (in terms of Levee Benefit Units) is based on the flood damage reduction received by the parcel due to the decreased likelihood of flooding caused by a levee failure.
The methodology for calculating Levee Capital and O&M Benefit Units for each parcel utilizes the following property characteristics:
1. The size (acreage) of each parcel;
2. The Land Use Category assigned to each parcel;
3. The average structure size (square footage) per acre for each Land Use Category or sub-Category;
4. The depth of flooding from each breach scenario affecting the parcel;
5. The Relative Land Damage Rate per acre;
6. The Structure Damage Rate per square foot;
7. Whether the parcel was located within the prior SCAAD Assessment; and
8. Length of levee represented by each breach scenario (for Levee O&M Services for Zone 9 Project levees only).
A minimum flood damage reduction benefit was determined for all parcels with more than 95% of their area included within the Boundary. The minimum benefit was applied in the event a parcel’s calculated flood damages was less than the minimum calculated benefit. This approach accounts for uncertainty in the model as a result of utilizing a finite number of flood breach analyses where a parcel’s resulting inundation was nominal. This minimum benefit calculation is further described on Page 34.
Property Characteristics
The following property characteristics were developed for apportioning benefit. A summary of the property characteristics data is provided in Table 6.
Land Use Categories
Multiple land use codes are used by the San Joaquin County Assessor to categorize the properties within the boundaries. Each land use code was evaluated and assigned to a generalized Land Use Category (e.g.:
Agricultural, Single-Family Residential, Commercial, etc.) for the purpose of identifying characteristics of each category for use in apportioning special benefit (Appendix E). A random sample of parcels for each County land use code was analyzed by reviewing aerial photographs to ensure that it had been assigned to the appropriate Land Use Category. The Land Use Categories are generally described as follows:
Agricultural land was characterized as large productive or unproductive land outside the urban area. No differentiation was made to differentiate between the crop types or use for livestock grazing.
Blended parcels are large parcels with multiple land uses present. The characteristics of these parcels are typically unique and require dedicated apportionment factors that are weighted by the portion (percent) of the parcel associated with each land use. An example would be a single large lot zoned as commercial that is half developed for a commercial use and the other half is vacant.
ATTACHMENT E 1555
Table 6
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Summary of Assessed Property Characteristics
Land Use Category Parcel Count Total Acres
Agricultural 767 23,767
Blend 40 1,886
Commercial 3,378 3,124
Industrial 944 3,043
Mobile Home 143 304
Multi‐Family Residential 5,904 1,336
Open Space 2,575 6,640
Open Space ‐ Developed 3,432 3,375
Rural Residential 1,071 3,292
School 166 1,311
Single‐Family Residential 75,741 14,159
Total 94,161 62,236
Source: Parcel Quest, San Joaquin County GIS and R&F Engineering Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
32 ATTACHMENT E 1556
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 33 Commercial is characterized by properties with office, retail or public service buildings. This Land Use Category includes hotels, shopping centers, restaurants, offices, hospitals, etc. Some parcels within this Land Use Category have been assigned to a sub-category of Commercial Building Only. Parcels in this subcategory are commercial parcels with minimal acreage dedicated to parking and common areas within a larger commercial development. Parcels in this sub-category have adjacent parcels dedicated to supporting parking and other common areas associated with commercial uses.
Industrial is characterized by manufacturing, storage and processing facilities. This Land Use Category includes warehouses, manufacturing, processing, distribution, and public utilities.
Mobile Home Park is exclusively properties designed specifically for multiple mobile home structures.
This category also includes individual parcels with Mobile Home Residential structures.
Multi-Family Residential is characterized as four or more dwelling units on a parcel. This Land Use Category includes apartments, condominiums, and townhouses. Condominium parcels within this Land Use Category have been assigned to a sub-category of Multi-Family Residential Condominium. Parcels in this sub-category are parcels designated as Condominium Units (Code 11) or Planned Unit Residential Development (Code 12) by the San Joaquin County Assessor. Parcels in this sub-category have minimal acreage not covered by structures and have adjacent parcels with open areas.
Open Space is characterized by properties with limited hardscape, without structures, that have been developed for their ultimate use. This Land Use Category includes parks, sports fields, bike paths, common areas, etc.
Open Space Developed is characterized by properties that do not have a structure, however, are generally ready to be built on. This Land Use Category includes parcels in developed areas that have been prepared for construction, parcels that are generically described as “vacant”, and parcels that are entirely used as a parking lot.
Rural Residential are large lots with a Single-Family Residential structure outside the urban areas with limited amount of hardscape.
School properties are characterized as educational campuses, but do not include conversion of other land use categories for education activities (i.e. a commercial parcel utilized by a trade school). School properties can be public or private.
Single-Family Residential properties are characterized by three or fewer single-family dwelling structures on a parcel. This Land Use Category includes land with duplex and triplex buildings as they generally have the same physical characteristics as other single-family residences.
Parcel Size
The size of the parcel is used to appropriately apportion the special benefit from Levee Capital and O&M Services. Parcel data was obtained from San Joaquin County Assessor’s data acquired through ParcelQuest.
Parcel data was also obtained from the San Joaquin County Community Development Department GIS group ATTACHMENT E 1557
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 34 shapefiles. Where any significant discrepancy existed between the two sources, satellite imagery was used to measure and identify the more reliable source.
Average Structure Size per Land Use Type
Structure sizes were obtained from San Joaquin County Assessor’s data acquired through ParcelQuest. The average structure size was calculated by summing the total square footage from all parcels for each land use and dividing by the total acres of all parcels with structures for each land use. Table 7 summarizes the number of parcels, total parcel acreage and total structure square-footage of the parcels used to determine the average structure size associated with each Land Use Category.
Levee Capital and O&M Benefit Units
In general, flood damages were quantified for land and structures based on the depth of flooding. Levee O&M Benefit Units are calculated based on the levee breach modeling performed by R&F, as discussed above. Levee Capital Benefit Units were calculated utilizing the Feasibility Study floodplain modeling and floodplain modeling utilized to determine the extent of the Capital Boundary, as discussed above. Benefit unit calculations for each of these components are presented below, and then these two components are normalized to determine the total benefit units from both services.
