Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05131997 - C6 r t TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, FROM: J. MICHAEL WALFORD, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE: May 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Approve Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project, in the Byron area. Project No. 0662-6R4067-95, CDD-CP # 97-17 Specific Request(s) or Recommendation(s) & Background & Justification I. RECOMMENDED ACTION: APPROVE Project, and FIND, on the basis of the initial study and all comments received, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, ADOPT the Negative Declaration incompliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, (the custodian of which is the Public Works Director who is located at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez) and DIRECT the Public Works Director to begin right of way acquisition and to prepare contract plans and specifications for construction. DIRECT the Director of Community to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk. DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for payment of the $25.00 handling fee to the County Clerk. DIRECT the Public Works Director to arrange for the $1,250.00 Fish and Game filing fee to be transferred to the County Clerk. Continued on Attachment: X SIGNATU _RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR _RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ONyy)&�1,3 99� APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER VOTk'/OF SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUS (ABSENT ) AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: BF:kd g:Design\BO\BOmay13.t5 Orig.Div: Public Works(Design Division) Contact: Bill Fernandez(313-2294 ' tl18t � s tRt9 and coned cc: County Administrator Y Ceti of Attn: E.Kuevor M actton taken and errtered on the minutes�ffN Board of Sups on the date sho Auditor-Controller ATTESTED: PW Accounting PHIL BATH R,Clefk of the ard Construction of Supervisors d County Adadniwatw H.Ballenger,Eng.Services Community Development-G.Slusher Approve Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project, in the Byron area May 13, 1997 Page Two II. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The estimated project cost is $850,000, funded by Measure C (67%), Airport (4%) and Road Funds (29%). III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND: The project involves reconstructing (i.e., vertical and horizontal realignment), widening, drainage improvements (i.e. replacing culverts, constructing berms and a weir, relocating roadside ditches), undergrounding utility lines, and minor modifications to the canal access roads. The Department may acquire minor amounts of land for drainage improvements, relocating utility lines, and improving the access to the irrigation canal. Once the project is completed, the Department will vacate any excess right-of-way. The purpose of the project is to reconstruct the roadway using current design standards, elevate most of the road above the flood hazard elevation, and improve drainage in the project area. The project has been determined to be in compliance with the General Plan. A Negative Declaration of environmental significance pertaining to this project was published on March 21, 1997, with no protest, and the Board has considered the negative declaration together with all comments received during the public review period. IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: Delay in approving the project will result in a delay of design and construction. CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT NOTICE OF DETERMINATION CONTRA COSTA COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 651 PINE STREET 4TH FLOOR NORTH WING MARTINEZ,CALIFORNIA 94553-0095 Telephone: 510 313-2284 Contact Person: Joseph J. Olsen Project Description, Common Name(if any) and Locationy Armstrong Road Reconstruction; The project involves reconstructing(i.e.,vertical and horizontal realignment),widening,drainage improvements(i.e.,replacing culverts,constructing berms and a weir,relocating roadside ditches),undergrounding utility lines,and minor modifications to the canal access roads.The Department may acquire minor amounts of land for drainage improvements,relocating utility lines,and improving the access to the irrigation canal. Once the project is completed,the Department will vacate any excess right-of-way.In addition,the project includes Items#1 -6 from the summary of the Environmental Evaluation.Location: The project limits include the 50-ft.right-of-way for Armstrong Road,between Byron Hot Springs Road and to just west of the access road to Byron Airport in the southeast area of Contra Costa County.Land uses within the area includes the Byron Airport to the south,agricultural lands,and an irrigation canal(the Byron-Bethany Imigation Canal). The project was approved on March 11, 1997. