City Council and Concurrent Authorities
May 23, 2023

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
The principal Federal regulatory agency responsible for the safe use and handling of hazardous materials is the EPA. Key Federal statutes pertaining to hazardous wastes are listed below. Other applicable Federal regulations are contained primarily in CFR Titles 29, 40 and 49.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-264
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Federal
 Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. §9601, et seq.
 Hazardous Materials Regulations (Title 49 CFR, Parts 100-185) (rail transport)  Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. §6901, et seq.  Worker Safety Requirements
State
 Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations
 California Emergency Response Plan (Governor’s Office of Emergency Services)  Emergency Services Act
 Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act of 1985  Hazardous Waste Control Act
 Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.95, Article 1)  Worker Safety Requirements (Title 8 California Code of Regulations (CCR)) Local
 City of Lathrop General Plan (2004) (Goal 4, Policies 4 and 6)  City of Manteca General Plan (2003) (Goal S-5, Policies S-P-15, S-P-16, S-P-17; Goal S-6)  City of Stockton General Plan (2007)
 San Joaquin County General Plan (Policies 1, 2 and 4) Existing Conditions
A Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Summary Report (USACE, 2014) was completed for all areas where construction work could occur under any of the action alternatives. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment of Old Mormon Slough was also completed (Kleinfelder, 2013). The assessment consisted of a records investigation, interviews and site reconnaissance and focused on the Old Mormon Slough between the Stockton Diverting Canal and the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel. The HTRW Summary Report consisted of a records and literature review focused on the construction footprint and the area immediately adjacent for all of the LSJR action alternatives. The area of HTRW study for this summary report was defined as buffer areas within 0.25 miles along 40 miles of the proposed levees identified in Alternatives 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b excluding the Old Mormon Slough (see Chapter 3, Figures 3-12 and 3-13 [Alternatives 9a and 9b] for the location of Mormon Slough). T he levees are located near the city of Stockton, San Joaquin County, California.

There are 40 Underground Storage Tank (UST) sites in northeast and northwest Stockton sections and 20 known Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) in both sections. The EPA’s Emergency Response Notification System (ERNS) records show incidents of releases of oil and hazardous substances. There are a large number of such incidents throughout the HTRW area of study, especially in northeast and northwest Stockton. Several of the sites referred to the Regional Water Quality Control Board are likely to contain contaminated groundwater on- site and potentially off -site. These groundwater HTRW sites could affect worker safety, dewatering operations or excavation work depending on the depth to groundwater and magnitude of the groundwater plumes. Out of the 61 sites in the HTRW study area listed in the GeoTracker

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-265
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

website, 36 are in the “Completed – Case Closed” status and the majority of those open sites are undergoing remediation or being assessed by California Water Board.

Overall, the EnviroStor website showed a total of 22 hazardous waste and clean-up sites in the HTRW study area. These sites are present in all of the alternatives. The sites were primarily chemical companies and petroleum companies all located in northeast and northwest Stockton. Out of the 22 sites, 8 of them were in “No Further Action” status and the rest were either open or referred to other agencies. In addition to the hazardous materials described above, buildings and other infrastructure in the project area may include component materials that are hazardous, such as lead paint or asbestos.

ASSESSMENT METHODS AND BASIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Assessment Methods
Regulatory database search reports and regulatory agencies’ websites were reviewed and assessed for HTRW sites in the study area. For the purposes of the HTRW analysis, the study area was defined as buffered areas within 0.25 miles along 40 miles of the proposed levees identified in Alternatives 7a, 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b that are located in northeast, northwest and south Stockton.

In order to identify HTRW sites in the study area, USACE:
 Reviewed Federal, State and local environmental databases;  Reviewed hazardous waste sites and clean -up sites in EnviroStor of California (CA) Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) and GeoTracker of CA State Water Resources Control Board and;
 Reviewed information about Naturally Occurring Asbestos in the CA Department of Conservation website.

The following sources were reviewed for HTRW sites in the HTRW Study Area (Fig 2).  Environmental Data Resources (EDR) Database Search Reports (in Attachments 1-6)  EnviroStor website (http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public)  GeoTracker web site (http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov)  Department of Conservation
(http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/hazardous_minerals/asbestos/Pages/index.aspx)

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-266
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Basis of Significance
The thresholds for determining the significance of impacts for this analysis are based on the environmental checklist in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines. These thresholds also encompass the factors taken into account under NEPA to determine the significance of an action in terms of its context and the intensity of its impacts. The alternatives under consideration were determined to result in a significant impact related to hazards and hazardous materials if they would do any of the following:
 Create a significant hazard to th e public or the environment through the routine transport use or disposal of hazardous materials or through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.  Emit hazardous emissions or involve the handling of hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.  Be located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to California Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, create a significant hazard to the public or the environment (Health & Safety Code § 65962.5).

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
Under the No Action Alternative, the levee improvement project would not be constructed, therefore, there would be no construction-related effects from HTRW (e.g. accidental spills of hazardous materials) in the project area. However, the existing flood risk would continue, whic h could potentially lead to significant flooding and levee failures in a future flood event.

Without levee improvements, there is the continued high risk of levee failure and continuing under seepage and loss of levee foundation soils. If a levee overtopping or breach were to occur, flood fighting and other emergency response activities would occur. Flood waters could release contaminants from buildings and other infrastructure (e.g., lead paint and asbestos), stored chemicals, septic systems and flooded vehicles, all of which could contaminate the SJR, the Calaveras River, French Camp Slough and Delta sloughs, as well as soil and groundwater in the project area. These contaminants would likely exceed acceptable established water quality standards and impair beneficial uses of the river, its tributaries and sloughs in project area, including downstream drinking water intakes. Effects on the water supply system could be particularly severe in a flood event, as a single break in a water delivery pipe or main could contaminate the entire city’s water supply. All breaks and leaks would need to be repaired and the pipes of every house would need to be flushed to remove contamination before residents and businesses could rely on safe water.

Depending on the severity and location of the flooding and contamination, this effort could take a significant amount of time.

Flood damage to homes and other structures can render them dangerous due to structural damage and contamination. Electrical systems could be damaged by flooding, posing potential fires and natural gas leaks that could result in poisoning through inhalation of fumes or could cause a sudden explosion if sparked. The likelihood of a significant amount of mold production is high after a flood event. Mold not only threatens the physical integrity of structures, but also poses its own health risks. Mold can cause lung infections, skin irritations and other health dangers, especially for those with asthma, allergies or suppressed immune systems. Additionally, the floodwaters themselves and ponds left behind, could provide a wide breeding ground for mosquitoes and the incidence of West Nile Virus and other diseases would likely increase. The magnitude of the impacts described above would depend upon the location of the levee breach, severity of the storm and river flows at the time of flooding. Predicting these events and providing a determination of significance is not possible based on available informat ion. Thus, identification of potential effects from levee failure is too speculative for meaningful consideration.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-267
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the No Action Alternative, regular O&M of the levee system would continue as presently executed by the local maintaining entities (subject to revision of the governing O&M manual). Such activities include hand and mechanical (mower) removal of weeds, spraying of weeds with approved pesticides, minimal tree or shrub trimming up to four times a year, monthly control of burrowing rodent activity by baiting with pesticide and reconditioning of levee slope and road as needed. Normal O&M activities would be short - term and small scale; thus, impacts from HTRW from continued O&M activities would be less than significant.

ALTERNATIVE 7A
Construction activities for Alternative 7a would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants to operate construction equipment and vehicles such as excavators, compactors, haul trucks and loaders. In some parts of the project area, these materials would be used or transport ed within one quarter mile of an existing school. Construction contractors would be required to use, store and transport hazardous materials in compliance with Federal, State and local regulations during project construction and operation.

However, fuels and lubricants could be accidentally released into the environment at the construction site and along haul routes, causing environmental or human exposure to these hazards.

The implementation of environmental commitments, including SWPPP, BSSCP, SPCCP and the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, would ensure minimal risk of accidental spills and releases into the environment. Any hazardous substance encountered during construction would be removed and properly disposed of by a licensed contractor in accordance with Federal, State and local regulations. Compliance with applicable regulations would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during transport and construction activities.

There is the potential that known or previously undocumented hazardous materials could be encountered at project sites. Where buildings or other infrastructure must be moved or removed, there would be a potential for exposure to hazards, such as lead paint and asbestos. Excav ation and construction activities at or near areas of currently unrecorded soil or groundwater contamination could result in the exposure of construction workers, the general public and the environment to hazardous materials such as petroleum hydrocarbons, pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, contaminated debris or elevated levels of other chemicals that could be hazardous. There are known sites within the project area that contain hazardous materials. All known HTRW sites are required to be remediated in accordance with Federal, State and local laws by the non- Federal sponsor prior to project construction. No construction activities would occur in proximity to these sites until they have been completely remediated and meet all regulatory requirements. Const ruction activities in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown, recognized environmental concerns could result in public health hazards if they are not properly addressed prior to construction.

Implementation of Alternative 7a would result in post -construction O&M activities conducted per the approved USACE O&M manual applicable to this reach. Such activities include hand and mechanical (mower) removal of weeds, spraying of weeds with approved pesticides, minimal tree or shrub trimming up to four times a year, monthly control of burrowing rodent activity by baiting with pesticide and reconditioning of levee slope and road with a bull dozer as needed. Normal O&M activities would be short- term and small scale; therefore, impacts to HTRW would be less than significant.

The risk of incidental release of hazardous materials during their transport and use in project construction activities is low. Because normal O&M activities would be short -term and small scale and with implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, impacts from construction activities in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown recognized environmental concerns would reduce impacts to less than significant.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-268
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ALTERNATIVE 7B
Alternative 7b includes all of the same sites as Alternative 7a, but differs because it also includes RD 17 .

Alternative 7b construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants to operate construction equipment and vehicles. In some parts of the project area, these materials would be used or transported within 0.25 mile of an existing school. These potential impacts and regulation requirements are described under Alternative 7a. Compliance with applicable regulations would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during transport and construction.

The risk of incidental release of hazardous materials during their transport and use in project construction activities is low and because normal O&M activities would be short term and small scale and with the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, impacts from construction activities in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown recognized environmental concerns would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

ALTERNATIVE 8A
Alternative 8a includes all of the same sites as Alternative 7a, but differs in Central Stockton where additional levee improvements are proposed on the Lower Calaveras River and the Stockton Diverting Canal. Construction activities for Alternative 8a would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants to operate construction equipment and vehicles. In some parts of the project area, these materials would be used or transported within 0.25 mile of an existing school. These potential impacts are described under Alternative 7a. Compliance with appli cable regulations would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during transport and construction activities.