Levee O&M Benefit Units
Levee O&M Benefit Units (OBU) are equal to the avoided flood damage to a parcel as a result of the Levee O&M Services associated with the Zone 9 Project levees. For the purpose of this assessment, flood damages were quantified for land and structures based on the depth of flooding from each of the breach scenarios.
The OBU for each property is calculated using the following formula:
OBU = Total [Weighted Flood Damage] for all Breach Scenarios Where, for each Breach Scenario:
Weighted Flood Damage = [Avoided Flood Damage] x [Representative Levee Length] Avoided Flood Damage = [Levee Breach Damage]
Levee Breach Damage = [Land Damage] + [Structure Damage] Land Damage = [Parcel Size] x [Relative Land Damage Rate per Acreby land use] Structure Damage = [Average Structure SQFT] x [Parcel Size] x [Structure Damage Rateby structure type] Minimum OBU within Zone 9
For parcels within the Boundary shown in Figure 5 (Page 30) that have been determined to benefit from Zone 9 levee maintenance but not inundated by any of the individual levee breach analysis scenarios, a minimum LBU is calculated as follows:
OBU = [1,000 ft of Levee] x [Parcel Size] x [Relative Land Damage Rate] ATTACHMENT E 1558
Table 7
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Average Structure Size per Acre
Land Use Category Parcel Count Acres Structure Sq. Ft. Average Structure Sq. Ft/Acre
[1]
Agricultural N/A N/A N/A N/A
Blend N/A N/A N/A N/A
Commercial 865 1,078 9,531,904 8,800
Commercial Building Only [2] 140 41 1,522,633 36,800
Industrial 407 1,351 16,827,510 12,400
Mobile Home 108 153 156,072 1,000
Multi‐Family Residential 2,106 1,065 17,644,638 16,500
Multi‐Family Residential Condominium [3] 3,625 94 4,050,564 43,000 Open Space N/A N/A N/A N/A
Open Space ‐ Developed N/A N/A N/A N/A
Rural Residential 1,027 3,096 2,048,467 600
School 29 233 516,174 2,200
Single‐Family Residential 75,453 13,976 126,523,952 9,000 Source: Parcel Quest, San Joaquin County GIS and R&F Engineering [1] Includes only parcels with structure building sq. ft for the purpose of calculating average structure sq. ft. per parcel. [2] Represents commercial parcels with minimal acreage dedicated to parking and common areas within commercial developments. Parcels in this sub‐category of commercial have adjacent parcels dedicated to supporting parking and other common areas within a larger commercial development. As a result the Average Structure / Sq. Ft. is much higher than the remaining parcels in the balance of the Commercial Land Use Category. [3] Represents residential multi‐family condominiums, specifically San Joaquin County use code 11 and 12. Parcels in this Multi‐ Family Residential sub‐category have minimal acreage not covered by structures and have adjacent parcels with open areas. As a result the Average Structure / Sq. Ft. is much higher than the remaining parcels in the balance of the Multi‐Family Residential Land Use Category.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
35 ATTACHMENT E 1559
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 36 Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre
The Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre represents the relative damage to site improvements (e.g. landscaping, utilities, etc.) that occurs as a result of inundation and deposition of sediment carried in floodwaters. The Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre was determined by assigning a Relative Land Value per Acre to each land use category and applying a 10% damage factor to the Relative Land Value per Acre.
Table 8 summarizes the Relative Land Damage Rate for each Land Use Category.
Structure Damage Rate
The Structure Damage Rate is calculated based on the methodology used in the UASCE Flood Damage Analysis (FDA) program. The FDA program assigns a relative Structure Replacement Value according to type of structure and estimates the percent structure damage based on the depth of flooding. Similarly, the FDA program assigns a relative Contents Replacement Value according to type of structure and estimates the percent of contents damage based on the depth of flooding (Table 9 & Table 10). Table 11 summarizes the OBU’s by Land Use Category. Because an average structure size rate per acre was utilized for calculating structure damages, for the O&M Benefit unit calculations, the structure sizes calculated were capped at 5,000 square feet per parcel for single family residential.
Levee Capital Benefit Units
Levee Capital Benefit Units (CBU) are equal to the avoided flood damage to a parcel as a result of the Levee Capital Services. For the purpose of this assessment, flood damages were quantified for land and structures based on the depth from the without LSJRP hydraulic modeling and also through preventing flooding within this same leveed area due to the failure of a FEMA 100-year accredited levee.
The CBU for each property is calculated using the following formula:
CBU = Total Avoided Flood Damage
Avoided Flood Damage = [Levee Breach Damage] x SCAAD Factor SCAAD Factor = 0.852
Levee Breach Damage = [Land Damage] + [Structure Damage] Land Damage = [Parcel Size] x [Relative Land Damage Rate per Acreby land use] Structure Damage = [Average Structure SQFT] x [Parcel Size] x [Structure Damage Rateby structure type] Minimum flood depth
All parcels, which reside in the Capital Boundary floodplain receive flood protection benefits from FEMA accredited levees. As such, all parcels within the Capital Boundary of the Proposed Assessment are assumed to have a minimum flood depth of 1’ for the purpose of calculating avoided flood damage to approximate the special benefit associated with regulatory accreditation.
ATTACHMENT E 1560
Table 8
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Relative Land Damage Rate
Land Use Category
Relative Land
Value per Acre
Relative Land
Damage Per Acre
AB = A X 10%
[1]
Agricultural [2] $25,000 $2,500
Commercial $70,000 $7,000
Industrial $70,000 $7,000
Mobile Home $50,000 $5,000
Multi‐Family Residential $70,000 $7,000
Open Space $10,000 $1,000
Open Space ‐ Developed $40,000 $4,000
Rural Residential $25,000 $2,500
Single‐Family Residential $50,000 $5,000
School $41,000 $4,100
[2] Includes Crop Damage.
