[cover] Supplemental Environmental Assessment Wildwood Creek Detention Basins City of Yucaipa PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-036 November 2007 U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607 [title page] This document was prepared by URS Corporation 1333 Broadway, Suite 800 Oakland, California 94612 Contract No. EMW-2000-CO-0247 Task Order 306 15702306.00100 [text] Supplemental Environmental Assessment to the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Typical Recurring Actions Resulting From Flood, Earthquake, Fire, Rain, and Wind Disasters in California as Proposed by the Federal Emergency Management Agency City of Yucaipa Wildwood Creek Flood Mitigation Detention Basin Project PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-036 November 2007 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Yucaipa (City) has applied for funds from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), through the State of California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (OES), to conduct a stormwater management project within Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California. FEMA is proposing to fund the project through the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program. The PDM Program was authorized by Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Title 42 United States Code Part 5133, as amended by Section 102 of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-390, 114 Statutes 1552), to assist states and communities to implement sustained, pre-disaster, natural-hazard mitigation programs to reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. 1.1 SCOPE OF DOCUMENT FEMA has prepared the Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment for Typical Recurring Actions Resulting from Flood, Earthquake, Fire, Rain, and Wind Disasters in California (PEA), which assesses common impacts of the action alternatives that are under consideration at the proposed project area (FEMA 2003). The PEA adequately assesses impacts from the action alternatives for some resource areas, but for the specific actions of this particular project, some resources are not fully assessed in the PEA. Therefore, for this specific project to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), this Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) has been prepared to tier from the PEA and fully assess the additional impacts to resources that are not adequately addressed in the PEA. This SEA hereby incorporates the PEA by reference, in accordance with Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 1508.28. 1.2 PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION The PDM Program assists states and communities to implement sustained, pre-disaster, natural-hazard mitigation programs to reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. Therefore, the purpose of the action is to provide PDM Program funding to the City. The City is approximately 28 square miles and lies along the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains. It is approximately 17 miles southeast of the City of San Bernardino and 80 miles east of the City of Los Angeles. The City is bounded by Crafton Hills to the northwest, the City of Calimesa and Interstate 10 to the south, and mountainous terrain to the east (Figure 1, Appendix A). Wildwood Creek drains an area of approximately 5,400 acres and is one of approximately six major drainage channels that flow through the City. Wildwood Creek flows southwest from the San Bernardino Mountains through the City, under Interstate 10 and into the City of Redlands through Live Oak and San Timoteo creeks. The width of the creek’s floodplain is relatively uniform, averaging 900 feet, for approximately 3 miles from Jefferson Street to Interstate 10. In recent years, winter storms and flash floods have caused Wildwood Creek to overflow onto City streets, parks, and private property. According to a study done by RBF Consulting (2001), structures along Wildwood Creek are subject to flood depths of 1.2 to 3.5 feet during a 100-year flood. During floods, rushing water and silt deposits disrupt the traffic flow along the City’s roadways. The roads adjacent to the creek, Wildwood Canyon Road and Avenue G, are often damaged as the creek embankments erode. Road closures are sometimes required. Therefore, action is needed to reduce flooding hazards and help protect people and public and private property within the Wildwood Creek floodplain within the City. 2. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES 2.1 NO ACTION ALTERNATIVE The existing flood hazards would remain under the No Action Alternative as described in Section 2.1 of the PEA. Flooding would continue to threaten private and public property, roadways and accessibility, and public health and safety. The City would continue to be vulnerable to economic losses that could be caused by flooding. 