The risk of incidental release of hazardous materials during their transport and use in project construction activities is low and because normal O&M activities would be short -term and small scale and with the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, impacts from construction in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown recognized environmental concerns would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

ALTERNATIVE 8B
Alternative 8b includes all of the same sites as Alternative 7b , but differs in Central Stockton where additional levee improvements are proposed on the Lower Calaveras River and the Stockton Diverting Canal. Construction activities for Alternative 8b would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants to operate construction equipment and vehicles. In some parts of the project area, these materials would be used or transported within 0.25 mile of an existing school. These potential impacts are described under Alternative 7a. Compliance with applicable regulations wo uld reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during transport and construction.

The risk of incidental release of hazardous materials during their transport and use in project construction activities is low and because normal O&M activities would be short term and small scale and with the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, impacts from construction activities in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown recognized environmental concerns would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

ALTERNATIVE 9A
Alternative 9a includes the same sites as Alternative 7a, but differs in the addition of a flood bypass that would divert floodflows from the Stockton Diverting Canal into and through the Mormon Channel Bypass.

Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants to operate

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-269
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

construction equipment and vehicles. In some parts of the project area, these materials would be used or transported within 0.25 mile of an existing school. These potential impacts are described under Alternative 7a. Compliance with applicable regulations would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during transport and construction activities.

The risk of incidental release of hazardous materials during their transport and use in project construction activities is low and because normal O&M activities would be short term and small scale and with the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, impacts from construction activities in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown recognized environmental concerns would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

ALTERNATIVE 9B
Alternative 9b includes the same sites as Alternative 7b , but differs in the addition of a flood bypass that would divert floodflows from the Stockton Diverting Canal into and through the Mormon Channel Bypass.

Construction activities would involve the use of hazardous materials such as fuels and lubricants to operate construction equipment and vehicles. In some parts of the project area, these materials would be used or transported within 0.25 mile of an existing school. These potential impacts are described under Alternative 7a. Compliance with applicable regulations would reduce the potential for accidental release of hazardous materials during transport and construction activities.

The risk of incidental release of hazardous materials during their transport and use in construction is low and because normal O&M activities would be short- term and small scale and with the implementation of avoidance, minimization and mitigation measures, impacts from construction activities in the vicinity of known or potentially unknown recognized environmental concerns would reduce impacts to less than significant levels.

MITIGATION
Each of the action alternatives involve the transport and use of hazardous materials. These are materials commonly used in construction of levees and associated infrastructure. Parts of each action alternative are within 0.25 mile of 1 or more schools. The project partners and their construction contractor would work with local schools prior to beginning construction to ensure that all appropriate measures are in place to reduce risk to schools, students, teachers and other employees and maintain less than significant impacts from hazardous emissions and transport and use of hazardous materials.

Alternatives 7a , 7b, 8a, 8b, 9a and 9b all occur on or in close proximity to, hazardous material sites, possessing the potential to cause hazards to construction workers and the public. These alternatives all include the potential for encountering hazardous materials, such as lead paint and asbestos) during removal or relocation of buildings and other infrastructure. Project areas would be tested for contaminants prior to construction and any materials found would be disposed of in accordance with all Federal, State and local regulations at an approved disposal site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce the impacts from hazardous materials at project sites to less than significant.

If si gnificant time has elapsed between approval of this document and construction, additional investigations should be done to reduce risk. If construction activities would occur in close proximity to sites identified in the existing conditions section or in the Phase I Site Assessment, a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment should also be conducted. This would further reduce the risk of exposure to workers and the public during construction and assist in the remediation planning. If necessary, the assessment would include an analysis of soil or groundwater samples for the potential contamination sites that have not yet been covered by previous investigations before construction activities begin.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-270
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Recommendations in Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments to address any contamination that is found would be implemented before initiating ground-disturbing activities. In addition, the following measures would be implemented before ground-disturbing or demolition activities begin, in order to reduce health hazards associated with potential exposure to hazardous substances:
 Complete a Phase I Site Assessment prior to completing preconstruction designs and initiating construction.
 Prepare a site plan that identifies any necessary remediation activities appropriate for proposed land uses, including excavation and removal of contaminated soils and redistribution of clean fill material on the project site. The plan would include measures that ensure the safe transport, use and disposal of contaminated soil and building debris removed from the site, as well as any other hazardous materials. In the event that contaminated groundwater is encountered during site excavation activities, the contractor would report the contamination to the appropriate reg ulatory agencies, dewater the excavated area and treat the contaminated groundwater to remove contaminants before discharge into the sanitary sewer system. The contractor would be required to comply with the plan and applicable Federal, State and local laws.  Notify appropriate Federal, State and local agencies if evidence of previously undiscovered soil or groundwater contamination is encountered during construction. Any contaminated areas would be cleaned up in accordance with the recommendations of the Ce ntral Valley RWQCB, California DTSC or other appropriate Federal, State or local regulatory agencies.  A worker health and safety plan would be prepared before the start of construction that identifies, at a minimum, all contaminants that could be encountered during construction; all appropriate worker, public health and environmental protection equipment and procedures to be used during project activities; emergency response procedures; the most direct route to the nearest hospitals; and a Site Safety Officer. The plan would describe actions to be taken if hazardous materials are encountered on-site, including protocols for handling hazardous materials, preventing their spread and emergency procedures to be taken in the event of a spill.  Retain licensed contractors to remove all underground storage tanks.

CULTURAL RESOURCES
This chapter describes the environmental setting associated with cultural resources, assesses the effects to cultural resources that would result from implementation of the proposed action and presents mitigation measures that would reduce these effects to less than significant. The key sources of data and information used in the preparation of this chapter are listed below.  Review of existing information.
 Consultation with interested parties.
 Archival research.
 Reconnaissance surveys of selected previously recorded cultural resources.

Cultural resources are defined in this chapter as prehistoric and historic archaeological site s, the historic built environment and traditional cultural properties.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-271
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Regulatory Framework
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
The proposed project would require that USACE comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA) and its implementing regulations (36 CFR 800, Section 106). Section 106 requires that, before beginning any undertaking, a Federal agency must take into account the effects of the undertaking on historic properties (cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places [NRHP]) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation an opportunity to comment on these actions. Federal agencies may comp ly with Section 106 by either completing the management steps indicated in the regulations (36 CFR Part 800) or preparing an agreement document that describes the particular process an agency will use to complete the same steps for a specific set of undertakings.

Cultural resources are eligible for the NRHP if they have integrity and significance as defined in the regulations for the NRHP. Four primary criteria define significance; a property may be significant if it displays 1 or more of the characteristics (36 CFR 60.4). (Criterion A) It is associated with events that made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; (Criterion B) is associated with the lives of people significant in our past; (Criterion C) embodies the distinct characteristics of a type, period or method of construction or that represents the work of a master or that possesses high artistic values or represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or (Criterion D) it has yielded or is likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

Some types of cultural resources are not typically eligible for the NRHP. These resources consist of cemeteries, birthplaces, graves of historical figures, properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes, structures that have been moved from their original locations, reconstructed historic buildings, properties primarily commemorative in nature and properties that have achieved significance within the past 50 years. These property types may be eligible for the NRHP, however, if they are integral parts of eligible districts of resources or meet the criteria considerations described in 36 CFR 60.4.

In addition to possessing significance, a property must also have integrity to be eligible for listing in the NRHP. The principle of integrity has seven aspects: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association (36 CFR 60.4). To retain historic integrity, a property needs to possess several and usually most, of these aspects (National Park Service, 2002). The evaluation of a resource’s integrity in relation to its significance will be conducted as prescribed in National Register Bulletin No. 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation (National Park Service, 2002).

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-272
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Section 106 review process typically consists of the following major steps:
 Identify the Federal agency undertaking.
 Identify the area of potential effects.
 Initiate Section 106 process.
 Identify historic properties.
 Evaluate effects to historic properties.
 Resolve adverse effects.

State
Under CEQA, a cultural resource is considered important if it meets the definition of “historical resource or unique archaeological resource.” Public Resource Code (PRC) Section 5020.1(j)) states:
“Historical resource” includes, but is not limited to, any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record or manuscript which is historically or archaeologically significant or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political, military or cultural annals of California. Historical resources may be designated as such through 3 different processes.

Official designation or recognition by a local government pursuant to local ordinance or resolution (PRC Section 5020.1(k)). A local survey conducted pursuant to PRC Section 5024.1(g). Listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (PRC Section 5024.1(d)(1). The process for identifying historical resources typically is accomplished by applying the criteria for listing in the CRHR (14 CCR 4852), which states that a historical resource must be significant at the local, state or national level under one or more of the four criteria. (Criterion 1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage. (Criterion 2) It is associated with the lives of persons important in our past. (Criterion 3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region or method of construction or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values. (Criterion 4) It has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

To be considered an “historical resource” for the purpose of CEQA, the resource must also have integrity, which is the authenticity of a resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance. Resources, therefore, must retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling and association. It also must be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is eligible for listing in the CRHR (14 CCR 4852[c]).

The State also recognizes the importance of “unique archaeological resources” defined in PRC Section 21083.2 as an archaeological artifact, object or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria.
 Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and for which there is a demonstrable public interest.
 Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.
 Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-273
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In most situ ations, resources that meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource also meet the definition of historical resource. As a result, it is current professional practice to evaluate cultural resources on their eligibility for listing in the CRHR. For the purposes of this cultural resources study, a resource is considered important if it meets the CRHR eligibility (significance and integrity) criteria.

Existing Conditions
Cultural History
This section provides an overview of the context and chronology of the human use of the LSJR Basin and the Stockton region. Portions of this section were excerpted from Rosenthal and Whittaker (2009), AECOM (2010) and Jones, Bartoy, Blind and Holson (2006).

Prehistoric Setting
The complexity of the archaeological record in the central California Delta region has resulted in the development and refinement of local sequences with specific cultural traits and chronologies (Hughes, 1994). Fredrickson (1974) proposed a tripartite scheme - Archaic, Emergent and Ethnographic - each with subdivisions, appropriate characteristics and chronological ranges. The Lower Archaic (10,000-6000 B.P.) and the Initial Middle Archaic (6000- 4500 B.P.) are not well known from San Joaquin County and are primarily represented from the research completed at Los Vaqueros Reservoir to the southwest (Meyer and Rosenthal, 1997). The other divisions of the Archaic, Emergent and Ethnographic are reasonably well represented in the central Delta area. Additional details on the chronology and characteristics of these cultural divisions are presented in Fredrickson (1994a-b) and summarized below.

The Terminal Archaic period is noted as having side- notched and stemmed projectile points, rectangular abalone ornaments, shaped and unshaped mortars and pestles and rectangular Olivella shell beads (Fredrickson, 1966). Subsistence focused on nuts and berries as well as bay -shore resources (shellfish, marine fishes and mammals), freshwater fish, shellfish and terrestrial mammals (Banks an d Orlins, 1985; Simons, 1992).