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act: 0 An Environmental Impact Report was prepared and certified (SCH# ). The Project was encompassed by an Enviro me tal.Impact Report previously prepared for .SCA# ). q Negative Declaration was issued indicating that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report was not required. Copies of the record of project approval and the Negative Declaration or the final EIR may be examined at the office of the Contra Costa County Community Development Department and the Contra Costa County Public Works Department. ® The Project will not have a significant environmental effect. 0 The Project will have a significant environmental effect. Mitigation measures were made'a condition of approval of the project. A statement of overriding considerations was adopted. Findings were adopted pursuant to Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Date: By: Communi Development Deartment Representative AFFIDAVIT OF FILING AND POSTING I declare that on I received and posted this notice as required by California Public Resources Code Section 21152(c). Said notice will remain posted for 30 days from the filing date. Signature Title Receipt# g:\design\mat\armstron\armstron.cdd (Rev.32/97) Commoni � Q,� tra Harvey oE.f Bragdon Director of Community Development Developm-r: ., costa D CDepartment county Administration Building Courcy 651 Pine Street F L 4th Floor, North Wing `. t •t MA 97 Martinez, California 945530095 ' i Phone: (510) 335-1213 -' �` A' ch 21, 1997 BY r. NOTICE OF PUBLIC REVIEW ANDINTENT O ADOPT.A PROPOSED NEGATIVE DECLARATION County File #97-17 Pursuant to the State of California Public Resources Code and the "Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970" as amended to date, this is to advise you that the Community Development Department of Contra Costa County has prepared an initial study on the following project: Project Description: The project involves reconstructing (i.e., vertical and horizontal realignment), widening, drainage improvements (i.e., replacing culverts, constructing berms and a weir, relocating roadside ditches), undergrounding utility lines, and minor modifications to the canal access roads. The Department may acquire minor amounts of land for drainage improvements, relocating utility lines, and improving the access to the irrigation canal. Once the project is completed, the Department will vacate any excess right-of-way. The purpose of the project is to reconstruct the roadway using current design standards, elevate most of the road above the flood hazard elevation, and improve drainage in the project area. Project Location: The project limits include the 50-ft. right-of-way for Armstrong Road, between Byron Hot Springs Road and to just west of the access road to Byron Airport in the southeast area of Contra Costa County. Land uses within the area includes the Byron Airport to the south, agricultural lands, and an irrigation canal (the Byron - Bethany Irrigation Canal). The proposed development will not result in any significant impacts. If you require further information regarding the project itself, please contact Bill Fernandez of the County Public Works Department, Design Division at (510) 313-2294. If you have any comments regarding the environmental review of this Negative Declaration, please contact Ms. Debbie Chamberlain at (510) 335-1213 no later than Monday, April 21, 1997, 5:00 p.m. A copy of the negative, declaration and all documents referenced in the negative declaration may be reviewed in the offices of'the Community Development Department, and Application and Permit.Center at the McBrien Administration Building, North Wing, Second Floor, 651 PineStreet, Martinez, during normal business hours. d Public Comment Period -The period for accepting comments on the adequacy of the environmental documents extends to 5:00 P.M., Monday, April 21, 1997. Any comments should be in writing and submitted to the following address: Community Development Department Contra Costa County Attn: Debbie Chamberlain 651 Pine Street, North Wing, 4th Floor Martinez, CA 94553 s 77b4-1:6—ie Chariberlaih, Senior Planner cc: County Clerk's Office (2 copies) Public Works Steve Wright Dc\aw CONTRA PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT COSTA INITIAL STUDY COUNTY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE PROJECT#0662-6114067 CP#97-17 PROJECT NAME:Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project PREPARED BY: Maureen Toms/Vickie Germaw DATE: February 26, 1997 REVIEWED BY: boj Wukt DATE: rch k `Gl r RECOMMENDATIONS: ( )Categorical Exemption (✓)Negative Declaration ( )Environment Impact Report Required ()Conditional Negative Declaration The project will not have a significant effect on the environment.The recommendation is based on the following summary of the Environmental Evaluation: Construction activities create minor, short-term, temporary impacts. However, no significant impacts will occur since the following best management practices are incorporated into the project and in project specifications: 1,. To minimize soil erosion,hydroseeding of disturbed areas with native grasses and flowers is incorporated into the project. The contractor will apply water or dust palliatives to minimize fugitive dust during construction, if warranted. 