[1] Relative land value based on previous Engineer's Reports prepared in the region.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
37 ATTACHMENT E 1561
Table 9
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Structure Replacement Value and Depth Damage
Land Use Structure Replacement Value
Depth 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Agricultural [1] $111.67 11.4% 19.3% 26.5% 33.2% 39.3% 44.7% 49.7% 54.1% 58.0% 61.5% 64.5% 67.1% 69.3% 71.2% 72.7% 74.0% Commercial [2] $85.56 7.0% 21.7% 30.2% 31.2% 32.4% 32.4% 39.8% 42.8% 51.7% 53.1% 54.1% 61.8% 64.8% 64.8% 65.5% 86.1% Industrial [4] $54.51 7.0% 21.7% 30.2% 31.2% 32.4% 32.4% 39.8% 42.8% 51.7% 53.1% 54.1% 61.8% 64.8% 64.8% 65.5% 86.1%Mobile Home [5] $45.85 9.9% 44.7% 45.7% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5% 96.5%Multi‐Family Residential [6] $84.40 11.4% 19.3% 26.5% 33.2% 39.3% 44.7% 49.7% 54.1% 58.0% 61.5% 64.5% 67.1% 69.3% 71.2% 72.7% 74.0%Open Space $0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Open Space ‐ Developed $0.00 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rural Residential [7] $111.67 11.4% 19.3% 26.5% 33.2% 39.3% 44.7% 49.7% 54.1% 58.0% 61.5% 64.5% 67.1% 69.3% 71.2% 72.7% 74.0% Single‐Family Residential [8] $111.67 11.4% 19.3% 26.5% 33.2% 39.3% 44.7% 49.7% 54.1% 58.0% 61.5% 64.5% 67.1% 69.3% 71.2% 72.7% 74.0%School [3] $144.46 7.0% 21.7% 30.2% 31.2% 32.4% 32.4% 39.8% 42.8% 51.7% 53.1% 54.1% 61.8% 64.8% 64.8% 65.5% 86.1% [1] Source: Table B‐33 ‐ Good Status for Single Family Residential [2] Source: Table B‐9 ‐ Good Status for Commercial Retail [3] Source: Table B‐29 Good Status for Public and Private Schools [4] Source: Table B‐21 ‐ Good Status for Industrial Light [5] Source: Table B‐25 ‐ Good Status for Mobile Home
[6] Source: Table B‐26 ‐ Good Status Construction Class and Quality for Multi‐Family Residential [7] Source: Table B‐33 ‐ Good Status for Single Family Residential [8] Source: Table B‐33 ‐ Good Status for Single Family Residential Source: Table C‐1 2012 CVFPP HEC‐FDA Structure and Damage Functions ‐ CVFPP Attachment 8F Flood Damage Analysis Percent of Structure Damaged
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
38 ATTACHMENT E
1562
Table 10
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Contents Replacement Value and Depth Damage
Land Use Structure to
Contents Ratio
Depth 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Agricultural [1] 50% 6.6% 11.0% 15.1% 18.8% 22.1% 25.1% 27.7% 30.1% 32.1% 33.8% 35.2% 36.3% 37.2% 37.8% 38.2% 38.5% Commercial [2] 51% 0.0% 79.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Industrial [4] 31% 0.2% 87.6% 96.4% 99.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%Mobile Home [5] 50% 0.0% 85.0% 95.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0% 99.0%Multi‐Family Residential [6] 50% 6.6% 11.0% 15.1% 18.8% 22.1% 25.1% 27.7% 30.1% 32.1% 33.8% 35.2% 36.3% 37.2% 37.8% 38.2% 38.5%Open Space 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%Open Space ‐ Developed 0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Rural Residential [7] 50% 6.6% 11.0% 15.1% 18.8% 22.1% 25.1% 27.7% 30.1% 32.1% 33.8% 35.2% 36.3% 37.2% 37.8% 38.2% 38.5% Single‐Family Residential [8] 50% 6.6% 11.0% 15.1% 18.8% 22.1% 25.1% 27.7% 30.1% 32.1% 33.8% 35.2% 36.3% 37.2% 37.8% 38.2% 38.5%School [3] 38% 0.0% 87.8% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% [1] Source: Table B‐33 ‐ Good Status for Single Family Residential [2] Source: Table B‐9 ‐ Good Status for Commercial Retail [3] Source: Table B‐29 Good Status for Public and Private Schools [4] Source: Table B‐21 ‐ Good Status for Industrial Light [5] Source: Table B‐25 ‐ Good Status for Mobile Home
[6] Source: Table B‐26 ‐ Good Status Construction Class and Quality for Multi‐Family Residential [7] Source: Table B‐33 ‐ Good Status for Single Family Residential [8] Source: Table B‐33 ‐ Good Status for Single Family Residential Source: Table C‐1 2012 CVFPP HEC‐FDA Structure and Damage Functions ‐ CVFPP Attachment 8F Flood Damage Analysis Percent of Contents Damaged
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
39 ATTACHMENT E
1563
Table 11
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Summary of Resulting Levee Benefit Units
Land Use Category
O&M Benefit
Units
(OBU)
Capital Benefit Units
(CBU)
Total Levee
Benefit Units
(LBU)
A BC = A/30 + B
Agricultural 77,923,914 4,377,700 6,975,164
Blended 214,830,020 118,795,205 125,956,206
Commercial 4,003,482,162 456,928,315 590,377,720
Industrial 3,830,507,661 217,399,407 345,082,995
Mobile Home 21,631,953 3,114,756 3,835,821
Multi‐Family Residential 4,020,218,444 480,368,762 614,376,044 Open Space 16,772,254 2,029,262 2,588,337
Open Space ‐ Developed 50,095,586 7,698,085 9,367,938
Rural Residential 78,371,947 2,274,568 4,886,966
School 574,720,144 73,039,324 92,196,663
Single‐Family Residential 22,450,511,025 2,863,250,973 3,611,601,341 Total 35,339,065,110 4,229,276,358 5,407,245,195
Source: As calculated by Larsen Wurzel & Associates, inc.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
40 ATTACHMENT E 1564
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 41 Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre
As defined under OBU methodology, the Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre represents the relative damage to site improvements (e.g. landscaping, utilities, etc.) that occurs as a result of inundation and deposition of sediment carried in floodwaters. The Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre was determined by assigning a Relative Land Value per Acre to each land use category and applying a 10% damage factor to the Relative Land Value per Acre. Table 8 (page 37) summarizes the Relative Land Damage Rate for each Land Use Category.