2.2 PROPOSED ACTION This alternative falls under ‘Actions Involving Watercourses and Coastal Features – Constructing or Modifying a Water Detention, Retention, or Storage Facility’ defined in Section 2.4.4 of the PEA. The proposed action would consist of the activities described below. Under the proposed action, the City would construct one desilting basin, two detention basins, and a natural bottom channel (bioretention swale) on approximately 20 to 25 acres in and adjacent to Wildwood Creek in the southeastern part of the City (Figure 2, Appendix A). The total 29.5-acre project area (including equipment and material staging areas) is within the City and bounded by Wildwood Canyon Road to the north, Holmes Street to the west, and Serape Drive to the southeast (Figure 3, Appendix A). The desilting basin would have a capacity of approximately 4 acre-feet. The detention basins would have capacities of approximately 30 and 45 acre-feet. The basins would be situated in series, with Wildwood Creek flowing into the desilting basin first, then westward to the 45-acre-foot detention basin, and then to the 30-acre-foot detention basin before continuing along the existing Wildwood Creek channel. The City proposes to construct an approximately 20-foot-wide bioretention swale to bypass the desilting and detention basins. The swale would convey low creek flows and first flush flows emanating from the partially developed upstream watershed. The detention basins would be vegetated with native riparian vegetation and/or alluvial fan sage scrub as determined appropriate for this site. The desilting basin would not be vegetated as it is expected to collect silt and debris. The side slopes of the bioretention swale would be revegetated with appropriate native riparian and/or alluvial fan sage scrub. Every effort would be made to protect existing oak trees adjacent to the creek during project construction. Heavy-duty construction equipment such as wheel tractor-scrapers, graders, earthmovers, bulldozers, and trucks would be used to construct the basins. Such construction would generally occur during the dry months of March through October. Construction outside of the channel and basins could occur at other times of the year. In addition to reducing flooding, debris deposition, and damage to downstream properties, the facility would reduce nonpoint source pollution during storms and enhance groundwater recharge. The City also plans to develop trails around the basins that would be used for recreational and educational activities. The trails would be incorporated into the City’s existing multiuse trails master plan. 2.3 OTHER ACTION ALTERNATIVES Other alternatives to the proposed action are adequately addressed in Section 2 of the PEA. 3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES The PEA has adequately described the affected environment and impacts of the proposed action for many resource areas, except for geology, seismicity, and soils; air quality; water resources; biological resources; cultural resources; land use and planning; transportation; noise; and visual resources. Therefore, the affected environment and environmental consequences for those resources are described in this section, which is intended to supplement the information contained in the PEA. Necessary avoidance and minimization measures that are appropriate for the proposed action, as either stipulated in the PEA or based on the results of the impact analysis in the SEA, are discussed in Section 4. 3.1 GEOLOGY, SEISMICITY, AND SOILS The proposed Wildwood Creek project lies west of the San Bernardino Mountains in the Peninsular Ranges physiographic province, at approximately 2,700 feet above mean sea level. At less than 10 miles from the San Andreas fault, the project area lies in a seismically active area. Wildwood Creek originates in hills that are composed of metamorphic rocks (Bortugno and Spittler 1986). The creek transports sands and gravels downstream, resulting in deposits of fresh fluvial sediment along the creek bed and alluvial fan surfaces stabilized at elevations slightly higher than the present stream level. Three soil types are found in the project area: Tujunga loamy sand, Hanford sandy loam, and Sangus sandy loam (Woodruff and Brock 1971). Both the Tujunga loamy sand and Hanford sandy loam tend to be located directly adjacent to the current stream channel in grassy areas. The Sangus sandy loam is found in areas of higher elevation with tree cover. Implementation of the proposed action would result in permanent ground disturbance in the project area due to the installation of one desilting basin, two detention basins, and a natural bottom channel (bioretention swale). Soils and underlying material would be removed to construct the basins and channel. The proposed maximum excavation depth is 14 feet. Excavated materials would be permanently removed from the project area and disposed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws. Soils would temporarily be disturbed by construction activities such as excavation, grading, removing vegetation, and using heavy equipment. The potential impacts include compaction, soils loss, and increased susceptibility to water and wind erosion due to disturbance of soil structure and removal of vegetation. Areas that would be disturbed by construction activities would be stabilized with erosion control measures as described in Section 4.1 of this SEA. No impacts to geology or seismicity are expected from implementation of the proposed action. 