HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 1987-13239 RESOLUTION NO. 13239
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE RECORD OF DECISION
AND THE SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
STATEMENT FOR THE TELEGRAPH CANYON FLOOD
CONTROL PROJECT
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Chula Vista has been granted funding
from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development for
implementation of the Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Project; and,
WHEREAS, the United States Army Corps of Engineers has
prepared and adopted a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the
project; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved resolution 12340
which states that the document adequately reviews the project's environmental
impacts; and,
WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prepared
and adopted a Record of Decision, which explains the project monitoring
and control of mitigation measures for the environmental impacts of the
project identified in the Environmental Impact Statement; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed Telegraph Canyon Flood Control project
has been altered since adoption of the Environmental Impact Statement to
reflect a realigned flood control drainage channel; and,
WHEREAS, a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was
prepared and adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to address the
realignment of the channel; and,
WHEREAS, the City has undertaken an independent review of
the Environmental Impact Statement, the Record of Decision and the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; and,
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that City comments and
suggestions for preparation and adoption of the Record of Decision and the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement have been satisfied; and,
WHEREAS, the City has concluded that the Environmental
Impact Statement, the Record of Decision and the Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement have been prepared in accordance with the requirements of
the National Environmental Policy Act.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the
City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the Record of Decision and the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Telegraph Canyon Flood
Control Project.
/j___.... Approved a~ to form by
~a~l-GT~D~sToche-rs\~
Community Development Director ~
ADOPTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
LA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 8th day of September
19 87 , by the following vote, to-wit:
AYES: Councilmembers cox, Moore, Nader, Malcolm, McCandliss
NAYES: Counci I members None
ABSTAIN: Counci 1members None
None
ABSENT: Counci lmembers
'M"'~r~f t~4/~'~it~;o~Chula Vista
ATTEST :~/~_~y, CI~' '~ .... 7
' 'E OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss,
CITY OF CHULA VISTA )
I, JENNIE M. FULASZ, CMC, CITY CLERK of the City of Chulo Vista, Californio,
DO HEREBY CERTIFY thor the obove and foregoing is 0 full, true ond correct copy of
RESOLUTION NO. 13239 ,ond that the some hos not been omendad or repealed
DATED
City Clerk
CllY OF
CHULA VISTA
CC-660
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK
CHANNEL REALIGNMENT
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
March 1987
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICA/qT IMPACT
TELEGRAPH CANYON CREEK CF~MNEL REALIGNMENT
SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
March 1987
I have reviewed the attached Supplemental Environmental
Assessment prepared for the proposed channel realignment of
Telegraph Canyon Creek, San Diego County, California. The
proposed realignment of Telegraph Canyon Creek would be roughly
parallel to the originally proposed alignment and the new segment
would, at its furthest point, be approximately 300 feet south of
the existing creek in the city of Chula Vista. The realigned
channel would consist of a rectangular concrete channel upstream
of Broadway Street to a point 700 feet downstream. The channel
would then change into a covered concrete double box which would
tie into the existing culverts at the Interstate 5 crossing. The
existing natural creek would be the disposal site for the
material excavated from the construction of the new channel
segment. Construction will occur from July 1987 to July 1988.
The proposed project has been designed to avoid or to
minimize environmental impacts. The potential impacts of the
total project are temporary, localized, and not considered to be
significant to biological, noise, air, water, cultural, and
aesthetic resources. It is my determination that impacts
resulting from the proposed project will not have significant
effects on the physical environment or the quality of the human
environment, and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement is not required.
2 APR 1987
DATE ~ D. FRED. BUTL ,
.
1.0 ?TT~ODUCTION This Supplemental Environmental Assessment
(SEA) covers the proposed channel realignment of Telegraph Canyon
Creek that will occur between July 1987 and July 1988. A Final
Environmental impact Statement (FEIS) was prepared for the
Telegraph Canyon Creek flood control project in July 1983. This
report described and mitigated impacts that would result from the
project. The original alignment of the channel would have
bifurcated privately owned parcels, thus making part of the
property inaccessible to the owner. The new channel would be
aligned on the border between properties, thus less land would
have to be acquired. The proposed action would reduce Right of
Way costs and impacts. This project is authorized by Section 205
of the 1948 Flood Control Act, as amended, (PL 80-858).