Structure Damage Rate
As defined under OBU methodology, the Structure Damage Rate is calculated based on the methodology used in the USACE Flood Damage Analysis (FDA) program. The FDA program assigns a relative Structure Replacement Value according to type of structure and estimates the percent structure damage based on the depth of flooding above the finish floor. Similarly, the FDA program assigns a relative Contents Replacement Value according to type of structure and estimates the percent of contents damage based on the depth of flooding (reference again, Table 9 & Table 10, pages 38 and 39 respectively). Table 11 (page 40) summarizes the CBU’s by Land Use Category.
Because an average structure size rate per acre was utilized for calculating structure damages, for the Capital Benefit unit calculations, structure sizes were capped at 5,000 square feet per parcel for single family residential. When calculating the flood depth to a finished floor, a finish floor height elevation was assumed at 1’ for all structures and 2’ for mobile homes.
SCAAD Factor
This factor is used to recognize the prior contribution of the SCAAD toward the implementation of the SCG Project. Those properties within the current SCAAD are given a SCAAD factor of 0.852 and those properties outside of the SCAAD assessment boundary are given a SCAAD factor of 1. The SCAAD factor of 0.852 was determined based on the ratio of the prior investmentsinto the SCG Project by properties in the SCAAD, based on total annual assessment revenues provided to date, versus the investment required for the Levee Capital Services of this Proposed Assessment for the same benefitting parcels. When applied at 0.852, this factor reduces the special benefits received to account for the share of special benefits already delivered by properties in the SCAAD boundary to date and are now credited to the investment of funding for Levee Capital Services. For those properties within the SCAAD boundary (See Figure 6), the SCAAD factor is calculated as follows:
• SCAAD investment to date: approximately $17 Million
• SJAFCA 10.5% portion of LSJRP “first cost”, adjusted for updated SCG cost, escalated to 2022 cost basis: approximately $115 Million
• Discount factor = 17/115 = 14.78%
• SCAAD Factor = 1 – 0.148
• SCAAD Factor = 0.852
Equivalent Levee Benefit Unit (LBU)
Benefit units have been calculated based on individual levee breaches for O&M Services and weighted by representative levee lengths. However, a composite floodplain boundary was utilized to determine the ATTACHMENT E 1565
42 ATTACHMENT E 1566
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 43 benefits from Capital Services because the capital project is considered a whole system of improvements. As a result of this approach, the total number of calculated OBU’s is significantly larger than the calculated CBU’s.
As such an equivalency factor is needed to allow for a comparable equivalent levee benefit unit for which to serve as a basis for assessing the total special benefits and determining parcel-level assessment rates. Because O&M Services represent an ongoing service that will continue into the future and can considered on a single annual basis, and the Capital Services represent a shorter term but larger financed investment over time, the Assessment Engineer has considered the application of a factor related to the term of financing to equivocate the benefit units of the two services. The Assessment Engineer has utilized an equalization factor of 30:1, which is indicative of the capital financing term that is expected to be utilized for the Capital Services. To simply the application of the factor, and reduce the total number of calculated benefit units, the equalization factor is applied by dividing the OBU’s by 30 as follows:
Total Equivalent Levee Benefit Units = Total OBU / 30 + Total CBU Table 11 (page 40) summarizes the OBU’s, CBU’s and Total Levee Benefit Units (LBU’s) by Land Use Category.
General Benefits
Thoroughfare Damages Calculation
As described above, the Levee Capital and O&M Services provide a general benefit to the public at large by protecting thoroughfares within the boundary of the Proposed Assessment from flood damages. The amount of general benefit associated with each thoroughfare was quantified by identifying the cost to repair the road because of the flood damages. San Joaquin County indicated that the average cost to repair flood damages for an entire reach of thoroughfare is approximately $5.00 per square-foot.
Table 12 lists the reaches of thoroughfares protected against flood damages by the Levee Capital and O&M Services; identifies the cross-street limits, reach length, and typical road width.
Table 13 calculatesthe general benefit from protecting thoroughfares by multiplying the area of thoroughfare pavement by the estimated cost to repair flood damages. The general benefit from protecting all thoroughfares was calculated to be 24,470,000 equivalent Levee Benefit Units.
Federal Properties
Federally owned properties, such as the United States Post Office in Stockton, receive a special benefit from the Levee Capital and O&M Services and are included in the apportionment of special benefit. The benefit for all federally owned properties is calculated as 458,523 equivalent Levee Benefit Units. However, federal law prohibits local agencies from collecting assessments due from the federal government. The lost revenue cannot be reapportioned to assessed property owners. Therefore, the benefits of Levee Capital and O&M Services provided by protecting these federally owned properties against flood damages are treated similar to general benefits, and the lost assessment revenue must be funded by other revenue sources.
ATTACHMENT E 1567
Table 12
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Protected Throughfares
Throughfare Reach Description Reach Length
(ft) Width (ft) Total SQFT
A BC = A X B
HWY 99 Diverting Canal to Carpenter Road 22,800 120 2,736,000 HWY 4 SJR River to I‐5 9,000 50 450,000
HWY 4 Main Street to HWY 99 8,200 120 984,000
Charter Way I‐5 to HWY 99 18,100 40 724,000
Total 4,894,000
Source: GIS Imagery
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
44 ATTACHMENT E 1568
Table 13
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Thoroughfare General Benefit Calculation
Thoroughfare SQFT Repair Rate per SQFT Total General Benefit from Thoroughfares
A BC = A X B
Reference Table 11 [1]
4,894,000 $5.00 24,470,000
[1] Based on input from San Joaquin County Public Works Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
45 ATTACHMENT E 1569
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 46 Evaluation of Funding Sources for General Benefit
Together, the federal properties and thoroughfares amount to 24,928,523 units in general benefit. The total revenue required to fund the total general benefit is $40,834, using the special benefit assessment calculation found in the next section.