3.2 AIR QUALITY The federal Clean Air Act of 1970 was enacted to regulate air emissions from area, stationary, and mobile sources. This act authorized the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQSs) to protect public health and the environment. The six criteria pollutants regulated by this act are carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), particulate matter (less than 10 micrometers [PM10] and less than 2.5 micrometers [PM2.5]), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Additionally, the State of California set California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQSs) for ten criteria pollutants including CO, lead, PM10, PM2.5, NOx, O3, SO2, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility reducing particles. CAAQSs are the same or more stringent than NAAQSs. Under the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, states with air quality that does not achieve the NAAQSs are required to develop and maintain state implementation plans. These plans constitute a federally enforceable definition of the state’s approach (or plan) and schedule for the attainment of the NAAQSs. Air quality management areas are designated as “attainment,” “nonattainment,” or “unclassified” for each individual pollutant depending on whether or not they exceed an applicable NAAQS or CAAQS. Areas that have been redesignated from nonattainment to attainment are called maintenance areas. Prior to approval of any federal action, the General Conformity Rule (GCR) (Title 40 CFR Part 51.853) states that a “a conformity determination is required for each criteria pollutant or precursor where the total of direct and indirect emissions of the criteria pollutant or precursor in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by a Federal action would equal or exceed any of the rates” (40 CFR 51.853 b) specified in the GCR. The GCR requires the responsible federal agency of a federal action to determine the following: * Does the proposed action generate emissions of criteria pollutants or their precursors? * Does the proposed action generate emissions of criteria pollutants or their precursors in a nonattainment or maintenance area for each pollutant? * Is the proposed action exempt based on criteria listed in the GCR? * Are emissions of criteria pollutants or their precursors resulting from the proposed action below applicable emissions threshold rates (hence, exempt from conformity determination requirements)? * Are emissions of criteria pollutants or their precursors resulting from the proposed action above applicable emissions threshold rates (hence, conformity determination requirements apply to, and a conformity determination would be needed for the proposed action)? The project area is located within the South Coast air basin, which covers an area of 10,743 square miles and includes Los Angeles County, Orange County, and the western portions of San Bernardino and Riverside counties. With over 16 million people, it is the second-most populated urban area in the United States. The South Coast air basin’s climate is determined by its terrain and geographical location. It is a coastal plain with connecting broad valleys and low hills, bounded by the Pacific Ocean to the southwest and by mountains that channel and confine the airflow around the rest of the perimeter. The basin generally lies in the semipermanent high-pressure zone of the eastern Pacific. The project area is under the jurisdiction of the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The primary sources of air pollution within the area include industrial facilities and vehicle emissions. Residents in the South Coast air basin drive 40 percent of all vehicle miles traveled in California and produce one-third of all air pollutant emissions in the state. The project area is located in the western potion of San Bernardino County, which is designated as nonattainment for the O3, PM10, and PM2.5 NAAQSs (EPA 2007). The western portion of the county is also designated as nonattainment for the O3 (extreme), PM10, and PM2.5 CAAQSs (California Air Resources Board 2007). The area is in attainment or unclassified for all other California and federal criteria pollutants (California Air Resources Board 2007; EPA 2007). The GCR is a federal regulation and provides emission threshold rates for federally designated nonattainment and maintenance areas. As such, project emissions are compared to these threshold rates to determine whether or not a formal conformity determination is required. San Bernardino County is federally designated as nonattainment for O3, PM10, and PM2.5. Therefore, a comparison must be made to demonstrate that the proposed action’s emissions will be below the applicable emission threshold rates listed in the GCR. TABLE: Applicable GCR Emission Threshold Rates for the Western Portion of San Bernardino County Pollutant Nonattainment (tons/year) CO 100 NOX 10 (extreme, O3 precursor)* PM10 70 (serious) PM2.5 100 SO2 100 VOCs 10 (extreme, O3 precursor)* *Note: The project area is located in the western portion of San Bernardino County, which is under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. The area is classified as extreme nonattainment for O3. Implementation of the proposed action would result in temporary impacts to the existing air quality in the area. These impacts include temporary increases of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) and combustion emissions (CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and volatile organic compounds [VOCs]). Fugitive dust emissions would be generated by vehicle movement over paved and unpaved roads, dirt tracked onto paved surfaces from unpaved areas at access points, and particulate matter that is suspended during construction activities. Combustion emissions would be generated from the operation of construction equipment during the construction process. It is important to note that no NAAQS or CAAQS exists for VOCs. However, VOCs are a precursor to O3, which has both a NAAQS and CAAQS. The formation of O3 occurs in the troposphere as precursor pollutants react in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, the only way to regulate/reduce O3 is through the control of its reactive precursors, one of which is VOCs. Unmitigated emission estimates were determined using the following basic guidance