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed realignment would be
roughly parallel to the originally proposed alignment and the new
segment would, at its furthest point, be approximately 300 feet
south of the existing creek between Moss Street and Arizona
Street. The realignment would encompass land approximately 200
feet east of Industrial Avenue to approximately 200 feet east of
Broadway Street (Figure 1). The newly excavated and realigned
channel would consist of a rectangular concrete channel upstream
from Broadway Street to a point 700 feet downstream. The channel
would then change into a covered concrete channel double box
which would tie into the existing culverts at the Interstate 5
crossing. The existing natural creek would be the disposal site
for the material excavated from the new channel. This material
would consist of natural earth, stone, and organic material. The
channel would be 25 feet wide and deep with a total width,
including access roads, of 55 feet. All other aspects of the
project are exactly the same as described in the 1983 FEIS.
2.1 ALTERNATIVES. .~--- ___
a. No Action. The No,Action alternative would align the
channel as proposed in the 1983 PEIS. If the No Action
alternative is chosen, Right of Way~nd construction costs would
be higher than with the prop6Sed'project.
3.0 AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT. Refer to the FEIS for a description
of biological resources, threatened and endangered species,
cultural resources, air and water quality, noise, aesthetics and
recreational resources that would be affected by the proposed
channel realignment. Biological resources in the project area
are of limited value.
3.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. On April 11, 1986, a
letter was sent to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requesting
a list of threatened and endangered species in the proposed
realignment area. No threatened or endangered species are
present in the project area. FWS concurredin a letter dated May
14, 1986 (see Appendix A).
CHANNEL ~E--.ALJGNME. i,
// PROPOSED REALIGNMENT:
,, ".'~"',...;y,-~ ~-~ .'.~' '~ ,, ./
~ ~"/.~,,
/
Figure 1. /
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
3.2 LAND USE. The project area is divided into small parcels,
each of which is privately owned. Land use in the area is
primarily urban; it consists of residential areas, a parking lot,
light industry, and open fields.
3.3 PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY. The project area is now used
informally as a play area for children.
3.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. A records search and in-field
inspection completed for the project in May 1986 resulted in
negative findings. The Corps has determined that the proposed
project would not involve National Register or eligible
properties. SHPO concurred in a letter dated 30 June 1986 (see
Appendix A).
4.0 E~IVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. The purpose of this SEA is to
address the channel realignment of Telegraph Canyon Creek.
Potential impacts on air quality, noise and aesthetics,
recreation, and biological resources would be the same as those
already discussed in the FEIS. Impacts on biological resources
would be very limited.
4.1 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES. There would be no
impacts to threatened or endangered species in the Telegraph
Canyon Creek project area. FWS concurred with this finding in a
letter dated 14 May 1986 (see Appendix A).
4.2 LAND USE. The environmental effects on land use would be
the same or similar as those discussed in the FE!S, except that
less land would need to be acquired for the project. By
realigning a segment of the channel there would be a reduction in
the impacts to property owners because less of their property
would be acquired, hence more of their property would be
accessible to them.
4.3 PUBLIC SAFETY AND HEALTH. Since the old channel would be
filled in with the material excavated from the new channel, there
would be no public health or safety hazard remaining as a result
of the construction.
4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES. There would be no impacts on cultural
resources. SHPO concurred with this finding in a letter dated 30
June 1986 (see Appendix A).
4.5 WATER QUALITY. .There would be no adverse impacts to water
quality. The attached 404(B) water quality evaluation in
Appendix B addresses the filling in of the old creek with the
material excavated from the new channel. All other aspects
regarding water quality are the same as described in the 1983
FEIS.
5.0 COORDINATION. DUe to the limited scope of the change in the
project and the resultant lack of impacts, it was dete~ined that--
only limited coordination was necessary. During informal
coordination no concerns were expressed. See coordination
records in Appendix Ao
6.0 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRO~MENTAL REQUIREMENTS. This document
has been prepared in accordance with the following laws and
regulations:
Clean Air Act.