• Protecting thoroughfares: $40,074
• Special benefit to federally owned property: $750
Because other funding sources are provided for Levee Capital and O&M Services including from USACE and DWR, as well as San Joaquin County property tax apportionment revenues, this funding can be applied to the general benefits provided by the Services. In short, these funding sources are sufficient to fund the general benefit occurring within the area.
Proposed Special Benefit Assessment Calculation
To determine the proposed assessment for an individual parcel, the amount of Levee Benefit Units (LBU) for the parcel is calculated and multiplied by the assessment rate per LBU. The proposed assessment rate per LBU is equal to the required annual budget divided by the total quantity of LBU’s as shown on Table 14. All factors required to calculate each Parcel’s LBU have been described above and can found in the provided tables and appendices. The proposed assessment rate per LBU is $0.001415 / LBU.
Example Parcel Assessment
Using the proposed parcel assessment equation and supporting LBU equations as well as parcel attributes including parcel size, average structure size, relative land damage rate per acre, structure damage rate per square foot, and finally the proposed assessment rate, an individual parcel’s assessment can be calculated.
Assessments are rounded down to the closest multiple of $0.02 as required by the San Joaquin County Assessor’s office for submission of the special assessment roll for collection on County Property Tax Bills.
The following list of steps are taken to calculate a parcel’s assessment:
Step 1 – Determine the Parcel Size, Land Use, Breach Name, Representative Levee Length.
Step 2 – Using Table 7, determine the Average Structure Size.
Step 3 – Using Table 8, determine the Relative Land Damage Rate per Acre.
Step 4 – Using Table 9, determine the Structure Damage Rate per Square Foot.
Step 5 – Using Table 10, determine the Contents Damage Rate per Square Foot.
Step 6 – Calculate the Parcel OBU using Equation 1.
Step 7 – Calculate the Parcel CBU using Equation 2.
Step 8 – Determine if the parcel is within the previous SCAAD boundaries and add SCAAD Factor.
Step 9 – Calculate the Parcel LBU using Equation 3
ATTACHMENT E 1570
Table 14
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Initial Proposed Assessment Rate Calculation ‐ FY 2023/24 FY 2023/24 Budget Total Benefit Units Proposed FY 2023/24 Assessment Rate
A BC = A /B
Reference Table 4 Reference Tables 11 & 13
[1]
$7,684,000 5,431,715,195 $0.001415
[1] Includes benefit from thoroughfares and federal properties.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
47 ATTACHMENT E 1571
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 48 Step 10 – Calculate the parcel assessment using Equation 3.
Step 11 – Round down to the closest multiple of $0.02. Raise up to $ 2.00 if it is less than the minimum8
A detailed example parcel assessment calculation is included at the end of this report on Table 16 (Page 55).
Summary of Assessments
A detailed listing by Assessor’s parcel number of the assessments is included in Appendix F. The proposed assessments are summarized by Land Use Category in Table 15.
Special Considerations
Public Parcels
Consistent with the requirements of Proposition 218, all publicly owned parcels are assessed proportionately based upon the special benefits they receive from services provided by the proposed assessment. That is, public parcels are treated the same as privately owned parcels for assessment calculation purposes. To calculate assessments for these parcels, a land use category was assigned to each public parcel based on its current use.
As noted previously, the benefits received by Federally owned parcels are treated the same a general benefits.
Because the assessments will not be collected from Federally owned parcels, the lost revenues from must be funded from an alternate sources similar to other general benefits.
Multiple Use Parcels
A property that is determined to have multiple uses but is classified under a single use code by the San Joaquin County Assessor that is not consistent with the multiple uses may be eligible to have its assessment calculated as if it were two or more parcels (“sub-parcels”) with varying structure and land uses types for the purpose of apportioning benefit. The assessments of the sub-parcels would then be combined to represent a single assessment for the purpose of assessment balloting, direct billing and/or submission of the roll to the San Joaquin County Auditor for collection on the secured property tax roll.
Minimum Assessment Amount
The Agency has determined that the collection of very small annual assessments can result in a net loss to the Agency due to the costs of processing. It light of the legal obligation to ensure that property owners pay assessments in proportion to the special benefit they receive, the Agency has determined that waiving those very small assessments is not legally permissible. The Agency has therefore set a minimum assessment at $2.00. The minimum annual assessment will be $2.00 per parcel to reflect the cost to administer the Assessment Roll. All annual assessments calculated to be less than $2.00 will be raised to the $2.00 minimum.
If the additional revenue collected by the SJAFCA due to the minimum assessment exceeds the cost to administer the Assessment Roll, the funds will be added to the reserve fund for the LCMA’s Services. 8 Reference Minimum Assessment Amount discussion below.
ATTACHMENT E 1572
Table 15
Levee Capital and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA)
Land Use Category Parcel Count Average
Assessment
Proposed FY 2023/24
Assessment
Share of Total
Assessment
[1]
Agricultural 767 $14 $10,618 0.1%
Blended 40 $4,455 $178,193 2.3%
Commercial 3,378 $247 $835,681 10.9%
Industrial 944 $517 $488,452 6.4%
Mobile Home 143 $38 $5,479 0.1%
Multi‐Family Residential 5,904 $147 $870,219 11.3%
Open Space 2,575 $3 $7,673 0.1%
Open Space ‐ Developed 3,432 $5 $16,516 0.2%
Rural Residential 1,071 $8 $8,255 0.1%
School 166 $786 $130,484 1.7%
Single‐Family Residential 75,741 $68 $5,132,808 66.8%
Total 94,161 $82 $7,684,376 100.0%
Summary of Proposed FY 2023/24 Assessments by Land Use Category [1] Includes $2 minimum assessment.