and assumptions: * 125 construction days/year * 10 working hours/day * Emissions estimated using the equipment loading for a permitted construction project with 38 acres of ground disturbance scaled down to the assumed 20 to 25 acres of ground disturbance for this project * EPA AP-42 and SCAQMD guidance Based on the above assumptions, the following unmitigated emissions are expected for this project: TABLE: Estimated Proposed Action Emission Rates Emission Rate-a Pollutant ton/yr CO 6.3 NOx 9.9 PM10-b 4.1 PM2.5-b 1.3 SO2 0.0099 VOCs 1.7 Notes: a- Emissions include contributions from construction equipment and employee vehicle contributions. b- Includes particulate from fugitive dust and combustion activities. Even without mitigation measures, the project emission estimates for CO, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, SO2, and VOCs are below the applicable GCR threshold emission rates. Therefore, no further analysis is required to establish conformity with the State Implementation Plan; air quality impacts as a result of implementation of this action would be temporary and negligible. Implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 4.2 of this SEA would reduce temporary impacts to sensitive populations. 3.3 WATER RESOURCES Wildwood Creek drains an area of approximately 5,400 acres and is one of six major drainage channels that flow through the City. Headwaters to this drainage originate approximately 2 miles upstream in San Bernardino National Forest. Oak Glen and Wildwood creeks converge to form Yucaipa Creek on the southwestern side of the City. Wilson and Wildwood Creeks and their tributaries converge in Live Oak Canyon, west of Interstate 10, in the southwestern side of the City and then flow through Live Oak Canyon to San Timoteo Canyon just south of the City of Redlands. Wildwood Creek is an intermittent stream that generally holds water only during the wet season. The width of the creek’s floodplain is relatively uniform, averaging 900 feet, for approximately 3 miles from Jefferson Street to Interstate 10. The drainage regularly receives active deposits of sand and rocky material and is primarily devoid of vegetation. Temporary impacts to Wildwood Creek may occur during construction. The staging and use of heavy equipment on unpaved areas may lead to soil erosion, which could result in added runoff to the river system. Best Management Practices (BMPs) would be utilized to minimize erosion and prevent runoff. Section 4.1 outlines the BMPs that would be implemented at the project site during construction to avoid temporary soil erosion and hence sedimentation. Over the long term, implementation of the proposed action would have a beneficial effect on water resources in the project area by reducing nonpoint source pollution during storms, capturing upstream sediment in the debris basin (thus preventing it from flowing downstream), and enhancing groundwater recharge. Wildwood Creek is designated as jurisdictional waters of the United States by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires that the proposed action receive a U.S. Department of the Army permit for work involving the discharge of dredged or fill materials in waters of the United States. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is responsible for reviewing projects for U.S. Department of the Army permits. In addition, Section 401 of the CWA requires that applicants for federal permits or licenses that are conducting work involving any discharge into waters of the United States receive a Water Quality Certification. As project construction would disturb one or more acres of soil, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Discharges of Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity would also be required. Section 4.3 of this SEA specifies permits that the City would be required to obtain; acquisition of these permits and compliance with their terms would avoid or minimize impacts to water resources. 3.3.1 Floodplain Management In compliance with Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and 44 CFR Part 9, FEMA considered the proposed action’s impacts to the floodplain. FEMA applies the Eight- Step Decision-Making Process to ensure that it funds projects that are consistent with Executive Order 11988. The NEPA compliance process involves essentially the same basic decision-making process to meet its objectives as the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process. Therefore, the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process has been applied through implementation of the NEPA process. FEMA published an Initial Public Notice at the declaration of the disaster. FEMA would ensure publication of a Final Public Notice in compliance with Executive Order 11988 before implementation of the proposed action. Portions of the project area are located within the 100-year floodplain, as designated by FEMA on Flood Insurance Rate Map Community Panel Number 06071C8745F, effective date March 18, 1996. The map shows that within the project area, the channel and areas south of Wildwood Creek are located within Flood Zone A, which designates an area subject to inundation by the 1-percent-annual-chance flood event. A portion of the project area north of the channel is also located within Zone A. Areas just south of Wildwood Canyon Road are located within Flood Zone X, which designates an area outside of the 100-year floodplain. In recent years, winter storms and flash floods have caused Wildwood Creek to overflow onto City streets, parks, and private property. According to a study done