Clean Water Act.
Coastal Zone Management Act.
Endangered Species Act.
Estuary Protection Act.
Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
National Environmental Protection Act.
National Historic Preservation Act.
Rivers and Harbors Act.
7.0 CONCLUSION. This SEA has addressed possible impacts as a
result of a realignment of a portion of Telegraph Creek. Refer
to the July 1983 FEIS for a complete description of the entire
project and its alternatives. The realignment of a portion of
Telegraph Creek is not expected to result in significant impacts
to the physical or human environment. '
8.0 LIST OF PREPARERS AND REVIEWERS.
Preparers:
Thomas Ryan, Environmental Coordinator
Sherri Stevens, Ecologist and Environmental Coordinator
Marie Cottrell, Archeolcgist.
Reviewers:
Terrance Breyman, Senior Ecologist
Pat Martz, Senior Archeolcgist
Joan Drake, Environmental Protection Specialist
John Kennedy, Chief, Environmental Section
Warren Hagstrom, Project Manager
APPENDIX A
COORDINATION RECORDS
April I1, 1986
Office Of the Chief
Environmental Resources Stench
~j. ip. si' -
" Nancy laufumu ' :J'" .... ..
:'Project Leader : '
U,S, Fish and Wildlife Service
'- - ...Endangered Species Office 24000 Avlla Road
LaCuna Nlguel, California 92677
Dear M~, Kaufmanx EqSON
SPLPD
Pluaee provide a current lls= ef any endan~.ered~ threatened, candidate or
propoeed species, pursuant to the Endenger-r.d Species Act of 1973, that may be jOE
affecreu by the proposed U,S, ~ruy C.orps of Engineers~ TeleRrapn Canyon SPLPD
Channel P. ealig. nu~nt, Refer to ~he enclosed project description and tap
further dellauatlon of tba study area, ,qALL
SPLED-O
Please respond ro this species list request nithit rhir=7 (30) days of
receipt o~ thi, letter. Should you rn~uire aedinlunal information or have any [LEIINEDY
quaunions, ~lease contact Sherri -qtevens, Project Ecologist, at (213) Gg4-3bq4 SPLP~
or (F'fS) 79~-309~.
BREY~I
Thank you for your assistance in :his ma[tcr, SPLP~
SincereLy, CUNNIFF
//~TEV E>{ S
-.. /
Carl F, Enson ~.~l~III/cm
fjbief, Pl~nnin)~ Division ~239
CF:
EP.B
PD
U ted Sta es Department of the Interior
:? ' ' ':'7 FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE '
24000 Avila ?,ned
Laguna NigueL, California 92656
May 14, 1986
Hr. Carl F. Enson
Chief, ;lannin~ Division
Department of ~he Army
Los Angeles District, Corps of Engineers
P.O. ~ox 27tl
Los Angeles, California 90053-2325
Subject: Endangered Species Information for the TeiegraDh Canyon Channel
Realignment (Efl-6-86-SP-ii3)
Dear >~r. Enson:
This is in response to your letter, dated April ll, 1986 and received by us
on April 15, 1986, requesting information on listed and proposed ~ndangered
and threatened species which ~ay be present within the area of the subject
project in San Diego County, California.
Your request and this response are ;nade pursuant to Section 7(c) of the '
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
To the best of our present l~owledge there are no Listed or proposed :~pecias
occurring within the area of :he subject pro~ect. Ehouid a species become offi-
cially Listed or proposed before completion of 7our project, the Corps of
Engineers will be required to reevaiuate its responsibilities under the
Act.
We appreciate 'your :oncern for endangered species and took forward to continued
coordination v~ith your agency. If you have further questions, please contact
me or Sharon Lockhart of our Laguna Ziguel 7ietd Office at 7TS 796-4270 or (7t4)
64Z-~270.