2. Construction machinery and vehicles emit exhaust fumes and possibly objectionable odors during construction that may temporarily deteriorate air quality within the project area. To minimize the impact, contract specifications shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and muffled equipment, and the elimination of unnecessary idling of machines. 3. Installing new culverts under Armstrong Road will occur during periods of low or no flow (e.g., April 15 to October 1) to avoid water quality impacts. If water is present, the contractor shall dewater the constrVction area by installing water diversion structures, diverting water through a pipe and around the work site, and discharging it downstream non-erosively. Furthermore, the contractor shall install sediment traps and/or filters as- needed. 4. The project encroaches upon a small portion of California red-legged frog (CRLF)habitat, which U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)lists as threatened. The recommendations noted in the CRLF survey prepared for the project are incorporated, thus ensuring a significant impact will not result to CRLF or to fish and wildlife habitat. 5. The contractor shall follow standard construction safety practices (e.g., using properly tuned and maintained equipment; installing construction warning signs) ensuring no accidental release of hazardous substances or increase the potential for exposure to these substances.The project has the potential for interfering with an emergency response, but the Department shall notify emergency response agencies and airport personnel before construction begins. 6. The project will temporarily impact the existing roadway because of necessary lane closures and shifting of traffic during construction. Installing sufficient signs will minimize this impact by warning motorists about the construction. What changes to the project would mitigate the identified impacts(list mitigation measures for any significant impacts and conditional negative declaration). N/A . r INITIAL STUDY OF ENVIRONMENTAL SIGNIFICANCE Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page 2 USGS Quad Sheets: Byron Hot Springs, CA Parcel 0 N/A Base Map Sheets: S27 I Clifton Court Forebay, CA S28 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS: 1. Location:The project limits include the 50-ft. right-of-way for Armstrong Road, between • Byron Hot Springs Road and to just west of the access road to Byron Airport in.the southeast area of Contra Costa County(see Figures 1 -3). Land uses within.the area includes the Byron Airport to the south;'agricultural lands, and an irrigation canal (the Byron,-Bethany Irrigation Canal). 2. Project Description: The project involves reconstructing (i.e., vertical and horizontal, realignment); widening, drainage improvements (i.e., replacing culverts,constructing berms and a weir, relocating roadside ditches), undergrounding utility lines, and minor modifications to the canal access roads(see Figures 4-8).The Department may acquire minor amounts of land for draina9e improvements, relocating utility lines, and improving the access to the irrigation canal. Once the-project is completed, the Department will Vacate any excess right-of-way. In addition,-the project includes Items#1 -6 from the summary of the Environmental Evaluation:. The purpose of the project is to reconstruct the roadway using current design standards, elevate most of the road above the flood hazard elevation, and improve drainage in the project area. 3. Does it appear that any feature of the project will generate significant public concern? p yes[✓) no p maybe(Nature of concern): 4. Will.the pro1ect require approval or permits by other than a County agency?[✓]yes []no Agency Names)U.S.Army Corps of Engineers; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,and the Department of Fish and Game; 5. Is the project within the Sphere.of Influence of any city?