Upper Archaic sites are characterized by a bone tool and ornament industry and unshaped and well-shaped mortars and pestles. Subsistence was still centered on nuts and seeds and faunal assemblages indicate an inclusion of marine and/or mammal resources (Broughton, 1997; Fredrickson, 1968). The presence of ocean shellfish in the archaeological record indicates a growing reliance on marine resources in interior valley sites (Fredrickson, 1968).

The Meganos Culture began to appear in the San Joaquin Valley and Delta during the Upper Archaic. It spread quickly into Contra Costa County and other parts of the Bay Area (Bennyhoff, 1968; Bennyhoff and Hughes, 1987). The Meganos Culture has been characterized as a blend of bay and Delta populations.

The time period between 1300 B.P. and 1100 B.P. was one of social change and upheaval in the Delta and Central Valley. The southern Wintuan groups (ancestral Patwin) pushed the Meganos peoples into the Sacramento Delta and the Bay Miwok grou ps from the West Delta to Suisan Bay (Bennyhoff, 1994b).

Costanoan groups began to move across the Carquinez Strait. Meganos cemeteries in the Alameda and Diablo districts were abandoned during this turbulent 200 year period (see Bennyhoff, 1994a-c). After 900 B.P., the Meganos peoples integrated with the Valley Yokuts groups in the San Joaquin Valley (Bennyhoff, 1994c).

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-274
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

During the Emergent Period, cremations became quite common and the bow and arrow were introduced with the concomitant use of small projectile points (Moratto, 1984; Schenck and Dawson, 1929). Bedrock mortar milling stations appear early in the Emergent Period and were used in association with other portable milling equipment. Nuts, berries and seeds were collected and processed. Large terrestrial mammals (e.g., deer, elk) appear to have been favored. Marine shellfish and marine fishes appear inland in much larger quantities than in previous periods (Fredrickson, 1968). Emergent Period sites, typically identified as large mound villages, are found every few miles along the SJR and its major tributaries.

Ethnographic Setting
The Northern Valley Yokuts occupied the land on each side of the SJR from the Delta to south of Mendota when first encountered by the Spanish. The Yokuts’ occupation of the northern parts of the Diablo range may be relatively recent, as linguistic evidence points toward an earlier Miwok occupation. The late prehistoric Yokuts were probably the largest indigenous culture in pre-contact California.

European contact with the Northern Valley Yokuts began with intermittent trips by Spanish explorers traveling through the Sacramento–San Joaquin Valley in the late 1700s and early 1800s. Missionaries lured or captured many Yokuts and kept them in various missions, although many escaped and returned home to the valley. Skirmishes between Yokut raiding parties and the Spanish and other Euroamericans resulted from repeated cattle rustling, which ultimately lead to the deaths of numerous Yokut individuals. A malaria epidemic in 1833 greatly diminished the Native population by killing thousands of Yokuts and people of surrounding groups. The local population was further reduced by the rapid appearance of miners during the Gold Rush era. Despite the fact that there was no gold in the Yokuts’ territory, miners making their way to the gold fields caused upheaval. The remaining native populations were later displaced by miners, who returned to farm the area (Wallace, 1978).

Historic-Era Setting
Spanish missionaries were among the first recorded European visitors to the study area (Bakic and Lewiston, 1999). In 1776, Juan Batista de Anza, along with Friar Pedro Font, traveled south along a portion of the SJR with a party of immigrants from Monterey (Beck and Haase, 1974). Other eighteenth- century explorers of the area included Pedro Fages (1772) and Francisco Eliza (1793). Nearly 30 years later, Moraga completed more intensive explorations into the area, exploring some distance up and down the Mokelumne and Cosumnes rivers (Beck and Haase, 1974).

The establishment of the Spanish mission system ensured strong Hispanic influence throughout early California. Mexican influences remained even after the succession of Alta California to the U.S. in 1848 (Beck and Hasse, 1974). Hispanic relations with Native Americans were strained as demonstrated by the Stanislaus War fought in southern San Joaquin County beginning in 1828 (Keefe, 2004).

The first Euroamerican to traverse the area was probably Jedediah Strong Smith, who opened the Sacramento Trail in th e late 1820s (Jones and Stokes, 2004). In 1832, French- Canadian hunters and an assemblage of travelers from Jedediah Smith’s party, Peter Ogden’s party and Ewing Young’s party first occupied the area known as French Camp, four miles south of present -day Stockton. The hunters were employed by the Hudson’s Bay Company to trap beaver, mink, bear and other fur-bearing animals.

Rancho del Campo de los Franceses, was established for the French-Canadian fur trappers of the Hudson’s Bay Company. Charles M. Weber, a native of Germany, traveled to French Camp on his way into California with the Bidwell- Bartleson party in the fall of 1841 (Hoover et al., 1990). Weber eventually settled in Pueblo de San José and went into partnership with William Gulnac, a blacksmith. In 1844, Gulnac received a large land grant, which included both French Camp and the site of the present-day Stockton. Gulnac and

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-275
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Weber organized a company of 12 men for the purpose of forming a colony at French Camp, which was the first colony of white settlers to settle land in the San Joaquin Valley (Hoover et al., 1990).

The c ity of Stockton first started when Weber turned his strategy from gold mining, in late 1848, to supplying gold-seekers. To this end, he took over Gulnac’s portion of their joint Spanish land grant (Rancho del Campo de los Franceses) in 1849 (City of Stockton, 2011; Schlichtmann and Paden, 1986). The area currently known as Weber Point is the location of his first permanent residence in Stockton. Stockton was named by Weber in honor of Commodore Robert F. Stockton, although he later regretted it (Tinkham 1880).

Stockton was incorporated on July 23, 1850 by the County Court and the first city election was held on July 31, 1850 (City of Stockton, 2011). Stockton received its charter from the State of California in 1851. Early settlers of Stockton resembled those of other California settlements and included gold seekers from Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, the Pacific Islands, Mexico and Canada (City of Stockton, 2011).

The Port of Stockton was the first and is still the largest, inland seaport in California. The first cargo boat traversed the San Joaquin in 1846. Two years later, in 1848, the first ferry service was established and the first freight vessel visited Stockton (Tinkham, 1880; Port of Stockton, 2014). During the 1850s, the port had become a center of commodity shipping and the supply center for the southern goldfields with 2000 to 3000 people landing in April of 1850 on th e way to the gold fields (Schlichtmann and Paden, 1986; Tinkham, 1880). Supplies would be unloaded at Stockton and then either ported via stage, wagon and eventually train to the southern mines (Schlichtmann and Paden, 1986).

By the 1860s, gold production was declining while agriculture was increasing in the region. From 1890 to 1920, Stockton was a very active port city. Grain was the major cargo for the ocean vessels that visited the port (McElhiney, 1992). Due to the export of farming commodities, Stockton grew into a major commercial center. By the lat e 1880s, it was a highly industrialized California city, second only to San Francisco (McElhiney, 1992). The Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel was completed and the Port of Stockton was modernized in 1933. Across the river from the Port of Stockton is Rough and Ready Island, which was developed into a U.S. Naval Supply Base during World War II and was important in the development of modern supply and transport methods. Shipping remains important to Stockton today.

The City of Stockton sits along the southeastern edge of the Delta and important historical themes from the Delta are mirrored in the development of the Stockton Area including agriculture, irrigation and reclamation. Early farming consisted primarily of subsistence g ardening during and following the Gold Rush, but the growth of the agricultural industry in the Delta was steady and by late 1870s, market gardens near Stockton were developing into formidable competitors for the San Francisco produce trade, which was dominated by Santa Clara Valley and bay area locations. By 1883, large amounts of garden vegetables were being shipped to San Francisco after the daily harvest was picked up by river steam ships. Thompson (1957) noted that the transition of the Delta region fr om garden to field agriculture occurred in the 20th century.

With the advent of electric pumps in 1905 and 1906, the previously used steam-powered and horse-powered devices were largely abandoned.

Large-scale irrigation was initially delivered through tidal gates and drainage ditches. Irrigation in the lower Delta relied on siphons and gravity flow while water wheels, windmills and low-head pumps were used on higher alluvial tracts. Irrigation in the Delta did not reach its full fluorescence until 1898 when the levee around the Moss Tract was breached to admit water and a steamer pumped water onto Rough and Ready Island (Thompson, 1957).

Settlements in the Delta were initially situated on naturally formed levees created by the merging of floodplains and tidal environments and consisted of single-family farms and farm labor camps. However, in the central Delta, sediments consisted primarily of peat and the natural levees were poorly developed.

The first levees in this area were built by crews of Chinese laborers using only shovels and wheelbarrows.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-276
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

After the development of a clamshell dredger in the late 1800s, larger, more stable levees were constructed and agriculture expanded (McElhiney, 1992). The early levees and even later structures built in the 1860s and 1870s rarely remained intact for more than 1 or 2 years and required frequent repairs and upgrades.

Dredges were being widely used by 1870 and allowed for the use of a wider variety of fill materials, such as clay from the channel floors, in levee construction. In addition to these themes, the city of Stockton also underwent significant urban development within and adjacent to the study area. This was highly dependent on the development of shipping capacities at the Port of Stockton.

Methods for Identification
This study was limited to a record search and reconnaissance site visits to recorded sites within 1000 feet of the alignments in the northern portion of the study area, excluding the elements associated with Old Mormon Slough and RD 17. A small segment (2700 feet) along Duck Creek was identified as part of the study area after the record search was completed, but will be included during future studies in accordance with the PA. The record search was completed in April 2014. The site loca tions were then digitized and reconnaissance site visits were performed for a selection of those sites, including both prehistoric and historic sites. Sites visited were selected based on these factors:
 Age
 Site Type
 Accessibility
 Eligibility
An attempt to visit the locations of all prehistoric sites was made; however, certain prehistoric site locations were not accessible at the time of the field visit. Other site types targeted include historic buildings and structures and historic archaeological sites. Sites excluded from selection include historic linear alignments such as levees, roads and railroads, given their consistent appearance. Additionally, no attempt to visit structures associated with the Naval Supply Annex Stockton Historic District (NSAS -HD) located on Rough and Ready Island, was made as these buildings have previously been found eligible for the register and mitigation completed in the form of a Historic American Building Survey (HABS). Photographs of the Rough and Ready Island waterfront along the project corridor were taken. Because rights of entry were not available for the properties, all observations were made from the crown of the levee. A total of six cultural resources within Alternative 7A (Recommended Plan) were visited on April 24, 2014 and were completed by Nikki Polson, M.A., USACE Archaeologist and Stefanie Adams, USACE Cultural Resources Staff (Polson and Perry, 2014). Sites visited are noted in Table 5-44. Additional surveys and other necessary work will be completed as per the PA.

Known Cultural Resources
A total of 32 previously conducted archaeological investigations occurred within the Alternative 7a (RP) study area. This includes archaeological surveys, test excavations, data recovery projects and other investigations. At least 30 cultural resources were previously recorded in the Alternative 7a (RP) study area.