Prepared by LWA 1808000 LCMA ER Tables 2023.02.27.xlsx
49 ATTACHMENT E 1573
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 50 Application of the Assessment Boundary to Parcels
The Assessment Boundary described above represents a boundary driven by the hydraulics associated with flooding. The hydraulic floodplain does not align with the parcel boundaries as they are configured, assessed, and taxed by the County. The Assessment Engineer has determined that those parcels with 95% of their land area located within the Assessment Boundary will be subject to the Assessment. While the hydraulics are not expected to change significantly over time, parcel boundaries can and do change regularly. As a result, the area subject to the collection of the assessment will not align with the boundary of the assessment. The application of the Assessment Boundary to the then current set of parcels will take place annually as part of the assessment administration process.
Updating the Annual Assessment Roll
Recalculating individual property assessments will accommodate changes within LCMA over time. These changes can result from the development activity such as recordation of subdivision maps, zoning changes, conditional use permits, and lot splits or mergers. Placement of a structure on an undeveloped parcel or other changes to improvements on a parcel may trigger a recalculation of the assessment if there is a change in the land use category.
It is recognized that when compiling data for the tens of thousands of parcels within the assessment boundary, the data9 used to derive individual parcel characteristics may not be accurate and may not precisely fit the intent of the Assessment Engineer thus leading to errors and/or circumstances that result in inaccurate assessment calculations on annual basis. Where such circumstances are discovered, either by the persons administering the assessment district or by the owners of the properties affected, SJAFCA staff shall review such circumstances and determine if corrections or adjustments are appropriate. Any such corrections or adjustments are to be consistent with the concept, intent, and parameters of the methodology for the assessment as set forth within this Engineer’s Report without formal approval by the SJAFCA Executive Director. Unless such proposed changes are appealed to the SJAFCA Executive Director and determined not to be acceptable, they will be incorporated into the Assessment Roll. 9 The Assessment Engineer has utilized data compiled from the San Joaquin County Assessor to determine the individual property characteristics used as the basis for assessing and apportioning special benefit. While the data from the San Joaquin County Assessor is assumed to be accurate, its primary purpose is for use by the San Joaquin County Assessor and is subject to the Assessor’s standards for accuracy and update. As a result, the information may be inaccurate and not reflect the actual property characteristics of every parcel.
ATTACHMENT E 1574
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 51
6. ASSESSMENT ADMINISTRATION
Schedule for Collection
If property owners approve the proposed assessment, SJAFCA intends to commence collection of the assessments in FY 2023/24. The assessment would be collected annually on the secured property tax rolls of San Joaquin County as described further below under “Duration of the Assessment” (Page 52).
The annual administrative expenses of LCMA would also be funded through the annual levy of assessments.
Ongoing administrative expenses would include the annual calculation and preparation of the assessment roll, the actual costs of collecting the annual assessments and the costs of responding to inquiries including the review and processing of any appeals.
Assessment Revenue Distribution
Assessment revenues are collected for O&M Services and Capital Services. Since SJAFCA is not a maintaining organization, SJAFCA will transfer revenues to local maintaining agencies or fund others (i.e. contract for services) for levee O&M Services.
SJAFCA will transfer funding for the O&M of the SJCFCWCD levees to SJCFCWCD, except for the cost incurred by SJAFCA for the administration of the assessment. SJAFCA and SJCFCWCD will arrange an agreement for funding transfers if the Proposed Assessment is approved.
SJAFCA will transfer funding for the additional O&M services associated with the LSJRP to the appropriate maintaining agency or contract with others for these services. Transfer of fundsfor additional O&M associated with the LSJRP will occur as particular capital improvement features are finished and turned over by USACE to the NFS for long-term maintenance. If the Proposed Assessment is approved, SJAFCA will setup agreements with applicable maintainers that detail out the responsibilities and funding transfer amounts.
Appeals of Assessments Levied to Property
Any property owner who believes his or her property should be reclassified and the assessment adjusted may file a written appeal with the SJAFCA Executive Director. Any such appeal is limited to correction of an assessment during the then-current fiscal year and future years.
All appeals must include a statement of reasons why the property should be reclassified and may include supporting evidence. On the filing of any such appeal, the Executive Director will direct staff to promptly review the appeal and any information provided by the property owner and may investigate and assemble additional evidence necessary to evaluate the appeal. If the Executive Director finds that the assessment should be modified, the appropriate changes will be made to the assessment roll for the following fiscal year.
Any such changes approved after the assessment roll has been filed with the County for collection, will not result in a refund of the current or any prior year’s assessments paid before the appeal was filed unless so directed by the Executive Director.
ATTACHMENT E 1575
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 52 Impact of Appeals
The majority of the data being used to generate the assessment rates for specific parcels comes from the San Joaquin County Assessor. Because the main purpose of the Assessor in compiling this data is not to support this and other Special Benefit Assessment efforts but rather to determine Assessed Value for the purpose of administering the County’s Secured Tax Roll, the Assessment Engineer has worked to refine the Assessor’s data so it properly reflects the conditions present in the physical benefit area. However, throughout the formation period (and indeed even after the formation of the assessment), data errors and discrepancies with the San Joaquin County Assessor data may surface and require modification of the assessment calculation for various parcels. Changes in the data without a corresponding change in the Assessment Rate established by this report will, by definition, change the total amount of assessments levied and collected in any one year.
For example, if the data assumes the existence of a house that has since been destroyed and not been reconstructed, once the database is corrected the rates will generate a smaller total assessment. On the other hand, if the data assumes an empty lot where a house has since been constructed, once the database is corrected the rates will generate a larger total assessment. Due to the database being constantly refined (either through internal review or an external appeal process), it is infeasible to fine-tune the rates between the Preliminary Engineer’s Report and the Final Engineer’s Report. In addition, because changes to the database will either increase or decrease the total amount assessed, it is presumed that these amounts will roughly offset each other. Therefore, although minor changes to the database will continue to be made during the formation period, the rates proposed in this Report are not being fine-tuned, even though that will result in a total assessment which may be slightly less than or slightly more than the amount determined for the development of this report.