(Name)No matvg g:�designVnat�amstrunlarrrxuon.ini i 1 t CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CEQA ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background 1. Name of Proponent: Contra Costa County Public Works Department 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 255 Glacier Drive Martinez, CA 94553-4897 (510) 313-2000 3. Date of Checklist Submitted: February 26, 1997 4. Name of Proposal: Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project II. Environmental Impacts (Explanations of all significant, (S), answers are required on attached sheets.) *1 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? _ -AL" b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? _ -JL d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? 'Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 2 C. Alternation of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water:. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainagepatterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? _ .c. Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters? V d. Change in the amount of surface water,in any water body? e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? K Substantial reduction in the,amount of water otherwise available for-public water supplies? Ls Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? _ 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a: Change in the diversity of species,'or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs,:grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ C. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the .normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? _ 'Please Note: "S" is for significant; "1" is for insignificant • 3 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? _ V C. Introduction of new species of animals'Into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? _ d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? _ V 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? _ b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? _ 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? _ Y/ b. Possible interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 'Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 12. , Housing. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? _ b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? C. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems? _ V d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? �/ e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? _ 14. Public Services.. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? _ , C. Schools? . d. Parks or other recreational facilities? . e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? — f. Other governmental services? _ �/ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? _ y "Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 5 16. Utilities/Service Systems. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities? a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? _ C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. Storm water drainage? _ f. Solid waste and disposal? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? _ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? _ V 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation.of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? _ V/ 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? , _ C. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? 'Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. 6 21. MandatoryFindings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially'reduce the habitat of a fish,or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population todrop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,' reduce'the number or restrict the range .of a rare or endangered.plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have impacts which are ' individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (Aproject may impact on two or,more separate resources where the impact on'each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the,environment'is significant.) _ V C. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? W/ 111. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation. (see attached supplement) IV. Determination On the basis of this Checklist and Environmental Evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on`the environment, and a NEGATIVE-DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described in Exhibit 'W have been addedto the project.. A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILLBE PREPARED. ❑ 1 find the proposed project MAY .have a significant effect on the environment, and an, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date Signat Reviewed By: VG:mat G:\DESIGNMAT\ARMSTRON\ARMSTRON.CHK 'Please Note: "S" is for significant; "I" is for insignificant. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project The project limits include the 50-ft. right-of-way for Armstrong Road, between Byron Hot Springs Road and to just west of the access road to Byron Airport in the southeast area of Contra Costa County (see Figures 1 -3). The project involves reconstructing (i.e., vertical and horizontal realignment), widening, drainage improvements (i.e., replacing culverts, constructing berms, relocating roadside ditches), undergrounding utility lines, and minor modifications to the canal access roads. While preparing the checklist and conducting the evaluation, we consulted the following references (available for review at the Public Works Department, at 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, except where otherwise noted). REFERENCES:. 1. Contra Costa Resource Mapping System (available at the Community Development Department, 651 Pine,Street, 2nd Floor, North Wing, Martinez, CA 94553) 2. The (Reconsolidated) County General Plan (July 1996) and EIR on the General Plan (January 1991) 3. Biological Assessment, Byron Airport Expansion Project (October 14, 1991). Prepared by Laurence Stromberg, Wetlands Consultant 4. Biological Constraints Analysis, Byron Planning Area, Contra Costa County, California (March 8, 1995). Prepared by Laurence Stromberg,Wetlands Consultant 5. Red-legged Frog Survey, Armstrong Road, Contra Costa County (September 25, 1996). Prepared by Biosearch Wildlife Surveys 6. FEIR for the East Contra Costa Airport Project (June 3, 1986) 7. Cultural Resources Study of the Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project, Contra Costa County, CA (January 1997). Prepared by Archaeological/Historical Consultants 8. Traffic Counts for Armstrong Road (July 12, 1995). Prepared by the Contra Costa County Public Works Department 9. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Species List for Contra Costa County (January 11, 1997) 10. RAREFIND - California Natural Diversity Data Base, DFG (January 2, 1997) 1. Earth ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page#2'.- (A 2:(A-G)According to the County Resource.Mapping System (Reference#1),.Solano loam and San Ysidro loam are found in the.project area. Run off from these soils is slow and erosion hazard is slight where the soil is exposed or tilled. Linne clay loam, which has medium runoff and" moderate erosion, is also found in the project area. The project temporarily increases,,the exposure of the soil to wind erosion during the .construction phase, but this impactis minor and temporary. We expect the contractor to complete the work in approximately 100 working days. Standard dust and erosion control practices including, but.not limited to,general watering'bf exposed areas and/or use of chemical stabilizers:and hydroseeding:of disturbed areas with native grasses and flowers minimizes soil erosion.' These best management practices are incorporated into project specifications. The County Resource Mapping System (Reference#1) did not identify any unique geologic features within the project area. The Antioch-Davis fault, an active,earthquake fault, is found.west of the project area,while the potentially active Midland fault zone is.less than two miles west of the project site. A short, unnamed fault considered inactive,,crosses the project area roughly beneath Brushy Creek. We do not expect the project to result in an increase of exposure to geologic hazards, nor will unstable earth conditions or changes to a geologic substructure result. We do not expect drainage improvements'to result in modifications to the channel of Brushy Creek, its tributary, or any other waterway because of changes in deposition or erosion because the project creates no additional water-flows.: The redirection of some flows from the roadside drainage ditches to a tributary of Brushy Creek restores the historical direction of water flow (see Figures 5 .6): 2. Air (A - B) Construction activities generate short-term.emissions and objectionable odors, but they are minor and temporary. To minimize these impacts, _contract specifications shall stipulate the use of properly tuned and muffled equipment and the elimination of unnecessary idling of machines.These measures could reduce construction period emissions by up to 50 percent. Implementing dust control practices.rioted, in #1 - Earth (A- G)also minimizes air quality impacts. Sensitive receptors are not present-in the project area; thus, the project will not result in exposure of people to air quality problems (see Figures 2,5 - 8). (C) Reconstructing an existing roadway will not cause an alteration of climate, air, . movement, moisture, or temperature. 