In addition to these resources, an isolated Native American burial was removed; 8 historic structures are listed, but not mapped in the Historic Property Data File; and 8 additional bridges were identified in the Caltrans Bridge Inventory within the study area. Cultural resources within or adjacent to the study area include prehistoric sites, levees, water conveyance structures, railroads, bridges and historic structures. A portion of the Naval Supply Annex Stockton Historic District (NSAS-HD) is located within the study area.

Any resources associated with the district are discussed as part of the district, even if they would otherwise qualify under another category. In some cases, the eligibility of cultural resources within Alternative 7a

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-277
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(RP) was determined. Consultation concerning the eligibility of cultural resources for the NRHP and effects to historic properties will occur as stipulated in the PA. All recorded sites are summarized in Table 5-44.

Prehistoric Sites
A total of 3 prehistoric sites were previously recorded within the study area. Each was recorded as an occupation site and most are known to contain or have once contained human remains. There is an additional known unrecorded site that will be investigated. Based on visits to 2 of the 4 sites and previous site recordation, the overall integrity of these sites is highly suspect as all were subject to disturbance through some degree of modern development, including development of subdivisions and a gravel pit.

Because of the nature of these sites, it is likely that additional prehistoric cultural resources and burials will be discovered during project implementation.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-278
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 5-44: Recorded Cultural Resources within Alternative 7a (RP) Site Number Site Type/Name Site Age
Visited
Yes/No Eligibility
P-39-0112 Atchison, Topeka and Santa
Fe Railroad Historic No Not Determined
P-39-0220 Occupation Site Prehistoric Yes Not Determined P-39-0237 Occupation Site Prehistoric Yes Not Determined P-39-0244 Bear Creek Prehistoric No Not Determined
P-39-0425 Entry Gate, NSAS-HD Historic No Contributing Element, Mitigated P-39-0427 Marginal Wharf, NSAS-HD Historic No Contributing Element, Mitigated P-39-2513 Bridge Historic No Not Eligible
P-39-2824 Bridge, NSAS-HD Historic No Contributing Element, Mitigated P-39-2864 Railroad, NSAS-HD Historic No Contributing Element, Mitigated P-39-2865 Railroad Bridge, NSAS-HD Historic No Contributing Element, Mitigated P-39-4269 House Historic No Recommended Not Eligible
P-39-4270 House Historic No Not Determined
P-39-4399 Mokelumne Aqueduct Historic Yes Recommended Eligible P-39-4516 Levee Historic No Not Determined
P-39-4517 Levee Historic No Not Determined
P-39-4576 Naval Supply Annex
Stockton Historic District Historic Yes Eligible, Mitigated P-39-4854 Central United Methodist
Church Historic Yes Recommended Eligible
P-39-4917 Shima Tract Levee Historic No Not Determined
P-39-4918 Mosher Slough Levees Historic No Not Determined P-39-4922 Brookside Levee Historic No Not Determined
P-39-5152 Burns Cutoff Levee (Left
Bank) Historic No Recommended Not Eligible
NA Unrecorded Burial Prehistoric No Not Determined
Unrecorded Section
of P-39-00098 Union Pacific Railroad Historic No Not Determined NA Unrecorded Railroad Spur Historic Yes Not Determined Bridge 29C-058 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-096 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-134 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-140 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-141 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-239 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-240 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-243 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29C-399 Historic No Not Eligible
Bridge 29-C400 Historic No Not Eligible

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-279
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Conveyance
Portions of the Mokelumne Aqueduct and associated features are located within the study area. The aqueduct was recommended as eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion A for its association with the development of the east San Francisco Bay and Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. It was also recommended eligible under Criterion C as an example of the work of master engineer Arthur Powell Davis.

The system is still regularly maintained and fully operational.

Railroads
A portion of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad intersects the project area. The section of the railroad in the study area has yet to be recorded or evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the NRHP. A complex of railroad lines on Rough and Ready Island is discussed under the NSAS-HD.

Historic Structures
Three sites with historic structures were previously recorded within the study area, including the Central United Methodist Church, which was recommended eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criterion C for its architecture and engineering. The associated school building was recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP as its architectural style is well represented in the Central Valley. The remaining two structures are houses. One has been recommended not eligible for listing in the NRHP and the second remains unevaluated.

Bridges
Eleven bridges were recorded within the study area. All were listed as not eligible by CalTrans.

Historical Archaeological Site
A single historical archaeological site, P-39-0342, was recorded in the study area. It is a trash scatter. The site was determined not eligible for listing in the NRHP in 2000.

Naval Supply Annex Stockton Historic District (NSAS-HD) The remaining six resources are associated with the NSAS-HD. One of the recorded resources refers to the entire district, P-39-4576. P-39-4576 is the NSAS -HD located on Rough and Ready Island and occupies nearly 1500 acres. The NSAS -HD is organized as an orthogonal grid of streets oriented to the cardinal directions, with a network of rail line overlying the street grid. Buildings within the district include 38 warehouses, 9 transit sheds and open storage areas, as well as utilitarian and personnel support buildings.

Open areas around the periphery of the grid were also used as storage capabilities of the island. The railroad network includes a holding and reassignment yard and a classification yard. Spurs run from the rail yards to every warehouse and transit shed, as well as open storage areas. Only a portion of the NSAS -HD is located within the study area, including an entry gate, marginal wharf, vehicle bridge, the railroad spurs and railroad bridge (Table 5-44). The historic district was determined eligible for listing in the NRHP under Criteria A and C for its role in supplying the fleet during World War II and as an important example of new warehouse design developed during World War II. Because the operation of the historic district was being transferred from the Navy to the Port of Stockton and may cause adverse effects to the NRHP eligible site, HABS documentation was completed under Section 110(b)(2)a pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement in 1998 (HABS No. CA-682).

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-280
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Consultation
During the preconstruction engineering and design phase of the project, if authorized, USACE would then do a site-specific analysis including site-specific engineering and full site surveys in accordance wi th the processes set up in the PA. USACE shall prepare supplements to either draft or final environmental impact statements if: (1 ) USACE makes substantial changes in the proposed action that are relevant t o environmental concerns; or (2) there are significant new circumstances or information relevant to environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts. If necessary, USACE would re- initiate Section 106 consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the Tribes to address any potential change in impacts.

State Historic Preservation Officer
USACE determined that the proposed undertaking would likely result in adverse effects to historic properties. Substantial portions of the APE have either not been surveyed or have been surveyed over five or even 10 years ago. USACE has prepared and initiated consultation concerning a PA with SHPO and Native American Tribes to guide the Section 106 process during project implementation. Before any ground disturbing activities commence, complete archaeological and historic building surveys would be completed as necessary. The PA has stipulations to address the identification and evaluation of cultural resources and development and implementation of histori c property treatment plans (HPTPs). Specific mitigation measures would be developed in accordance with the PA to address any adverse effects on historic properties. A draft of the PA was submitted to SHPO on December 16, 2013. Comments from SHPO were received March 5, 2014. A copy of the draft PA can be found in the Engineering Addendum. The PA was executed by USACE and SHPO on May 11, 2016.

Native American Consultation
A list of potential ly 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 N ototomne/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. There were 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, Tri bal 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 Programmatic Agreement (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.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-281
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

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 Integrated Report 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 Indian, United Auburn Indian Community, and Buena Vista Rancheria Me-Wuk Indians.

A PA has been signed by USACE and SHPO on May 11, 2016 as part of the submittal of this document.

ASSESSMENT METHODS AND BASIS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Assessment Methods
Analysis of the potential impacts was based on evaluation of changes to historic properties within the study area that may result from implementation of the project. The term “historic property” refers to any cultural resource that has been found eligible for listing or is listed, in the NRHP. Section 106 of the NHPA outlines the process in which Federal agencies are required to determine the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. In making a determination of the effects to historic properties, consideration was given to:
 Specific changes in the characteristics of historic properties in the study area.  The temporary or permanent nature of changes to historic properties and the visual study area around the historic properties.
 The existing integrity considerations of historic properties in the study area and how the integrity was related to the specific criterion that makes a historic property eligible for listing in the NRHP.

Basis of Significance
Effects to cultural resources would be from four types of construction related actions: (1) effects to the integrity of the visual and physical setting of historic properties; (2) effects to the structural integrity of historic buildings and structures from demolition; (3) effects from earth moving activities; and (4) effects from clearing, grubbing and follow-on planting.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-282
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Any adverse effects on cultural resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the NRHP (i.e., historic properties) are considered to be significant. Effects are considered to be adverse if they:
 Alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that qualify that resource for the NRHP so tha t the integrity of the resource's location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association is diminished.
 Additionally, according to CEQA, a project that may cause a “substantial adverse change” in the significance of a “historical resource” or a “unique archaeological resource” may have a significant impact on the environment (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5, PRC 21083.2). CEQA defines a “substantial adverse change” as follows:
 Physical demolition, destruction, relocation or alterati on of the resource or its immediate surroundings such that the significance of a historical resource would be materially impaired.  Demolition or material alteration in an adverse manner of those physical characteristics of a historical resource which conve y its historical significance and justify its inclusion in or eligibility for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources, inclusion in a local register pursuant to Section 5020.1(k) of the PRC or its identification in a historical resources survey meeting the requirements of Section 5024.1(g) of the PRC.  Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries.

ALTERNATIVE 1 - NO ACTION
Under NEPA, this alternative reflects the expected future conditions without this project. Under CEQA, it reflects the existing condition at the time the Notice of Preparation was published (January 2010) and what would be reasonably expected to occur in the foreseeable future if the project was not approved. Levee erosion and seepage would continue. Historic properties currently behind the existing levees may be affected in the event of a levee failure and impacts would be significant and unavoidable.

ALTERNATIVE 7A
Alternative 7a has the potential to adversely affect cultural resources during placement of cutoff walls, seepage berms, deep soil mixing, levee raises and closure structures. The records and literature search, reconnaissance survey and the regional history of the area indicate that there are at least 30 previously recorded cultural resources and high potential for additional unknown historic properties within the study area. In particular, the prehistoric overview and previously recorded prehistoric sites suggests that there is a high probability that multiple prehistoric vil lages on the SJR and tributaries would be affected. The likelihood is also high for additional historic-era structures and features within the project. It is likely that historic properties will be adversely affected by this alternative. Effects to cultural resources under this alternative would be significant and unavoidable.