Sincerely yours,
Uancy ~.~. ~aufman
Project Leader
O DE,~ARTMENT QF THE ARMY
~E~o June 6, 1986
Office of ~he Chief
Environmen~al Resources Branch
Mr. Kachryn Gualtieri
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
P.O. Box 2390
Sacramento, California 95811
Dear Ms. Gualtieri:
This letter pertains to the Corps of Engineers (COE) proposed Telegraph
Canyon Flood Control Channel Project located in the city of Chula Vista, San
Diego County, California. The proposed channel realignment study area is
located approximately 300 feet south of the existing creek and no rth of and
parallel to Moss Street (enclosure 1). The project area was examined b7
Marie Cottrell, Los Angeles District Staff Archeologist, to determine whether
the project would involve cultural or historic properties (enclosure 2).
The records search and in-field inspection completed for the project
resulted in negative findings. Based on the information provided in enclosure
2, the COE has determined that the proposed project will not involve National
Register or eligible properties.
Questions regarding this evaluation may be referred to Marie Cottrell at
(213) 894-0237. If you agree with the evaluation, we would appreciate your
concurrence. We understand that in accordance with 36 CFR 800.5(b), we may
expect a response within 30 days.
Sincerely,
Carl F. Enson
Chief, Planning Division
Enclosures
PROPOSED REALIGNMENT
~ . ,~': _._ ,' ,;' ~-"''...,,~
/'/"""- :~*~ . ,.
EXISTING CHANNEL
CITY OF CHULA VISTA
SAN DIEGO COUNTY
SUPPLE,%4ENT TO TE, EGRAPH CANYON CREEK FLOOD CONTROL pROJEr'T (c=:S ;-'~'f ~'-'~
SPLPD-RP -- 29 May 1986
MEMORANDUM FOR KECORD
SUBJECT: Archeological and Historic Property Assessment of the Proposed
Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel, City of Chula Vista, San
Diego County, California
1. On 15 May 1986, Marie Cottrell, COE Staff Archeologist completed a field
reconnaissance of the proposed Telegraph Canyon Channel Realigrment Study Area.
(enclosure 1). The reconnaissance study was completed for in an Environmental
Assessment being prepared by LAD for the project.
2. The study area is located wizhin the city of Chula Vista, San Diego
County, Califoroia. It is located approximately 300 feet south of the
existing creek and north of and parallel to Moss Street (enclosure 2). The
proposed channel alignment extends from approximately 100 feet east of
Broadway in a westerly direction to Interstate 5 which borders the project
area on the west.
3. An in house records search indicated that there were no prehistoric sites
officially recorded in the project area. A complete records search was
performed i n 1975 by Dr. L. Leach of San Diego State University. The records
and literature search was augmented by a walk-over survey and resulted in
negative findings. Due to its location, however, it was felt that the area
could be sensitive for buried archeological resources (Leach 1975). As a
result COE contracted with Westec Services, Incorporated in 1978 to complete a
backhoe testing program in the area a long the creek (Eckhardt 1978). The
results of the backhoe test were negative.
4. In 1984, Gloria Lauter of LAD inspected the project area. Contact at that
time with the Museum of Man indicated that they had no sites recorded within
the project area. A field i nspectio n indicated that almost all of the
proposed study area, except a vacant lot bounded o n the north by the proposed
channel and on the south by Moss Street, was covered by asphalt or
development.
5. On I5 May 1986 Marie Cottre!l inspected the area. The vacant lot, noted
in 1984 as the only remaining open space i n the project area, was found to
have recently been developed into an apartment complex. No unpaved or
undeveloped areas currensiy exist in the study area. No cultural or historic
properties were noted in the study area.
SPLPE~RP 29 May 1986
SUBJECT: Archeological and Historic PrOperty Assessment of the Proposed
Telegraph Canyon Flood Control Channel, City of Chula Vista, San
Diego County, California
6. Based on the negative findings of the previous records searches and
backhoe tests, it appears unlikely, given the highly disturbed nature of the
area, that any historic or prehistoric properties are present in the study
area. The proposed project should have no effect on cultural resources.