Duration of the Assessment
If approved by property owners in an assessment ballot proceeding conducted pursuant to Article XIIID Section 4 of the State Constitution and Government Code § 53750, et. seq., and subsequently approved by the SJAFCA Board of Directors, the assessment can be levied annually commencing FY 2023/24. The Executive Director will establish the assessment rate each year and while the assessment is only effective for that year, the assessment may be continued each year without another ballot proceeding with approval of the SJAFCA Board of Directors. The annual budget for Levee Capital Services will be collected by SJAFCA for 30 years following a final bond issuance which is expected in 2038. The budget for Levee O&M services will be collected each year that Levee O&M Services are provided, which is expected to be in perpetuity. On-going annual assessments cannot be increased without property owner approval, except for the annual escalation as described below.
Annual Escalation of the Assessments
To ensure that SJAFCA can provide the needed services over time, it is important to allow for an increase of the assessment over time to address the rising costs of labor, supplies, and materials. The Assessment Engineer has determined that an appropriate escalation factor is a factor that is reflective of rising labor costs and goods over time. Therefore, beginning in FY 2024/25, the maximum authorized assessment may be increased subject to an annual inflationary escalator pursuant to Government Code § 53739 (b), based on the annual change in the Consumer Price Index February to February CPI-W for San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward all Items, with Base Period 1982-84 = 100, published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor ATTACHMENT E 1576
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 53 Statistics, subject to a minimum of zero percent and a maximum of 4% in any given year. The adjustment to the maximum authorized assessment would be applied to the prior year’s annual assessment rate.
ATTACHMENT E 1577
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 54
7. CONCLUSIONS
It is concluded that the proposed assessments do not exceed the reasonable cost of the proportional special benefit conferred on each property assessed.
____________________________________
Scott L. Brown, P.E.
ATTACHMENT E 1578
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 55 Table 16
Assessment Parcel Equations and Example Calculations
Equation 1: Levee O&M Benefit Units
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑂𝐵𝑈 = 𝑂𝐵𝑈 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎𝑙𝑙 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑠 𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑡 𝑎𝑓𝑓𝑒𝑐𝑡 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝐎𝐁𝐔 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑐ℎ = 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑣𝑒𝑒 𝐿𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑡ℎ [1] × {(𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 [2] × 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑒 [3]) + (𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑞. 𝐹𝑡. 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 [4] × 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 [2] × 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 [5] × (𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 [5] + 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 [6] × 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 [6]))}
[1] Table 5; Parcels within the LCMA O&M Boundary without flood depths utilized a levee length of 1,000 and only receive land damage benefit. [2] Assessor’s Data
[3] Table 8
[4] Table 7
[5] Table 9
[6] Table 10
Equation 2: Capital Benefit Units
𝐂𝐁𝐔 = {(𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 [2] × 𝑅𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝐿𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑃𝑒𝑟 𝐴𝑐𝑟𝑒 [3]) + (𝐴𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 [4] × 𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 [2] × 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑅𝑒𝑝𝑙𝑎𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑉𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 [5] × ( 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 [5] + 𝑆𝑡𝑟𝑢𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑡𝑜 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝑅𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜 [6] × 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠 𝐷𝑒𝑝𝑡ℎ 𝐷𝑎𝑚𝑎𝑔𝑒 [6]))} X SCAAD Factor [7]
[2] Assessor’s Data
[3] Table 8
[4] Table 7
[5] Table 9
[6] Table 10
[7] Based on parcel location; see Figure 6.
Equation 3: Proposed Parcel Assessment
𝑃𝑎𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑙 𝐿𝐵𝑈 =
𝑂𝐵𝑈
30 + 𝐶𝐵𝑈
𝐂𝐚𝐥𝐜𝐮𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐏𝐚𝐫𝐜𝐞𝐥 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 = 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒍 𝑳𝑩𝑼 × 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑹𝒂𝒕𝒆 𝒑𝒆𝒓 𝑳𝑩𝑼 [𝟖] [8] Table 14; 𝐀𝐬𝐬𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐫 L𝐁𝐔 = $0.001415
ATTACHMENT E 1579
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 56 Example Assessment Calculations
The following examples illustrate the application of the assessment equation to determine the annual assessment for several hypothetical properties.
Example 1
Consider a 0.16-acre single-family residential property the following property characteristics.