ALTERNATIVE 7B
Alternative 7b would incorporate the same proposed methods along the same levee elements as Alternative 7a, with the added improvements to RD 17. At least 30 cultural resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the study area. The addition of RD 17 would likely result in more resources located within the study area. A record search was not performed within RD 17 and given the similarity of riverside environment, it is likely that a similar number of historic and prehistoric resources are located in or near the study area. Historic properties are likel y to be adversely impacted by this alternative. Implementation of mitigation for effects to cultural resources under this alternative would reduce impacts, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-283
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ALTERNATIVE 8A
Alternative 8a would encompass the same proposed methods for reducing flood risk as Alternative 7a over an increased number of levee miles. At least 44 cultural resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the study area. The increased length of the project area would result in a greater likelihood for additional resources to be located within the study area. In particular, the prehistoric overview and previously recorded prehistoric sites suggests that there is a high probability that multiple prehistoric villages on the SJR would be affected. Historic properties are likely to be adversely impacted by this alternative. Implementation of mitigation for effects to cultural resources under this alternative would reduce impacts, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

ALTERNATIVE 8B
Alternative 8b would incorporate the same proposed methods along the same levee elements as Alternative 8a, with the added improvements to RD 17. At least 44 cultural resources are known to be within or adjacent to the study area. The addition of RD 17 would likely result in more resources located within the study area.

A record search was not performed within RD 17 and given the similarity of riverside environment, it is likely that a similar number of resources are located in or near the study area. Historic properties are likely to be adversely impacted. Implementation of mitigation for effects to cultural resources would reduce impacts, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

ALTERNATIVE 9A
Alternative 9a would incorporate the same proposed methods along the same levee elements as Alternative 7a, with the addition of channel improvements to create a bypass through Old Mormon Slough. At least 37 cultural resources were previously recorded within or adjacent to the study area. In particular, the prehistoric overview and previously recorded prehistoric sites, suggests that there is a high probability that multiple prehistoric villages on the SJR would be affected. A record search was not completed along Old Mormon Slough, but given the similarity of riverside environment, it is likely that a similar number of resources are located in or near the study area. The additional length of the project area could also result in a great er likelihood for additional resources to be located within the study area. Historic properties are likely to be adversely impacted by this alternative. Implementation of mitigation for effects to cultural resources would reduce impacts, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

ALTERNATIVE 9B
Alternative 9b would incorporate the same proposed methods along the same levee elements as Alternative 9a, with the addition to improvements to RD 17. At least 37 resources are known to be within or adjacent to the study area. The addition of RD 17 would likely result in more resources located within the study area.

A record search was not completed along Mormon Slough or RD 17 , but given the similarity of riverside environment, it is likely that a similar number of resources are located in or near the study area. Historic properties are likely to be adversely impacted by this alternative. Implementation of mitigation for effects to cultural resources would reduce impacts, but would remain significant and unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-284
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

MITIGATION
USACE began consultation concerning a PA with SHPO and Native American Tribes ( Environmental Addendum). A fully executed PA will be in place prior to project implementation. Specific mitigation measures would be developed in accordance with the PA to address any adverse effects on historic properties through the development of an HPTP. The HPTP would guide the level of data recovery, mitigation or actions taken to resolve adverse effects to the historic property. The main requirements of the contents of a research design and HPTP are located in the PA.

Depending on the nature of the adverse effect, actions to protect or mitigate for adverse effects to historic properties may include the following:
 Redesigning the project to avoid historic properties or sensitive areas.  Conducting data recovery excavations of archaeological si tes that cannot be avoided or are discovered during construction, based on an approved HPTP.  Monitoring all ground disturbing construction activities in areas where buried resources are anticipated.
 Surveying and protecting exposed inundated cultural deposits.  Protecting exposed archaeological sites from vandalism and erosion with fencing and revegetation or capping sites in an approved manner with appropriate material.  Preparing and implementing an inadvertent discovery plan.  If previously undiscovered resources are identified during an undertaking, suspend work while the resource is evaluated and mitigated to avoid any further impact.  Continue to consult with Native American or other groups to identify any traditional cultural properties or resource uses and address impacts.
 If human remains are discovered during any activities associated with bank protection measures, USACE, CVFPB and SJAFCA and their contractors will comply with State and Federal laws relating to the discovery and identification of human remains. In the case of Native American human remains found on non- Federal land, USACE and DWR will consult with the most likely descendant of the deceased regarding the disposition of human remains and associated burial items pursuant to the PA. This process includes contacting the coroner and developing a plan for the removal or protection of the remains pursuant to the PA.

Even with implementation of the PA, impacts to cultural resources would be significant and unavoidable.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-285
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

GROWTH INDUCEMENT
NEPA and CEQA require that an EIS and EIR discuss how a project, if implemented, could induce growth.

This section presents an analysis of the potential growth -inducing effects of the proposed project. Direct growth inducement would result if a project resulted in establishing a new demand for public services, facilities or infrastructure, such as the construction of new housing. Indirect growth inducement would result, for instance, if implementing a project would result in any of the following:
 Substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., commercial, industrial or governmental enterprises);
 Substantial short-term employment opportunities (e.g., construction employment) that indirectly stimulates the need for additional housing and services to support the new temporary employment demand; and/or
 Removal of an obstacle to additional growth and development, such as removing a constraint on a required public utility or service (e.g., construction of a major sewer line with excess ca pacity through an undeveloped area).

DIRECT GROWTH EFFECTS
Construction activities associated with implementation of the LSJR Project would generate short- term employment. It is anticipated that there is sufficient workforce in the Stockton Metropolitan Area to support construction of the project, if approved. Because the existing labor force would be used, there would be no need for additional housing to be constructed and no new demand for public services, facilities or infrastructure. O&M of the project would not result in an increase in employees beyond current levels. If additional employees were needed, those jobs would be anticipated to be filled by the existing labor force.

Therefore, implementation of the LSJR Project would not directly induce growth as a result of an increase in population or in construction of new housing and associated support infrastructure.

INDIRECT GROWTH EFFECTS
Within the project area, population growth and urban development are driven by local, regional and National economic conditions. Between 2006 and 2011, the annual average population growth rate of San Joaquin County was 1 percent. The projected annual population growth rate for the county between 2012 and 2017 is anticipated to be 1.7 percent (San Joaquin County, 2010). Local land use decisions are within the jurisdiction of the Cities of Stockton, Lathrop and Manteca and San Joaquin County each who have adopted general plans, consistent with State law, that provide an overall framework for growth and development within their jurisdictions and the study area (including North Stockton, Central Stockton and RD 17). There are currently 15,500 acres of undeveloped land in the study area, including 12,800 acres in RD 17 and the remaining 2,700 acres in North and Central Stockton.

While each of the proposed alternatives improves levees to protect existing populations in the study area, Alternatives 7b, 8b, and 9b also would provide protection of currently undeveloped land in RD 17, therefore removing flood risk as an obstacle to growth. The magnitude of this potential impact was considered during project planning, including identification of the RP. EO 11988, Floodplain Management Analysis, is provided in Section 3.6. The Lower SJR Project Feasibility Study concluded that strengthening the existing system of levees, along with two closure structures, is the only practicable alternative to address FRM to the greatest population (located in North and Central Stockton), while minimizing induced development in the less populated RD 17.

The Stockton, Manteca and Lathrop General Plans designated 5,300 acres of agricultural and open space in RD 17 for urban uses. These plans are currently under revision and it is likely that the acreage may be

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-286
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

reduced. Population growth associated with the urbanization of RD 17 would result in the physical development/expansion of housing, transportation systems, utilities and services, which could adversely affect the physical environment. As presented in Table 5-45, buildout of development proj ects in RD 17 would result in significant and unavoidable impacts including, but not limited to, conversion of prime farmland, criteria air pollutant emissions, increased light and glare, increased traffic congestion and increased noise levels. In addition, the cities worked together with San Joaquin County and other partners and Federal, State and local regulators to develop and approve the San Joaquin County Multi -Species Conservation and Open Space Plan (2000). This plan recognizes the planned urban development and defines a comprehensive plan for conserving and mitigating for impacts to sensitive natural resources.

USACE and SJAFCA lack the authority to approve or deny development projects or to impose mitigation to address significant environmental impacts due to land use decisions; that authority resides with the local cities and San Joaquin County. In addition, numerous Federal, State, regional and local agencies are specifically charged with protecting environmental resources and ensuring that planned development occurs in a sustainable manner. Together, these agencies exercise the authority to reduce the effects of development on the environment. However, development to accommodate population growth in RD 17 due to reduction in flood risk would still be expected to result in significant and unavoidable impacts.

CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
NEPA and CEQA require the consideration of cumulative effects of the proposed action combined with those of other projects. NEPA defines a cumulative effect as an environmental affect that results from the incremental effect of an action when combined with other past, present and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non -Federal) or person undert akes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). The CEQA Guidelines require an assessment of the cumulative impacts of a project when the project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively considerable.” CEQA requires cumulative impacts of a project be assessed with respect to past, current and probable future projects within the region. CEQA Guidelines (Section 15355) define cumulative effects as “two or more individual effects that, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (b), the purpose of the cumulative impacts discussion shall reflect “the severity of the impacts and their likelihood of occurrence” and shall “be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness and should focus on the cumulative impact to which the identified other projects contribute...” As further defined in Section 15130 (b), an element necessary to an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts is a list of past, present and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including those projects outside the control of the Lead Agency (list approach); or a summary of projections contained in an adopted general plan or in a prior environmental document that was adopted or certified that described or evaluated regional or area -wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact (plan approach). This cumulative analysis uses the list approach.

Section 5.23.3 includes a description of the past, present and future projects.

METHODOLOGY AND GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE OF THE ANALYSIS
Methodology
If a technical issue area includes a project -specific impact as a result of implementation of a proposed alternative, a cumulative context is presented. The cumulative impact analysis takes into consideration whether the projects identified in Section 5.23.3, in combination with each of the alternatives, would have the potential to affect the same resources. If there is not a combined effect, then a finding of no cumulative impact is made. If there would be a combined effect, then a determination is made if that combined effect would: (1) result in a significant cumulative impact; and (2) if a proposed alternative’s contribution to the effect would be considerable (consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15355).

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-287
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Finally, a determination is made as to whether mitigation measures recommended for the project -specific impact would reduce the contribution to the cumulative impact to a less than significant level; therefore, resulting in a less than significant cumulative impact. Mitigation of significant cumulative effects could be accomplished by rescheduling actions of proposed projects and adopting different technologies to meet compliances. Significance of cumulative effects is determined by meeting Federal and State mandates and specified criteria identified in this document for affected resources.