MARIE COTTRELL
Staff Archeologist
Environmental Section
2
APPENDIX B
404(B) WATER QUALITY EVALUATION
TP~ EVALL~TIGN OF THE
OF 9~ DISC~E OF EPEEGED OR
LNTO TP.i WTLU~,S OF THE UNl'l~ ST3G~.q
I. INTROEUCriCN. ~2~.e follcwing eraluation Is pr~ided in accordance
with Section 404 (b) (1) cf the F~ieral Water Pollution Conr_~o~i Act
Amenchrants of 1972 (Public Law 92-500) as amended by the Clean Water
Act of 1977 (Public Law 95-217). Its intent is to succinctly state
and evaluate information reg-drding the effects of discharge of dredged
or fill material into the waters of the U. S. As such, it is not
meant to stand alone and relies heavily _upon information provided in
the environmental docaTant to which it is attached. Use of the
"Documentation" category is for _expansion of discessions only when
necessary or for references and citations.
II. F.~ZU'ECT DESCRIP!i!ON. (Referenced and described briefly as
follows: )
A. Location: (Sea SEA; Sec~ions 1o0, 2.0, map) Ci~I of _~hula
Vista, San Diego County, cA] ifornia.
B. C~_nerat DescriDticn: The project is generally described in
paragraph 2.0 of the attached environmental document.
Brief Summary: Reali~nl~ent of 700 feat Of stream channel roughly
parallel to the current ali~nl~ent and, at its furthest point,
approximately 300 feet south of current aligknuent. A ne,.~ charm. el
segment will be excavated and will contain all future flowing water.
The natural existing channel will be filled in with the newly
excavated material and will never again receive flc~s.. A previous 404
evaluation has addressed the the fill material (channelization) of the
existing channel. Refer to the attached SEA for the reference. Tbls
evaluation only a~a~esses the filling in of the old channel with
material excavated flun~ the construction of the new channel.
C. Authori~z end Ptu-ecse: The project authority and purpose is
documented in paragraph 1.0 of the attached environmental doeanent.
Brief Sl=mmary: Authority f=~ Section 4 of the Flood Control Act
of August 18, 1941, and Section 205 of tba Flood Conurol Act of 1948,
as amended, (PL 80-858). Purpose is to reduce the threat to the
health ar~ safety of inhabitants in the flocd plain along Te!egrnph
~eek.
D. C~neral DescriL~icn of Dredsed or Fill b~teria!:
Brief ~: ~e fill mat~i~ will ~ist of ~h, stone,
o~c ~a~i~ ~x~'a~ fr~ the ~g of ~e new c~e!.
E. Descripticn cf the _~_cDcsed Discharge Site: ~ne pr~_=csed
discharge sits is/are d~cr_i~ed in pa~graph 2.0 of the attaclned --
envirc~n~ntal dcc~,ant.
Brief Sunmell;: The exist'L-~g ra.~l_~l crsek would he t~he d!~sa!
site for the material excav~ f_~cm the n~.~ ci~amnel s~egme~.z.
F. Descriotic~ of Disoosal Method:
Brief Summary: The material will be discsbarged by using
dumptracks and loaders.
III. FACIUAL Dh'i'h~MINATICNS.
A. DisDcsal Site Physical Subst~ate Determinations:
1. Substrate Elevation and Slcpe:
~ct: __.N/A !NSI~NIF. X SI~IF. PARAG. # 2.0
Dccamentation: Water will no l~nger flow down the old
channel. It will con{uletely filled in, cua~acted, and leveled.
2. Sediment Type:
DCCa,~2~
I_m~a. ct: __.N/A X INSI~NIF. SI~NIF. PARAG. #
Dccumentation: Natural earth, stone, and organic material.
3. Dredged/Fill Material Movement:
DOC~4ET2
I2~pact: X N/A INS!G~r/F. SI~-JIF. PARAG. #
Documentation: Material will be placed in the chananel and
C~l~Cted thereby eliminating the str~eam ci~mel and fluvial activity.
4. Physical Eff__=cts on Be_n+~hcs (burial, changes in
sedir~P~n~ _type, c~'_~csiticn, etc.):
N/A X LNSi~N~--~. SIGNIF. p.~_D~. #
DccaT~entaticn: Vegeza~icn is limited and modified because
of the en~-~3ac_hme_nt of I~?_n. _~..e pre~.~-~i~.~-~g bittic ccmmm~nity
associated with the urbeanized flccd plain and the lower d~iraga of
Telee~=ph Canycn has adap~ to urban subjugaticn. Thus, impacts to
biological rescurces in the project are would be very limited.