3. Water (A - l) According to the Contra Costa Resource Mapping System (Reference #1), most of the project'area is in'a flood hazard area. Reconstructing the roadway will not increase the exposure of people'or property.to flooding. In fact, vertically realigning the roadway will result in most of the road being at a higher elevation than the flood hazard area. Construction of the culverts shall occur during periods of low or no flow (e.g., April ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page #3 to October)to avoid water quality impacts. If water is present, the contractor shall dewater the construction area by installing water diversion structures,diverting water through a pipe and around the work site, and discharging it downstream non-erosiv_ely. Furthermore, the contractor shall install sediment traps and/or filters as-needed. Drainage improvements will not impair the flow of fresh water(marine water is not present in the project area).The project keeps flood waters off most of the roadway, but will not otherwise alter the course or flow of fio'rod waters. We do not expect that the rate and amount increased due to the project's impervious surface area. The project will not affect the quantity or quality of surface water, ground water, irrigation water or public water supply. The contractor shall follow standard construction safety practices (see#2 -Air(A- B) and #13 - Transportation/Circulation {A - D)) to reduce the possibility of a spill of gasoline, oil, or other pollutants that could have a significant impact on water quality. 4, Plant Life (A- D) Plant life in the project area includes wetland species along Brushy Creek, its tributary, and along the drainage ditches, and vegetation typically associated with grazing. In addition, several plant species of concern are found in the project vicinity according to (References#3 -4 and #9 -10). The biologist for the Byron Airport expansion project surveyed the area south of Armstrong Road (on the north side of Byron Airport) and listed species were not found in the area affected by our project. Thus, we do not expect that relocating drainage ditches would result in the reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species. The Department expects wetland species to establish in the relocated drainage ditches based on the documented reestablishment of wetland species within the habitat management areas on Byron Airport. The contractor is to hydroseed disturbed areas with native grasses and flowers. 5. Animal Life (A- D) Several animal species of concern occur in the project vicinity. In addition, California red-legged frogs (CRLF), listed by the federal government as threatened, Inhabit Brushy Creek and its tributary in the project area. The biologist for the CRLF Survey (Reference #5) also observed them in one of the roadside drainage ditches along Armstrong Road (References#3 - 5 and #9 - 1 p). in the CRLF Survey (Reference#5) the biologist's recommendations include the following: consultation with.the USFWS and the Department of Fish and Game (DFG); .perform preconstruction surveys for CRLF; construction of the project during the dry season; installing exclusion fencing before construction; and implementing other protection measures required by USFWS and DFG. Incorporating these recommendations into the project and contract specifications ensures the project will not result in a significant reduction to CRLF or deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitats. In addition, the contractor is to hydroseed exposed areas. The project will not introduce new species into the area. ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page #4 6. Noise (A-B)The dominant source of noise in the projectarea is from the airport.Although the County Resource Mapping System (Reference#1)for the project area does not show a noise level for Armstrong Road, a noise level of 55-60 dBA from the airport extends over part of Armstrong Road. Sensitive receptors are not:present in the project area; thus, the project will not result in exposure,of people to'severe noise levels (see Figure 2, 5 - 8). Reconstructing„Armstrong Road will not, increase the existing noise level.of the project area,.except during construction..Usually,_construction activities.produce noise levels of 86 dBA at 50 feet thatiswell below the threshold of pain'of 120 - 140 dBA: Best management practices noted in #2r-Air (A - B) reduce construction noise. levels.. 7. Light-and Glare Reconstructing Armstrong Road and installing associated drainage improvements will produce a minor, insignificant amount of new:light or glare.in a semi-rural area. 8. Land.Use The existing land uses within the project vicinity consist of agricultural activities (cattle grazing), rural-residential,the Byron Airport, and the Byron-Bethany Irrigation Canal (see Figure 2 - 3). We will not substantially alter these land uses because most of.the road_ widening occurs within the existing right- of- way. The Department may acquire minor. amounts of land for drainage improvements, relocating utility .lines, and improving the , access to the irrigation canal. The Department will vacate the County's interest in,any excess right-of-way once the project is complete. This action_will not require additional CEQA compliance. A staging area for construction equipment will be within the existing road right-of-way and on airport property. 