Geographic Scope
The context of the cumulative analysis varies by technical issue area. The cumulative context for each technical issue area is further defined by the specific geographic area affected. Air and water resources extend beyond the confines of the project footpr int since effects on these resources would not necessarily be confined to the project area. When the effects of the project are considered in combination with those of other past, present and future projects to identify cumulative effects, the other projects that are considered may also vary depending on the type of environmental effects being assessed. The following are the general geographic areas associated with the different resources being addressed in this analysis:

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-288
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 5-45: Geographic Area That Would be Affected by the LSJR Project Resource Area Geographic Area
Land use and agriculture San Joaquin County, City of Stockton Hydrology and Hydraulics
The LSJR project area, with regional implications, including: SJR, Lower Calaveras River, Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough and in the vicinity of the study
Water quality
The LSJR project area, with regional implications, including: SJR, Lower Calaveras River, Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough and in the vicinity of the study
Vegetation
The LSJR project area, with regional implications, including:
individual construction sites and SJR, Lower Calaveras River, Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough
Wildlife
The LSJR project area, with regional implications, including:
individual construction sites and SJR, Lower Calaveras River, Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough
Fisheries
The LSJR project area, with regional implications, including:
individual construction sites and SJR, Lower Calaveras River, Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough
Special-status species
The LSJR project area, with regional implications, including:
individual construction sites and SJR, Lower Calaveras River, Stockton Deepwater Ship Channel, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Fourteenmile Slough, Mosher Slough
Fish and aquatic habitats
SJR system, Mosher Slough/Creek, Fourteenmile Slough, Tenmile Slough, Fivemile Slough, Calaveras River, Stockton Diverting Canal, Old Mormon Slough, French Camp Sough and the South Delta, with regional implications for species
Cultural resources Individual ground disturbance sites, with regional implications Transportation and
circulation
Roadway network within the study area, including Cities of Stockton, Manteca, Lathrop and western portion of San Joaquin County, with regional implications
Air quality Regional (SJCAPCD); global for GHG emissions Noise Immediate vicinity of the individual sites of construction activity and haul routes.

Recreation Local (facilities near construction sites)
Visual resources Individual levee improvement sites and landscape level Hazards and hazardous
materials Individual construction and other ground disturbance sites SJCAPCD = San Joaquin County Air Pollution Control District

LSJR PROJECT IMPACTS
The potential impacts from implementing the LSJR project are summarized inTable ES-5. Significant and unavoidable impacts from implementing the RP, Alternative 7a, are shown in Table 5-45.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-289
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

PAST, PRESENT AND REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE PROJECTS This section briefly describes the past, present and future projects in the LSJR study area. The exact construction timing and sequencing of these projects are not yet determined or may depend on uncertain funding sources. A forecast of projects likely to be constructed concurrently with the proposed project is required to evaluate cumulative effects on environmental resources in the area. In addition, mitigation or mitigation measures must be developed to avoid or reduce any adverse effects to less than significant based on Federal and local agency criteria. Those effects that cannot be avoided or reduced to less than significant, are more likely to contribute to cumulative effects in the area.

Projects with a FRM Emphasis
The following descriptions of related or similar FRM projects include those that are under active consideration, were proposed or have some form of environmental documentation completed. In addition, these projects have the potential to affect the same resources and fall within the same geographic scope and are thus to be cumulatively considered. In particular, the affected resources are biological resources (riparian habitat, wildlife disturbance), agriculture, air quality and GHGs (climate change), hydrology and geomorphology. See Table 5-45 for the geographic scope of consideration for effects on those resources.

Delta Flood Emergency Facilities Improvement Project
Recovery from catastrophic failure of Delta levees will be undertaken by the State of Califo rnia, if necessary, to manage salinity for the environment and human use, which will also protect the brackish Suisun Marsh. As described in DWR’s Delta Flood Emergency Facilities Improvement Project, the State is working to ensure that it has the appropri ate infrastructure and supplies in the Delta to respond to and recover quickly and effectively from, major flood or earthquake disasters in the Delta. Locations of storage and transfer sites for stockpiled flood fight materials are identified:
 Establish two new material storage and transfer facility sites:
 Stockton West Weber Avenue; and
 Brannan Island State Park.
 Modify an existing material storage 5.23.3 facility at Rio Vista.  Establish new flood fight supply facilities at all three locations.  Make site preparations to support Incident Command Posts at Stockton West, Weber Avenue and Brannan Island State Recreation Area.
 In addition to the 223,000 tons of quarry rock stockpiled by DWR at Rio Vista and within the Port of Stockton, DWR would also stockpile up to 40,000 tons of quarry rock material of variable gradations less than 24 -inch-minus at Stockton West, Weber Avenue and Brannan Island and 20,000 tons of sand in Rio Vista for a total additional increment of 100,000 tons.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-290
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Designated Floodway Program
The CVFPB of the State of California administers the Designated Floodway Program, which addresses land use management within the floodway. This program provides a nonstructural way to keep development from encroaching into flood-prone areas. It also reduces future potential flood damages by preserving the reasonable flood passage capacities of natural watercourses. The CVFPB controls the Designated Floodway Program by adopting floodway boundaries, developing plans for modifications of boundaries and approving changes in acceptable use and types of structures within the floodways. Designated Floodway refers to the channel of the stream and that portion of the adjoining floodplain reasonably required to provide for the passage of a design flood. It is also the floodway between existing levees as adopted by the CVFPB (formerly the Reclamation Board) or the Legislature. Floodways in the study area are primarily limited to the areas between levees.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), Flood Mitigation Assista nce Program and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
These programs seek to reduce or eliminate the loss of life and property damage resulting from natural and human-caused hazards. In order to qualify for these programs, a community must be enrolled in the NFIP and have a Flood Mitigation Plan approved by the FEMA Regional Director. This plan must include a description of the existing flood hazard and identification of the flood risk including estimates of the number and type of structures at risk, repetitive loss properties and the extent of flood depth and damage potential.

A project must be cost-effective, not costing more than the anticipated value of the reduction in both direct damages and subsequent negative impacts to the area if these programs must compete for the funding. The Cities of Stockton, Lathrop and Manteca are enrolled in the NFIP. San Joaquin County’s enrollment covers the unincorporated areas of the County, which includes the study area outside of the Stockton, Lathrop and Manteca city limits.

SJR Levee Stability Program
Reclamation District No. 17 Levee Seepage Area Project (LSAP) The RD 17 LSAP consists of 3 phases of levee repairs to remedy levee seepage within the RD 17 levee system.

Phase 1 Project. In RD 17, improvements to some levee reaches consisted of reconstruction and extension of landside levee toe berms with earth and gravel fill, both landward and along the levee toe so as to reduce seepage exit gradients to less than 0.5. Project p roponents concluded that there was no NEPA trigger for the Phase 1 Project and this phase was found to be statutorily exempt from CEQA. The Phase 1 Project was found to be categorically exempt from CEQA because the work consisted of repairing existing publ ic facilities, involved no expansion of use (CCR 15301) and consisted of reconstructing existing facilities located on the same site. In addition, the Phase 1 Project was found to be categorically exempt because the facilities were planned to have the same purposes and capacity (CCR 15302). The levee elements selected for the Phase I Project were chosen because these elements lacked any sensitive environmental resources that would potentially be affected by construction activities. The Phase 1 Project was completed in 2008.

Phase 2 Project. Consisted of repairs and improvements to additional levee segments in RD 17 . Under CEQA, environmental impacts associated with the Phase 2 Project were addressed in the Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Phase II–RD 17 100 Year Levee Seepage Project (RD 17 2009). Project proponents determined that there was no NEPA trigger for the Phase 2 work.

Construction of the Phase 2 Project was completed in the summer of 2010.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-291
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Phase 3 Project. RD 17 is the lead agency for Phase 3 of the LSAP. A variety of levee improvements are being considered for the Phase 3 Project, including construction of seepage berms and setback levees, installation of slurry cutoff walls and chimney/blanket drains and improvements to dry land levees to reduce under seepage and through seepage gradients. Proposed levee improvements would occur along various sections of the RD 17 levee system starting near the southern boundary of the city of Stockton, through the city of Lathrop and to the western boundary of the City of Manteca. RD 17 initiated this effort in cooperation with DWR, CVFPB, USACE with the aim of reducing flood risk during a flood with a 1 percent chance of occurring in any given year or 0.01 AEP. USACE will have a Section 408 and, potentially, a Section 404 decision on this project. Section 408 authority and approvals are in Section 5.23.4. A Draft EIS/EIR for this project was prepared and circulated in September 2011. The Final EIS has not been released.

Paradise Cut
Calif & LLC/Cambay group is planning the Paradise Cut project. Improvements to Paradise Cut associated with the River Islands at Lathrop Project would increase floodwater conveyance capacity and storage capacity of Paradise Cut. These actions would be consistent with the South Delta Flood Conveyance Plan.

Central Valley Flood Protection Plan (CVFPP) of 2017
The State’s (DWR) comprehensive, system-wide plan for reducing flood risks to lands currently protected by the SJR Basin Flood Control Project lays out the State’s broad plan for the Central Valley. Through the 2017 CVFPP, DWR initiated the Regional Flood Management Planning effort to assist local agencies in developing long- term regional flood management plans. Plans should identify local needs, local and regional flood management priorities and establish a common vision for partners. The CVFPP identified nine regions (Upper Sacramento, Mid-Sacramento, Feather River, Lower Sacramento, Delta-North, Delta- South, Lower San Joaquin, Mid-San Joaquin and Upper San Joaquin), which have formed working groups led by a local agency and consists of representatives from flood management agencies, land use agencies, flood emergency responders, permitting agencies and environmental and agricultural interests. The regional plans will present local agencies' perspectives of flood management with a prioritized list of projects that need to be implemented to reduce flood risks in each region. Each plan will also present an assessment of the proposed project costs and benefits, considering the projects’ potential contributions to an integrated multi-benefit and basin-wide solution.

CALFED Levee System Integrity Program
The goal of the CALFED Levee System Integrity Program is to reduce risk to land use and associated economic activities, water supply, agriculture and residential use, infrastructure and the ecosystem from the effects of catastrophic breaching of Delta levees. Estimates predict that 520 miles of levees need modification and maintenance to meet the PL 84- 99 standard for Delta levees. The program continues to increase levee stability throughout the Delta.

Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study
USACE’s Delta Islands and Levees Feasibility Study (Delta Study) is assessing ecosystem restoration opportunities and flood risk problems in the Delta area. A Draft FR/EIS was released for public review in April 2014, tentatively recommending 90 acres of intertidal marsh restoration in the central Delta. Pending reviews, the report would be finalized as an interim feasibility report that would make recommendations on construction projects and/or additional studies for authorization by Congress.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-292
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Delta Plan
The Delta Plan was developed by the Delta Stewardship Council (DSC) and adopted on May 16, 2013. It became effective, with l egally-enforceable regulations, on September 1, 2013. It is a long -term, comprehensive management plan designed to meet the 2 co-equal goals of providing a more reliable water supply for California and protecting, restoring and enhancing the Delta ecosystem. The Delta Plan generally covers 5 topic areas and goals: increased water supply reliability, restoration of the Delta ecosystem, improved water quality, reduced risks of flooding in the Delta and protection and enhancement of the Delta.

The DSC does not propose constructing, owning or operating any facilities related to these 5 topic areas.