5. Other Effects
DOCUMENT
Lmpa. ct: _X N/A INSI~NIF. SIGNIF. PAPAG. #
Documentation:
6. Acticns taken to Minimize Impa_cts
Needed?: YES X NO
If Needed, Taken:
YES NO
Documentation:
B. Effect cn Water Circalation, Fluctuaticn, end Salinity
Deten~inaticns:
1. Effect on Water. The following potential impa. cZs were
considered:
PARAG.
a. Salinity X N/A INSI~%FIF. SI~'/F .__
b. Water Chemistry
(pH, etc. ) X__N/A INSI~/F. SI~F/F.__
c. Clarity X N/A INSIGNIF. SI~NIF. __
d. Color X N/A
e. Cdor X _N/A EISI~rIF.
f. Taste X N/A DISIGNIF. SIC~/F.__
g. Dissolved
gas levels X__N/A ~SIG~IF. SIGr/F.__
h. Nurients X N/A _. DISIG~IF. ~I~F/F.__
i. Datrcpbicaticn_Xj/A ~ISIGr/F. SIGrIF .__
j. ~hers X N/A EISIG~/F. SIG~F.
3
2. Effect en Curr~nt _D=_tte_?s a~a Ci-~',lation. 1he
pct=~tia! of ~s~e or fill cn the fcl!c~ing ~r~tic~ w~
a. ~t Patt~ ~d Fi~ ~
X ~/A ESI~F. SI~F.__ PE. ~
b. Vel~i~ E~
X N/A ~SI~F. SI~F.__ PE. ~
c. Sntifi~ticn E~
X N/A ~SI~F. SI~F.__ P~. ~
d. Hydrology Regime DCCUMENT
X N/A ]2gSI~'NIF. SI~FIF.__ PAPAG. #
Documentation: All flcws will be in the new channel.
3. Effect on Normal Water Level Fluctuations. The
potential of discharTe on fill on the following were evaluated:
a. Tide X N/A INSI~qIF. SI~IF.
DDC~4E~T PARAG. #
b. River Stage _X N/A INSI~NIF. SI~'NIF.
5OCL~ENT PARAG. #
Documentation:
4. Action Taken to FLinj_mize Effects:
C. Su_~nded Particalate/Turbidi~ Dete_~min. etio~$ at the
DisDc_=al Site:
2. Effects (degree and duration) on Ch~nical and Physical
Prcpe~ies of the Water Column:
a. Light Fenetration ~IMENT
X N/A II~SIGNIF. SI~'qIF. PARAG. ~
b. Dissolved Oxygen EXDCUMENT
_X N/A INSI~'N'IF. SI~FIF. PARAG. #
c. Toxic Metals &Organic DOCLZ.~ENT
X N/A INSIQNIF. SIC~IF. PARAG. #
d. Pathcgen EOCL~5~qT
_X N/A INSI~NIF.__SI~Ni~'. PARAG. #
e. Esthetics DCCL~4ENT
_X N/A INSI~NIF. SI~NIF. PARAG. #
f. Others EDCUMENT
_X N/A INSI~FIF. SI~'N'IF.__ PARAG. #
Documentation:
3. Effects of T~rbidity on Biota: The following effects
of tu~sidity on bicta were evaluated:
a. Primary Productivity DOCL~ENT
X N/A INSI~FIF. SIGNIF. PARAG. #
b. Sus_Dension/Filter Feeders. ECCjP~NT
_X N/A iNSIC~IF. SI~iF. PARAG. #
c. Sight fevers ~J~.~F~_
_X N/A_ INSI~NiF. Si~iF. PARAG. #
5
4. Acticns taken to ~i-imize
Docarlenta t i on:
D. Contaminent Dete_nninaticn:
The following informaticn has be=an considered in e~raluating
the biolcgical availability of possible contaminants in dredged or
fill material. (Check only those appropriate).
1. Physical characteristics .................... X
2. Hydrcc/raphy in relaticn to
known or anticipated sources
of contaminants ..............................