O&M Breach Depth (ft)
Csr L3 8
Csr R1 1
OBU Calculation
Land Use Category – Single-Family
From Table 5, Representative Levee Length: Csr L3- 2.6353 miles and Csr R1- 2.4215 miles From Table 7, Average Structure Sq. Ft. – 9,000 sq ft per acre From Table 8, the Relative Damage per Acre - $5,000 per acre From Table 9 and Table 10, the Structure Replacement Value - $111.67 per square foot; Structure Depth Damage 58.00% for 8 ft and 19.25% for 1 ft; Structure to Contents Ratio of 50.00%; Contents Depth Damage of 32.05% for 8ft and 11.00% for 1 ft
𝑶𝑩𝑼 (𝑪𝒔𝒓 𝑳𝟑) = 2.6353 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑥 {(0.16 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $5,000 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒) + (9,000 𝑠𝑞 𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑥 0.16 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $111.67 𝑥 (58.00% + 50% 𝑋 32.05%)} = 315,817
𝑶𝑩𝑼 (𝑪𝒔𝒓 𝑹𝟏) = 2.4215 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑥 {(0.16 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $5,000 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒) + 9,000 𝑠𝑞 𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑥 0.16 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $111.67 𝑥 (19.25% + 50% 𝑋 11.00%) } = 98,309
Total OBU = 315,817 + 98,309 = 414,126
CBU Calculation
From Table 7, Average Structure Size – 9,000 sq ft per acre From Table 8, the Relative Damage per Acre - $5,000 per acre From Table 9 and Table 10, the Structure Replacement Value - $111.67 per square foot; Structure Depth Damage for 6 ft (5ft with finished floor) – 44.70%; Structure to Contents Ratio of 50.00%; Contents Depth Damage of 25.05% for 6 ft (5ft with finished floor) SCAAD Factor of 1
Capital Depth (ft)
100-Year 6
ATTACHMENT E 1580
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 57 𝑪𝑩𝑼 = {(0.16 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $5,000 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒)
+ (9,000 𝑠𝑞 𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑥 0.16 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $111.67 𝑥 (44.7% + 50% 𝑥 25.05%)} 𝑥 1 = 92,820
Total LBU = 414,126/30 + 92,820 = 106,624
Assessment Calculation
𝑪𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑷𝒂𝒓𝒄𝒆𝒍 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 = (106,624 𝑥 0.001415) = 150.84 [𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕] = $𝟏𝟓𝟎. 𝟖𝟒
Example 2
Assume a 1.5-acre commercial property the following property characteristics:
O&M Breach Depth (ft)
Brc L2 3
Brc L3 4
OBU Calculation
Land Use Category - Commercial
From Table 14, Representative Levee Length: Brc L2 – 2.7578 miles and Brc L3 – 0.9300 miles From Table 7, Average Structure Size - 8,800 sqft per acre From Table 8, the Relative Damage per Acre - $7,000 per acre From Table 9 and Table 10, the Structure Replacement Value - $85.56 per square foot; Structure Depth Damage 31.20% for 3 ft and 32.40% for 4 ft; Structure to Contents Ratio of 51.00%; Contents Depth Damage of 82.20% for 3ft and 83.40% for 4 ft
𝑶𝑩𝑼 (𝑩𝒓𝒄 𝑳𝟐) = 2.7578 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑥 {(1.50 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $7,000 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒) + (8,800 𝑠𝑞𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑥 1.5 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $85.56 𝑥 (31.20% + 51% 𝑥 82.20%)} = 2,589,156
𝑶𝑩𝑼 (𝑩𝒓𝒄 𝑳𝟑) = 0.9300 𝑚𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑥 {(1.50 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $7,000 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒) + (8,800 𝑠𝑞𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑥 1.50 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $85.56 𝑥 (32.40% + 51% 𝑥 83.40%)} = 885,672
Total OBU = 2,589,156+ 885,672 = 3,474,828
CBU Calculation
From Table 7, Average Structure Size - 8,800 sqft per acre Capital Depth (ft)
100-Year 6
ATTACHMENT E 1581
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment
Preliminary Engineer’s Report
March 16, 2023
1808000 LCMA Preliminary Engineer's Report 2023 0316.docx 58 From Table 8, the Relative Damage per Acre - $7,000 per acre From Table 9 and Table 10, the Structure Replacement Value - $85.56 per square foot; Structure Depth Damage for 6 ft (5ft with finished floor) – 32.40%; Structure to Contents Ratio of 51.00%; Contents Depth Damage of 83.40% for 6 ft (5ft with finished floor ) SCAAD Factor of 1
𝑪𝑩𝑼 = {(1.5 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $7,000 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒)
+ (8,800 𝑠𝑞𝑓𝑡 𝑝𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒 𝑥 1.50 𝑎𝑐𝑟𝑒𝑠 𝑥 $85.56 𝑥 (32.40%
+ 51% 𝑥 83.40%))} 𝑥 1 = 952,413
Total LBU = 3,474,828/30 + 952,413 = 1,068,241
Assessment Calculation
𝑪𝒂𝒍𝒄𝒖𝒍𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒅 𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 = (1,068,241 𝑥 0.001415) = 1,511.19 [𝑷𝒓𝒐𝒑𝒐𝒔𝒆𝒅 𝑨𝒔𝒔𝒆𝒔𝒔𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕] = $𝟏, 𝟓𝟏𝟏. 𝟏𝟗
ATTACHMENT E 1582
San Joaquin Area
Flood Control Agency
Levee Construction and
Maintenance Assessment
(LCMA)
Appendix A
KSN, Technical Memorandum,
LCMA, Incremental O&M Costs LSJRP,
February 23, 2023
San Joaquin Area Flood Control Agency
Date: March 16, 2023
ATTACHMENT E 1583
2494-0010
08-300
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 7, 2023
Revision 1
Project: Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment District Subject: Incremental Operations and Maintenance Costs
Lower San Joaquin River Project
Prepared by: Erik E. Almaas, PE
Reviewed by: Christopher H. Neudeck, PE
1. Introduction
The San Joaquin County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (SJCFCWCD) and the San Joaquin Flood Control Agency (SJAFCA) are currently planning the Levee Construction and Maintenance Assessment (LCMA) District. The proposed assessment would provide funding for the following:
Current budget deficiencies for operations and maintenance (O&M) of the existing Federal levee and channel facilities under the jurisdiction of SJCFCWCD within Zone 9. Local cost share for the capital costs for the Lower San Joaquin River Project (LSJRP). Incremental O&M costs resulting from the implementation of the LSJRP.
The evaluation of funding requirements for the first two components listed above is currently underway by Larsen Wurzel & Associates, Inc. (LWA). Kjeldsen, Sinnock & Neudeck, Inc. (KSN) has been requested to evaluate the third component listed above. This technical memorandum summarizes this evaluation and provides a summary of the results of the incremental O&M costs resulting from the implementation of the LSJRP.
2. Data Sources
The existing data sources that were utilized in this evaluation are as follows:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). San Joaquin River Basin, Lower San Joaquin River, CA, Final Integrated Interim Feasibility Report. January 2018. (USACE Report) State of California, Department of Water Resources (DWR). Flood System Long-Term Operations, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement Cost Evaluation, Central Valley Flood Protection Plan, 2017 Update. January 2017. (DWR Report)
3. Project Understanding and Assumptions
For the purposes of estimating incremental O&M costs associated with the LSJRP, the Recommended Plan (i.e., Alternative 7A) within the USACE Report was used as a basis for evaluation. The LSJRP consists of 20.4 miles of existing levees to be rehabilitated and 2.0 miles of new levees. A map of the proposed remediation measures and levee reach names used in this evaluation are shown below in Figure 1.
ATTACHMENT E 1584
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
March 7, 2023