Rather, the Delta Plan sets forth regulatory policies and recommendations that seek to influence the actions, activities and projects of cities, counties, State, Federal, regional and local agencies toward meeting the goals in the 5 topic areas.

The Delta Plan could contribute to beneficial cumulative effects by setting forth regulatory policies and recommendations that influence projects in a man ner that would improve water quality , water supply reliability, FRM and increase habitat for fish and wildlife.

Navigation Projects
San Francisco Bay to Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel Deepening Project USACE, DWR and the Port of Stockton conduct annual maintenance dredging of the Stockton Deep Water Ship Channel. Annual maintenance dredging is performed to maintain the DWSC to authorized depths.

Fine sediments cause shoaling, which must be removed to maintain adequate depth for commercial shipping traffic using the navigation channels. Failure to perform maintenance dredging would result in unsafe conditions and a restriction to access to the Port of Stockton from the San Francisco Bay, both a substantial risk to human safety, as well as an economic harm to the Port and the commercial activities that use the Port’s facilities.

Dredged materials are removed by using a hydraulic cutter head suction dredge and a dragline and clamshell crane are used for rock placement. The material is then deposited at previously authorized Dredged Material Placement (DMP) sites. Dredge slurry is routed to the DMP sites via pipelines. DMP sites are diked and dredge slurry is allowed to settle and consolidate at these sites. Decant water is then discharged back into the waterway, from some sites, as determined during annual coordination. Dredged spoi ls are allowed to dry and remain stockpiled at the sites for periodic use for levee repairs, livestock grazing and other purposes.

Projects Affecting Fish and Wildlife That Use the Project Area As described in Sections 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 and 5.12, substantial long -term effects on vegetation, fish and wildlife are related to the removal of vegetation in compliance with the USACE levee vegetation management policy. Regarding wildlife, this could contribute to a cumulative effect when combined with other projects that adversely affect habitat for wildlife that use the vegetation on or near levees in the project area. Regarding fish, this could contribute to a cumulative effect when combined with other projects within the geographic range of the fish that would be affected. Thus, the FRM and navigation projects described above in Section 5.23.3 could also adversely affect the same species of fish or wildlife that would be affected by vegetation removal under the project. The projects described intend to improve habitat conditions for the natural environment and the plants and animals that depend upon it.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-293
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program
The goals of the CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program are to:
 Recover 19 at-risk native species and contribute to the recovery of 25 additional species.  Rehabilitate natural processes related to hydrology, stream channels, sediment, floodplains and ecosystem water supply.
 Maintain and enhance fish populations critical to commercial, sport and recreational fisheries.  Protect and restore functional habitats, including aquatic, upland and riparian, to allow species to thrive.
 Reduce the negative effects of invasive species and prevent additional introductions that compete with and destroy native species.
 Improve and maintain water and sediment quality to better support ecosystem health and allow species to flourish.

The Ecosystem Restoration Program, which is divided into the San Joaquin, Sacramento and Delta and Eastside tributary regions, includes the following kinds of actions:
 Develop and implement habitat management and restoration actions, including restoration of river corridors and floodplains, reconstruction of channel-floodplain interactions and restoration of Delta aquatic habitats.
 Restore habitat that would specifically benefit one or more at-risk species.  Continue major fish screen projects and conduct studies to improve knowledge of their effects.  Restore geomorphic processes in stream and riparian corridors.  Implement actions to improve understanding of at-risk species.  Develop understanding and technologies to reduce the effects of irrigation drainage on the SJR and reduce transport of contaminant (selenium) loads carried by the San Joaquin to the Delta and the Bay.
 Implement actions to prevent, control and reduce effects from nonnative invasive species.

Ecosystem Restoration Program actions contribute to cumulative beneficial effects on fish and wildlife species, habitats and ecological processes.

California Water Fix
On April 30, 2015, Governor Brown and Federal officials announced that they are proposing a new Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) sub-alternative, Alternative 4A, that would replace BDCP Alternative 4 (the proposed BDCP) as the State’s proposed project. Alternative 4A reflects the State’s proposal to separate the conveyance facility and habitat restoration measures into 2 separate efforts: California WaterFix and California EcoRestore. California EcoRestore, the primary habitat restoration program, would be overseen by the California Natural Resources Agency and implemented under the California Water Action Plan. These 2 efforts are a direct reflection of public comments and fulfill the requirement of the 2009 Delta Reform Act to meet the co- equal goals. DWR and the USBR prepared a partially Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report/Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement (RDEIR/SDEIS) that addresses the impacts of Alternative 4A. The RDEIR/SDEIS includes those portions of the DEIR/DEIS (for the BDCP) that were amended or supplemented bas ed on comments received and changes in impact analysis warranting another public review prior to publication of final documents.

Long Term Central Valley Project (CVP) BOs

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-294
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

BOs issued by USFWS and NMFS for CVP and the SWP determined that the existing fish passage structure at Fremont Weir was inadequate to allow normal fish passage at most operational levels of the Sacramento River. As a result, BOs required the USBR and/or DWR to increase inundation of suitable acreage for fish habitat within the Yolo Bypass and to modify operations of the Sacramento Weir or Fremont Weir to increase juvenile rearing habitat. The BOs also require restoration of 8,000 acres of tidal marsh habitat in the Delta to benefit Delta smelt and up to 20,000 acres of salmonid habitat restoration. The operations of the SWP and CVP are currently subject to the terms and conditions of these BOs until the new water conveyance infrastructure identified in the BDCP becomes operational. At that time, an integrated BO on coordinated long -term operation of the CVP and SWP will be completed by USFWS and NMFS.

Implementation of the BOs is expected to be compatible with the LSJR project.

SJR Restoration Program
The USBR, USFWS, NMFS, DWR, DFG and Cal EPA are participating in the S JR Restoration Program.

The goal of the program is to restore and maintain fish populations in the mainstem of the SJR below Friant Dam to the confluence of the Merced River and to reduce or avoid adverse water supply impacts on all of the Friant Division long-term contractors. The SJR Restoration Program involves operation of Friant Dam and downstream flow-control structures to release flows to the SJR and diversion of surplus water during wet hydrologic conditions to the Friant- Kern and Madera canals.

U.S. Department of Agriculture, NRCS Wetland Reserve Program California’s Wetlands Reserve Program focused on the restoration of a variety of wetland types throughout the State, including seasonal wetlands, semi -permanent marshes and vern al pools along the perimeter of the Central Valley, riparian corridors and tidally-influenced wetlands. The Wetland Reserve Program was used to restore land along the SJR that has experienced flooding.

USFWS, SJR National Wildlife Refuge
The SJR National Wildlife Refuge is located within the historic floodplain of the confluences of the San Joaquin, Stanislaus and Tuolumne Rivers and downstream from the confluence with Orestimba Creek.

Refuge lands consist of oak-cottonwood-willow riparian forest, pastures, agricultural fields and wetlands.

This refuge was established in 1987 under authority of the ESA, the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act. The original 1,638 acre refuge has grown tremendously through recent land acquisitions to 6,642 acres within an approved refuge boundary of 12,877 acres.

USFWS, San Luis National Wildlife Refuge
This 26,609- acre refuge is a mixture of managed seasonal and permanent wetlands, riparian habitat associated with 3 major watercourses and native grasslands/alkali sinks/vernal pools. This refuge primarily provides habitats for migratory and wintering birds. The largest concentration of mallards, pintails and green-winged teal in the San Joaquin Valley are found here. One of only 22 herds of the indigenous Tule elk is located here, as are a variety of endangered, threatened and sensitive species.

Development Projects.

Table 5-46 are within RD 17 boundaries in the Cities of Manteca, Stockton, Lathrop and in unincorporated areas of San Joaquin County.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-295
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

San Joaquin County Development Projects
Development projects in the sphere of influence of Stockton, Manteca and Lathrop that have the potential to affect similar resource areas such as biological resources, air and noise, have been included for analysis.

Table 5-46: Development Projects within RD 17
Jurisdiction
Date Approved/
Anticipated Location Size
Major Environmental
Impacts
City of Lathrop
Mossdale
Landing1,2
Much of the
overall
development is
complete.

West of I-5,
adjacent SJR in
RD 17
1,7000 units +
commercial space
West Lathrop Specific
Plan Draft
Environmental Impact
Report (City of Lathrop
1995:K-4)
Significant Unavoidable
Impacts
Loss of Prime Farmland
Increase in regional
criteria air pollutant
emissions
Increase in light and
glare
Increase in traffic
congestion
Increased potential for
flood damage
Mossdale
Landing
East
1,2
Much of the
overall
development is
complete.

West of I-5,
adjacent SJR in
RD 17
430 units +
commercial space
Mossdale
Landing
South1,2
Much of the
overall
development is
complete.

West of I-5,
adjacent SJR in
RD 17
450 units +
commercial space
Central
Lathrop
Specific
Plan
1 Entitlements
approved in
2004, annexed in
2005

3. Some
utilities and
roadways
installed. No
structures in
place. No
immediate plans
for further
construction.

West of I-5,
adjacent to SJR in
RD 17 (north of
Mossdale
Landing)
6,800 units + 5
million sq. ft.
office and
commercial
Central Lathrop specific
Plan Draft
Environmental Impact
Report (City of Lathrop
2004: 7-1; 7-5)
Significant Unavoidable
Impacts
Deficient level of service
at intersections and
highway segments
Increase in regional
criteria air pollutants
during construction
period
Increase in long-term
regional emissions
Increase in traffic noise
levels by 3 dBA or more
Noise levels would
exceed city’s “normally
acceptable” land use
compatibility standards

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-296
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Jurisdiction
Date Approved/
Anticipated Location Size
Major Environmental
Impacts
Loss of Important
Farmland in categories of
Prime, Statewide and
Local Importance
River Islands River Islands is
currently
working with the
State and
Federal agencies
to finalize the
permits needed
to begin
development.
(City of Lathrop
2010).

Stewart Tract
(bounded by
Paradise Cut, SJR
and Old River;
north of I-205 and
west of the SJR
Up to 11,000
units _ 2 golf
courses, 45-acre
town center, boat
docks, 260 acres
of parks, 600
acres of lakes and
waterways, 600
acres of open
space (City of
Lathrop 2002).

Includes
improvements to
Paradise Cut (a
flood control
bypass),
consistent with
the South Delta
Flood
Conveyance Plan
Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the
River Islands at Lathrop
Project (City of Lathrop
2002: 2-9 to 2-77).

Significant Unavoidable
Impacts
Degradation of freeway
and ramp operations on I-
205
Degradation of freeway
and ramp operations on I-
5 Increases in long-term
regional emissions
Odors associated with
water reclamation plants
Conversion of 3,620
acres of Important
Farmland in the Prime
and Statewide
Importance categories
Cancellation of up to
1,770 acres of
Williamson Act contracts
South
Lathrop
Specific
Plan
4 Pending –
NOP/IS issued
in 2006.