9. Natural Resources Constructing the project results in the use of paving materials (i.e.,,asphalt), oil and gasoline., The,temporary expenditure of these resources ends upon completion of the project. Best management practices, (e.g., using properly tuned equipment and eliminating unnecessary idling of machines) as previously noted in #2 -Air (A B) also minimize the consumption of natural resources: 10. Risks oWpset (A) The -project has the potential to release hazardous substances, such as. . accidental petroleum 'spills,. during construction; therefore, the contractor shall :follow standard construction safety practices (see .#2 Air (A - B) and , #13 Transportation/Circulation (A D)) to minimize the potential for accidental releases of hazardous substances The County Resource Mapping System (Reference #1) for the ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page #5 project area identified a petroleum pipeline crossing.Armstrong Road near the western limits of the project limits. Measures, such as marking the pipeline and coordinating with the appropriate utility agencies before construction, ensure that the contractor will not disturb the pipeline during construction activities. (B)The project has a potential for interfering with an emergency response, but the Department shall notify emergency response agencies and airport personnel before the onset of construction and any road closures. 11. & 12. Population & Housing The project.will not result in a change in the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of human population in the area. Reconstructing Armstrong Road will not affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional houses (see #8 - Land Use). 13. Transportation/Circulation (A - D) According to the County General Plan (Reference#2), Armstrong Road is designated as an existing arterial. The two-lane roadway is in very poor condition due to repeated flooding. Current traffic volumes on Armstrong Road are low (average 380 trips per day). Reconstructing Armstrong Road will not generate additional traffic, except during construction when vehicles associated with those activities use the local street system. Reconstructing Armstrong Road will not create a demand for new parking since the project does not change any land use as noted in #8 - Land Use. The project will temporarily affect traffic circulation because of necessary lane closures and shifting of traffic during construction. Installing sufficient signs will minimize this impact by warning motorists about the construction. We expect the contractor to complete the work in approximately 100 working days. (E & F) No water or rail transportation and facilities are within the project limits(see Figures 5 - 8), thus the project will not alter waterbome or rail traffic. The Byron Airport is on the south side of Armstrong Road. We will construct part of the drainage improvements on airport property away from the runways. Construction activities will be coordinated with airport staff; thus, road reconstruction will not alter air traffic. Once complete, the project will result in better vehicle access to the airport. 14. Public Services (A- D, F) The road widening will not increase the need for fire or police protection, schools, parks or other governmental services (see # 8, 11 - 12 - Land Use, Population & Housing). ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page #6 (E) The County currently maintains Armstrong Road and will continue to do so after the project is completed. ,The proposed road reconstruction and, drainage improvements• reduce the frequency of maintenance currently performed on the roadway. 15 Energy (A - B) The project consumes a minor amount of non-renewable fuel resources. during construction, but this is a,minor, short-term,and ,temporary impact. Eliminating unnecessary idling of machines and using properly tuned equipment (see#2 -Air(A- B} and #9 - Natural Resources) further reduces this impact. 15. Utilities The project includes undergrounding utilities, which will be,coordinated with the. appropriate utility agencies. By implementing the measures discussed under#1.0.- Risk of Upset, the contractor minimizes the potential disturbance to the petroleum pipeline crossing Armstrong.Road.. Modifications to the Armstrong Road crossing of the Byron-. Bethany Irrigation Canal and the access roads.for the canal will not result in a substantial j alteration to the canal system. 16. Human Health The project.has the potential to release hazardous substances during construction- Following best management practices shall minimize potential health hazards due to accidental petroleum spills. noted in #10 - Risk of Upset (A). We do not anticipate reconstructing the road and:associated drainage improvements to create any known health hazard or result in the exposure of people to potential health hazards. 