by RBF Consulting (2001), structures along Wildwood Creek are subject to flood depths of 1.2 to 3.5 feet during a 100-year flood. During floods, rushing water and silt deposits disrupt the traffic flow along the City’s roadways. The proposed action is expected to benefit the floodplain and restore floodplain values by improving water quality and providing more natural conditions of the floodplain. The proposed action has been found to be the best way to reduce flooding associated with this section of Wildwood Creek. Alternatives to the proposed action were found to be less effective than the proposed action. No adverse impacts to floodplain values have been identified for the proposed action. Implementation of the proposed action would not support additional development of the floodplain in the project area. Also, the proposed action would not aggravate flood hazards for others. Accordingly, the proposed action complies with Executive Order 11988 and 44 CFR Part 9. 3.3.2 Protection of Wetlands In compliance with Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, FEMA considered the proposed action’s impacts to wetlands. FEMA applies the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process to ensure that it funds projects that are consistent with Executive Order 11990. The NEPA compliance process involves essentially the same basic decision-making process to meet its objectives as the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process. Therefore, the Eight-Step Decision-Making Process has been applied through implementation of the NEPA process. FEMA published an Initial Public Notice at the declaration of the disaster. FEMA would ensure publication of a Final Public Notice in compliance with Executive Order 11990 before implementation of the proposed action. An approximately 0.03-acre area associated with the outflow of a storm drain into Wildwood Creek may be considered a jurisdictional, riverine wetland. This area has a few willows and other wetland-associated plants and frequently has water. The semipermanent water source of the storm drain outflow may have created hydric soil conditions. The proposed action is expected to create wetlands by constructing the bioretention swale and vegetating it with native species. The permanent creation of wetlands would more than compensate for the temporary loss of wetlands associated with project construction. As described in Section 3.3.1, alternatives to the proposed action were found to be less effective than the proposed action. Obtaining a CWA Section 404 permit and implementing all conditions of the permit, as described in Section 4.3, would mitigate for the temporary disturbance of wetlands in the project area. Accordingly, the proposed action complies with Executive Order 11990 and 44 CFR Part 9. 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES FEMA obtained information concerning species listed as endangered, threatened, proposed for listing as endangered or threatened, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act that may occur in the project area. The California Department of Fish and Game’s Natural Diversity Database was searched for known occurrences of special-status species within nine U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute quadrangles surrounding the project area. FEMA also obtained a list of special-status species that may occur in San Bernardino County from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). FEMA botanists conducted a botanical survey at the proposed project site and mapped 12 vegetation communities: buckwheat-scalebroom, California buckwheat, California buckwheat alluvial fan, disturbed, Goodding’s willow, introduced herbaceous, mixed native/nonnative herbaceous, mixed shrub, oak woodland, pasture, scalebroom scrub, and the Wildwood Creek drainage. No aquatic habitats were identified in the project area or its immediate vicinity. FEMA determined that the following four federally listed threatened and endangered species have the potential to occur in the project vicinity: slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), Nevin’s barberry (Berberis nevinii), Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum), and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus) (SBKR). FEMA biologists conducted botanical surveys during the blooming period for the three listed plant species. None of the three species were observed during the surveys. FEMA biologists also conducted an extensive literature review and pedestrian-based biological survey to disclose and evaluate the on-site habitat conditions and determine the potential for occurrence of the SBKR. FEMA determined that there is a low potential for SBKR occurrence because this species’ distribution is restricted by substantive habitat requirements that are absent or negligible within the project area. To further substantiate this finding, a 2006 trapping survey did not result in the capture of a single SBKR, although it yielded 160 rodent captures. Finally, no historical records of SBKR occur within the project area or within the Yucaipa quadrangle (California Department of Fish and Game 2007). FEMA transmitted the findings of its botanical survey and SBKR site assessment to the USFWS in separate letters dated August 17 and August 24, 2007 (Appendix B). In a letter dated August 30, 2007, USFWS concurred with FEMA’s determination that the proposed action is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species (Appendix B). Thus, the proposed action complies with the federal Endangered Species Act. To further protect biological