__
3. Results from previous testing
of the material or similar
material in the vicinity of
the project ................................. '
4. Kncwn, significant, sources of
ccntaminants (e.g. pesticides)
frcm land runoff or percolation ............. X
5. Spill records for petroleum
prcducts or designated
(S~ion 311 of C~A) hazardous
substances ...................................
__
6. Other public records of
significant intrcducticn of
con ~taminants from industries,
municipalities or other
sources .....................................
__
7. Kncm existance of subs-=~antial
material depcsits of
substances ~ti~h cculd be
released in harmful quanzities
to ~he aqjaatic envircmT~ent by
ran-hnduced disci~a_~ge acclivities ...........
S. C~her sources (special) ....................
__
6
An e~ra!uaticn of the apprcpriata infcrraticn above indicates t~zt
there is r~scn to ~lie;e the pr~s~ ~ge cr f~l ~t~i~ is nct
a ~i~ cf ~n~, or ~zt !~e!s cf ~n~ ~e
~s~tively s~l~ at ~icn ~d ~ si~ ~ nct !i~y
tc ~~. ~e ~t~i~ ~e~ ~he t~s~i~g ~cl~icn cit~ia.
~ X NO
~: ~ N/A ~SI{F. SI{F. P~G. ~
~.~n~ticn:
If the material does not meet the testing exclusion criteria above,
describe what testing was performed and results:
E. Eff_~t on A~uatic Ecosystem and Organism Detelnninations:
The Following ecosystem effects were evaluate~:
1. On Planktcn _X N/A INSI~IF. SI~'NIF. PARAG. #
2. On Benthcs _X N/A 32,lSI~IF. SI~qIF. PARAG. #
3. On Nekton _X N/A I~tSI~'NIF. SI~NIF. PARAG. #
4. Fccd Web _X N/A I~ISI~IF. SI~IF. PARAG. #
5. Sensitive Habitats:
a. Sanctnl~ries, refuges DOCb~E~rf
X N/A I~SI~IF. SI~F. PARAG. #
b. Wetlands ECC~L~7
X .N/A INSI~-~iF. SIC-,~!F. PARAG. #
c. Mudflats ECCb,~L~NT
X ~/A I~ISIGFfF. SICFIF. PARAG. #
7
6. Threatened & Endangered Species EOCL~4DFE
_X N/A~ INSI~/F. SIC-.~iF.__ P_~LRAG. #
7, Other Wildlife (grunion,trcut) DOCUMENT
X .N/A I~SI~N'/F. SI~'NIF.__ PARAG. #
Documentation: None of the above present in the project area.
8. Actions to ~Mjaimize i~pacts:
Dccanentation:
F. Proposed DisPosal Site Deter~ninatiens: Is the mixing zone
for each disposal site confined to t~ke smallest practicable zone?
X YES NO
Documentation:
G. Dete_.~ination of Ommllative Effects of DisPosal or Fill cn
the Aquatic Ecosystem:
Impacts: _X N/A INSI~T/F. SIG-r/F. PARAG. #
Documentation: Very limited biological resources in the project
H. Dete_md~aticn of Indirect Effects of Disocsal cr Fill cn the
Acuatic Ecosystem:
Irr~C~: X .N/A INSIG~fF. SI~-r/F. __ P.~G. ~
8
Cn the ~sis cf the C~didelines, the PrcDcs~ Di_cL~DSa! Sirens] fcr
the Disdn~e of ~c~ or Fill ~.~t~ial (~ci~z ~v~i~h) is ~se!~
X (1) S~ifi~ ~ ~ly~ with the r~i~emEn~ cf ~e
~d~; or,
(2) ~ifi~ ~ ~n~ly~g wi~ the r~:ir~ cf thee
~d~, wi~ the ~cl~icn of appmpriaze ~a
p~Ci~ ~itio~ to ~ze ~llution or a~ee
eff~ on ~e a~tic e~ste;or,
(3) S~ifi~ ~ ft~ to ~ly wi~ ~e re~:~r~a~ of
~e ~delh~.
PreFared by: Thomas Ryan
Environmental Coordinator
Date: 2-24-87
10