17. Aesthetics Reconstructing Armstrong Road will not result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view, nor will it create an.aesthetically offensive site.The sight of construction equipment may be.visually.unattractive, but this is,a minor and shortterm impact,..ending upon completion of the, project. 18. Recreation A significant amount of.the activity at the Byron Airport is recreational flying. Coordinating the project with airport personnel ensures that construction activities will not interfere with the facility, Once complete., the proposed.project improves access to the. airport. 19. Cultural Resources (A- D) The County General Plan (Reference#2) designated the project area as an ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Armstrong Road Reconstruction Project Page #7 archaeological highly sensitive area. However, according to the County Resource Mapping System (Reference#1) and the Cultural Resources Study (Reference #7) no historical or archaeological sites exist within the project area. The contract specifications shall include measures related to discovery of cultural resources. 20. Mandatory Findings of Significance (A- C) Due to the operation of construction equipment, the project may temporarily degrade air quality at the project site. However, no permanent long-term impacts will result (see #2 - Air). The proposed project will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, nor will it cause fish and wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels. In addition, the project will not threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, significantly reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal (see#4 - Plant Life and #5-Animal Life). Reconstructing Armstrong Road does not have the potential of eliminating examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory (see #20 - Cultural Resources). The minor individual impacts identified are not cumulatively considerable (see #2 - Air, #4 - Plant Life, #5 - Animal Life, and #13 - Transportation/Circulation). In addition, the project will not create adverse environmental effects on human beings (see #17 - Human Health). r maLvlg AWRMSTRON.EVL FIGURE j o - o 3 Z Li m Lu v O p 'Q 0 c) ,Q ,Li,� C LU 0op L.. Ca C3 _ ��.►= CO o ._..� U - � n n � < CL i Z W 0 FIGURE 2' MO 20 o 1 10 io i —...�.1—..._ X41 ...... .. 0 C/------ o i \ I• \i6M 23 Well o v PROJECT LIM TS M26 - ���/// 0 ( I Z 3 ,pg 0J: QO o _ , IARMSTRONdROAD ---- yy� Tributaryto Brushy Creek } l ° ICrxrr,nir ;m. m N 0 ° ©`b .r -'� 22 x' �L O: HOLEY (° } V 2 A. 3 1, SOURCE:USGS,BYRON HOT . VICINITY MAP ARMSTRONG ROAD SPRINGS AND CLIFTON RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT COURT FOREBAY,CA QUADRANGLES SCALE: 1:24,000 3�a\sg L6bt L�itL'b yoG/ltia!'c"/ _ 3aa.gblg0 � �o io fit Z d 4 Y jai " EY t Q 9Aa a 9 1tat G.� `J uu 4 a In CC • u �MpyxB �j I nip m COQAit a to vi /�' r � W A CL- its o a r u c -2 �o A d d " t yS a Qi Q a 1i1 rte Y o `too P 59 d2 m cot. Z u J o.,jj OG V = ix � � Q via 0 Z `� - I 1 - tk ago Eyv tT.7; II .: g co �n o:zo bs r r El.v Frig, ETn i t t� Y$ # R -E4v .39- _v -.. _ `/i 1 iz s -' r 1 1 I X r z - NOE> an neon � - nae� z Ap Z p; l�,� - Z. bm ><.:j tr oa m 0 Z OT r < - Z Q m CoNE 6 D CO .� Lo ° K 1 m yLA --10 o z-a ®�7 N �T r �z �P c� NE C) -moi e y0D C2g -N m _ - t ae, 09:32:29 1997 E:\BYERS\OCF\CCL600:ocf /uu/bil1/d.406796.o.f - j . � 3"�'96190�°PiiF'4!n^f 1�O'OO9»1t1.7O1SN3xgtr3 GbbT 60�1£RS � An lLt es arrw+Kr a•s oas «��w+ow R R _ >� Si R t al oz ag zM •r r+ o ` roe mlit :20 0l: SrI • I� {�tCL ' so �•� '� :� , :i 9t8'Ox Z U : ---------- ice____,_;, _ f `/; �� •' •1,, Beni : s sswr oop osz oas M7 waow a, T ' �o tz,a s = pN 4 W iY. SLO -v d ' 7 s� u i♦M+�♦♦L a 04S �co cT $. t.s N r _ 2CY'4 n �M1• OSS9 N - �5 tl '�•s ort'9t oS9•St �a� tots = C $� ° 8 . a $ ZC?< oiTS j: o!oZ a � E zu•v ~'a � S� 's o00 0l'Edna isS� \�. � , ., 000'o•as � i ar{it X41 b$ tlf9 s 'vh, - _ a � Yot°M LM Sia 6-50 CS"Ywt 41 $ i 7177N.7 QQ y 16.630 10.439 » c,�f 4K -16846- - - n.662 tll o. f . ■N - NN 17.670 - —U4 �— k» 0.25 n.476 `t i W cc t 5 I NC • 17366._ _.---- --- -- --'----- _ —,-.__ ---._- 1 �c � 8 o D i --—-—-— :! SEC.LI r•> p 17.094 -9 y C n " n � 8IZ ray 8 B j,I Hr 6 z K i 16.902 fn '7 t 16.516. 16.326_. ._ _... - ....... ---. __ _ - i _ sQ m @ _ 15.942CO - 7 e Iso P. 1 m� I Z O NB9C•90.000 Z.--1 0 7 - 5.462 z c -'-10 7rvil a 15.374 `'- Cg P 8 a o o Match LkV Vo 10.00.CS"Sh"I 61 z o 1. _ _ m 4• g Q O a u0 . d� �u a �I OIE: z o: ate' No Z u Awa Tc 9 � • .. N•. N � N d � c- ptl bulAS iplt Wr(e _� `o„ 4u - .. �,t, wtu�oiupa'a�p(o�C-Du3 _ 048'60. 0x'26. JA3 W N o o E c a-zt-ue P. ¢ .1897 WOZS-)AB Q66.Zl >< .4<�Z - epxo. }2L'ZI 0 4<69971 t K O ¢O C t56'TI y1 f Lt w 66PH •- �, ,- •-004'50.3A3 c :... bLZ.b4 S , b kw'n z S� o t9 F so4.08Kv pts wAl u*on r Q y C _