resources, the City would implement the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 4.4 of this SEA. 3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES FEMA conducted a cultural resources records review at the San Bernardino Museum Archaeological Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System. In addition, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of its Sacred Lands File and a list of Native American groups and individuals that the NAHC believes should be contacted about the project. FEMA sent letters to those groups and individuals listed by the NAHC. The NAHC responded on February 17, 2006, with negative results in its search of the Sacred Lands File. On March 10, 2006, FEMA transmitted an informational letter to the 22 interested parties identified by the NAHC. To date, FEMA has received two responses to these letters: one from the Morongo Band of Mission Indians, which stated that it has no additional knowledge of cultural resources in the project area but requested a copy of the final report, and one from the Ramona Band of Cahuilla, which requested that a monitor be present during construction, provisions be in place for the treatment of artifacts should they be discovered during construction, and a copy of the final report. An archaeological survey of the project area was undertaken by a FEMA-contracted archaeologist on January 27, 2006, and again on February 23, 2007, after the City expanded the initial project area. The results of both surveys were negative. No properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places were identified through the literature review or pedestrian surveys of the project area. Therefore, FEMA determined that the proposed action is not expected to have any effect on historic properties. FEMA has concluded that the presence of an archaeological or Native American monitor is not warranted for this project. FEMA informed the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) of its determination in a letter dated June 16, 2006 (Appendix C). The SHPO responded in a letter dated September 28, 2006, stating that although the SHPO’s mandated 21-day comment period had passed (as stipulated in FEMA’s First Amended Programmatic Agreement with the SHPO, OES, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation), the SHPO was requesting that FEMA reconsider the scope of the area of potential effects and undertake additional efforts to determine the presence or absence of archaeological resources (Appendix C). FEMA addressed the SHPO comments as well as provided additional information regarding the modified project area in a letter dated April 23, 2007 (Appendix C). To date, FEMA has received no response to its second letter. In accordance with Stipulation VII of the Programmatic Agreement, FEMA has assumed concurrence, as SHPO did not object to FEMA’s determination within 21 days. Therefore, the proposed action complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Measures to minimize and avoid impacts to cultural resources are described in Section 4.5 of this SEA. 3.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING The proposed action would occur on vacant land. Construction of the basins and bioretention swale would not require a change in current zoning or land use. The City plans to develop trails around the basins that would be used for recreational and educational activities, and these trails would be incorporated into the City’s existing multiuse trails master plan. Section 4.6 of this SEA describes the City’s responsibilities to avoid or minimize impacts to land use and zoning issues. 3.7 TRANSPORTATION During floods, rushing water and silt deposits disrupt the traffic flow along the City’s roadways. The roads adjacent to Wildwood Creek (Wildwood Canyon Road and Avenue G) are often damaged as the creek embankments erode. Road closures are sometimes required. The proposed action would have a beneficial effect on transportation by reducing the flood hazard and consequently minimizing damages to area roads and eliminating or reducing the need for road closures. Construction activities are not expected to impact local roads or transportation patterns. If staging or construction activities do occur on or in close proximity to nearby residential roadways, the impacts would be temporary and would be minimized by implementing the minimization and avoidance measures described in Section 4.7 of this SEA. 3.8 NOISE Commonly defined as unwanted and/or unwelcome sound, noise is federally regulated by the Noise Control Act of 1972. Although this act tasks the EPA to prepare guidelines for acceptable ambient noise levels, it only charges those federal agencies that operate noise- producing facilities or equipment to implement noise standards. By the nature of its mission, FEMA does not have regulations defining noise. Some land uses are considered sensitive to noise. Noise-sensitive receptors are located at land uses associated with indoor and outdoor activities that may be subject to stress or significant interference from noise. These land uses often include residential dwellings, temporary dwellings (e.g., hotels), hospitals, nursing homes, educational facilities, parks, and libraries. The project area typically experiences noises from sources associated with residential neighborhoods and roads, such as vehicles, televisions, radios, dogs, and human voices. Wildwood Canyon Road, along the northern portion of the project area, is the primary noise producer because of vehicular traffic noises. The primary noise-sensitive receptors near the project area are neighboring residences. The implementation of the proposed action would produce noise from the operation of equipment such as compacters, loaders, backhoes, bulldozers, scrapers, and trucks. These pieces of equipment generate noise levels ranging from about 70 to 95 A-weighted decibels at 50 feet from the source. Residences in the project vicinity are generally located more than 50 feet from proposed construction activities. Furthermore, oak woodlands buffer the primary residential area southeast of the project area. With implementation of the avoidance and minimization measures described in Section 4.8 of this SEA, impacts to noise-sensitive receptors are expected to be temporary and negligible. 