South of SR 120
at I-5/SR 120 split
689 acres GPA,
prezone,
annexation and
SP
Environmental Review is
pending
City of Manteca

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-297
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Jurisdiction
Date Approved/
Anticipated Location Size
Major Environmental
Impacts
Trails
Project5
Environmental
review process is
beginning.

Southwestern
portion of
Manteca,
southwest of the
intersection of
West Woodward
Avenue and
McKinley
Avenue. Adjacent
to the dry land
levee and near
Oakwood Shores.
477 acres, 1,651-
unit residential
development
Environmental review is
pending
Terra Ranch5 Tentative map
application has
been submitted.

Environmental
review process is
beginning.

Southside of West
Woodward
Avenue, one-half
mile west of
Airport Way;
southern boundary
is adjacent to the
dry land levee
Approx. 66 acres,
209 unit
residential
development
Environmental review is
pending
Macado5 The
environmental
impact report
has been
certified. No
application to
LAFCo has been
made; approval
of tentative map
is pending.

Southwest corner
of West
Woodward
Avenue and
Airport Way;
Southern
boundary is
adjacent to the dry
land levee
Approx. 155
acres, 590 unit
residential
development
Draft Environmental
Impact Report for
Machado Estates Vol. I
(City of Manteca 2007:

ES-5; 3-12)
Significant Unavoidable
Impacts
Conversion of Prime
Farmland, Unique
Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance
(59.9 acres) pg 3-12
Increase in emissions of
criteria pollutants
Unacceptable LOS on
freeway ramps and
mainline segments and
local roadways
City of Stockton
Weston
Ranch
Towne
Center
Project
1,6
City Council
approved
December 2,
2008. Much of
overall
development is
complete.

West side of I-5,
north side of
French Camp
Road
500,000 sq. ft
large-scale retail,
210,000 sq. ft
retail: shops,
restaurants,
commercial
Weston Ranch Towne
Center Mitigation
Monitoring and
Reporting Program (City
of Stockton 2008)
Significant and
Unavoidable Impacts

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-298
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Jurisdiction
Date Approved/
Anticipated Location Size
Major Environmental
Impacts
Conversion of Prime
Farmland (42.24 acres)
Deficient level of service
at Mathews Road/I-5
ramp
Traffic impacts at French
Camp Road/I-5
Interchange
Increase in emissions of
criteria air pollutants
San Joaquin County
Oakwood
Shores7
(Oakwood
Lake)
Approved and
partially
constructed.

Roads and
utilities in place,
but less than 10
housing units in
place. No
immediate plans
for further
construction.

South of SR
120/580 between
Lathrop and
Manteca
480 lots, 264
constructed;
approx. 45 will
be eliminated for
levee work4
Not Applicable: Former
sand and gravel
extraction site and former
site of Manteca
Waterslides; was
converted to lake and
resort community; went
into foreclosure in 2008
Notes: dBA = A-weighted decibels; I-5 = Interstate 5; GPA = general plan amendment; SP = specific plan; LAFCo = local agency formation commission; RD 17 = reclamation District No. 17; sq. ft. = square feet; SR 120 = State Route 120 1 City of Stockton 2006a:6-6
2 Mossdale Village Planning Area in the West Lathrop Specific Plan, approved in 2002
3 City of Lathrop 2010
4 South Lathrop Specific Plan: Notice of Preparation/Initial Study (City of Lathrop 2006)
5 Durrer, pers. Comm., 2010
6 Liaw. Pers. Comm., 2010
7 Griffin, pers. Comm., 2010
Source : Data compiled by AECOM in 2010

PROJECTS REQUESTING SECTION 408 APPROVAL
Non-Federal project partners desiring to modify Federal works must request permission from USACE under Section 14 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 USC 408), referred to as “Section 408 permission.” A number of projects in the Central Valley recently received 408 approval and others may request it. Table 5-47 summarizes those that received a letter of permission under Section 408 or that are seeking a letter of permission to alter a Federal project. These projects are listed for context.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-299
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 5-47: Projects Requesting Section 408 Approval
Project Lead
Agency
Letter of
Permission
Date
Letter of Permission Issued
Cache Creek Setback Levee DWR CA 22-May-13
West Sacramento Levee Improvement Project - CHP WSAFCA 29-Jun-11 West Sacramento Levee Improvement Project -
Rivers WSAFCA 29-Jun-11
West Sacramento - I Street Bridge WSAFCA 2010
TRLIA - Bear River Setback Levee + UPIC TRLIA 19-Jun-06 TRLIA - Upper Yuba River Levee Improvement
Project TRLIA 24-Mar-11
TRLIA - Feather River Segment 2 TRLIA 12-Dec-06
TRLIA - Feather River Segment 1 and 3 TRLIA 3-Aug-07
TRLIA - Toe Road TRLIA 9-Jul-13
Natomas Levee Improvement Project - Natomas
Cross Canal, Phase 1 SAFCA 19-Jul-07
Natomas Levee Improvement Project - Sacramento
River, Phase 2 SAFCA 2/20/2009 &
5/22/2009
Natomas Levee Improvement Project - Natomas East
Main Drainage Canal, Phase 3 SAFCA 20-Apr-10
Natomas Levee Improvement Project - Sacramento
River, Phase 4a SAFCA 7-Mar-11
Feather River - Star Bend LD1 16-Jun-09
Mid Valley - Knights Landing Ridge Cut KLRDD 17-Apr-14
Anticipated Future Letters of Permission
RD 17 - Mossdale RD 17 2015
Southport WSAFCA 2015
River Islands City of
Lathrop 2017
California Water Fix DWR To be
determined

CUMULATIVE IMPACT ANALYSIS
The following describes the project’s potential contribution to cumulative effects on each resource topic presented in Sections 5.1 through 5.21.

Geology and Geomorphology
Other development in the study area would be subject to the same types of geology and geomorphology as the LSJR Project. However, these types of impacts represent site- specific effects and do not result in a greater combined impact than the individual impacts. Further, the proposed levees would continue to affect local geomorphological process similar to existing conditions and would not further alter the natural river meander or deposition. Therefore, no cumulative effect would occur.

ATTACHMENT D

Lower San Joaquin River
5-300
Final Feasibility Report - Chapter 5 - January 2018
San Joaquin County, CA Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Seismicity
Other development in the study area would be subject to the same seismic conditions as the LSJR Project.

Seismic hazards represent hazards to people and property on a site -specific basis and do not result in a greater combined impact than the individual impacts. Further, proposed facilities would be designed, constructed and maintained in compliance with the regulatory standards of USACE, CVFPB and the latest seismic design standards. As a result, levees, cutoff walls and floodwalls would be designed to avoid or minimize any potential for seismic-related failure. Thus, no cumulative effect would occur.

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 c ould 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 st ormwater 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 inadvert ent release of construction materials, resulting in significant cumulative impacts. Construction of the LSJR project would have a less

ATTACHMENT D

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 tem porary 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 groundwa ter 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 f or 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 wi thin 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 CCA A 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

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 wo uld 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 ef fects 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 m easures 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

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 t o 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 list ed 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 list ed 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 , wh ere 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 locati ons, 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 fea sible, 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

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 ripari an 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 th e 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

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. Thi s 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 ha ve 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 t raffic 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

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 ut ilities 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 lo cal 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

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 contribu te 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 ot her 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 le vees 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 cu mulative 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 Sect ion 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 pr oject 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

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

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 d iscussion 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 purpose s. 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 fo r 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

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 governme nt 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

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 an d 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

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, organiz ations 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 r equired 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 plannin g, 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, includ ing 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

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 fin al array. Staging and borrow areas would be specifically identified and evaluated during PED.

ATTACHMENT D

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 off- site, 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

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, inform ed them of the new feasibility study and request ed 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 V ista 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

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 con struction-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 h as 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

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 Rul e 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 em issions 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

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 quali ty 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 di scharge 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 shal l 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

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-di scretionary 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 s almon 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 o r 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 jurisdi ctional 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

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 ident ified. 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 identif ying 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, det ermine 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

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 intolerab le 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 ass isted 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 inc lude 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 t he 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 bec ause 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 MANAGEM ENT 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

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 tha t 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 consult ation 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 s hort- and

ATTACHMENT D

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 t he 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 Nati on'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

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 P ROPERTY 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

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 s tructures 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 surfa ce 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

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 State- listed 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 decision- making.

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

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 s pecies, 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 const ruction 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 f ull 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

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 env ironmental 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 p roponent(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

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, Basi n 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 requiremen ts 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 flood- control 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

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 t o 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

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 impleme ntation 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

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 the ir 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 PM
10 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

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. T he 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 reg ulations 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

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

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 S tate 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

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

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

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

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

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 N EPA, 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 wil l 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-san-
joaquin-valley-will-boost-flood-and-
giant-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 practices that represent sound and proven methods to avoid or reduce potential effects. Although environmental commitments fall within

ATTACHMENT D

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 . T he environmental commitments identified in Table 8-2 would be implemented to avoid or reduce short-term, construction-related effects.

ATTACHMENT D

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

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 site - specific 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 th e 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

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 credit

1.5 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

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 complet ion, 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 cres t 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 rela ted 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 ecolog ist, 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

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 non- Federal 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

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 e asements 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 prev ious 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

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:
1Based on October 2017 price levels, 2.75% interest rate, and a 50-year period of analysis. 2Micro 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.
3Real Estate land costs, which include no damages.
4Relocations include relocating affected utilities and irrigation ditches. 516 percent of 06, 11, and 15 accounts.
610 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

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. 4Numbers reported may be slightly different than those presented in the appendices due to rounding.

ATTACHMENT D

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 ch ance. 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 c ity of Stockt on 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 dev elopment in the base floodplain unless there is no practicable

ATTACHMENT D

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 underta ken 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 understa nd 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

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

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 publ ic 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 inco rporated into the Final FR/EIS/EIR, as appropriate. This project is being coordinated with all appropriate Federal, State, and local government agencies. USACE H Q 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 i n 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

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

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

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

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 i s $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 i ndirectly 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

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 behavi or 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

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 r ights-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

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, includi ng 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 requi red, 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

ATTACHMENT D

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

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)
S upervisor 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 Inundation- Mortality 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 the survival 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

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

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

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

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 DATA- LSJRFS_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

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

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-a- ride.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

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

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 Mid- Valley 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

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

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

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

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/GAMAQIDRAFT- 2012/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

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/general- plan.shtm.

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2011 (October). Section 303(d) list for California.

Sacramento, CA.

ATTACHMENT D

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

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, Mid- Pacific 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

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-consideration- effects-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

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

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

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

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 Noisexi i, 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

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 17xi
i, 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

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

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

This page intentionally left blank

ATTACHMENT D