3.9 VISUAL RESOURCES Portions of the project area south of Wildwood Creek consist of open space and sparse to dense herbaceous and forest vegetation. The northern project area consists of open space, residential properties, and undeveloped areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation and chaparral. Much of the area north of the channel has been previously impacted by development, grading, and erosion. The Wildwood Creek channel is sparsely vegetated and generally holds water only during the wet season. The existing visual character is typical within the region, and no areas of scenic importance exist within the project area. Primary viewers adjacent to the project area consist of the nearby residents and travelers along Wildwood Canyon Road. The proposed action would have both temporary and permanent effects on visual resources. Existing vegetation would be removed during construction of the basins and bioretention swale, and construction activities would be visible from Wildwood Canyon Road and some nearby residences. These impacts would be temporary and are not expected to result in substantial impacts to visual resources since the proposed action would occur in a previously disturbed area. The addition of the proposed drainage elements would be permanent; however, it would not fundamentally alter the existing setting because the two drainage basins and the bioretention swale would be revegetated with native species and would blend into the existing landscape. Implementation of the proposed action would not create additional viewsheds (such as opening up a view to a more populated area) or deteriorate existing views within the project area. Therefore, with the implementation of the minimization measures described in Section 4.9 of this SEA, the proposed action would not result in adverse impacts to visual resources. 3.10 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Cumulative impact is the impact on the environment, which results from the incremental impact of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonable future actions regardless of the person or group that undertakes the other actions. FEMA knows of no other projects planned in the project vicinity; therefore, no cumulative impacts are expected to occur as a result of the proposed action. 4. MINIMIZATION AND AVOIDANCE MEASURES The following minimization and avoidance measures applicable for the proposed action have been extracted from Section 4 of the PEA or from measures developed for this SEA based on site-specific impacts. 4.1 GEOLOGY, SOILS, AND SEISMICITY To avoid adverse impacts to soils the City would be responsible for implementing temporary erosion protection during construction, such as installing silt fences or haybales, and employing an erosion and sediment control plan. The City would revegetate the two detention basins and the bioretention swale with native riparian vegetation and/or alluvial fan sage scrub (as determined appropriate for this site) after construction to permanently minimize erosion. Vehicle parking and construction staging areas would be designated on paved surfaces where possible. The bottoms/floors of the desilting and detention basins would require occasional maintenance to remove any deposited sediment to restore basin design capacities and to facilitate groundwater recharge. The bioretention swale would require occasional maintenance to maintain structural integrity and to remove sediment and/or deleterious material to maintain hydraulic capacity. 4.2 AIR QUALITY The City would be responsible for implementing the following BMPs to reduce potential short-term air quality impacts from construction and maintenance activities to sensitive populations: * Watering disturbed areas * Scheduling the location of the staging areas to minimize fugitive dust * Keeping construction vehicles tuned properly * Requiring all trucks to cover their loads * Sweeping adjacent streets and roads if visible soil is carried over to these areas from the construction site * During high-wind periods, curtailing activities to the degree necessary to prevent fugitive dust from construction operations from being a nuisance or hazard on or off site * Ensuring all construction activities comply with the SCAQMD rules and standards 4.3 WATER RESOURCES Most minimization and avoidance measures described in Section 4.1 of the SEA would also benefit water resources and are not repeated here. In addition, the City would be responsible for obtaining and properly implementing the terms of a Department of the Army CWA Section 404 permit, a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification, and a NPDES General Permit. The City would also be responsible for complying with all state and local regulations governing water quality. 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES To avoid impacts to biological resources, the City would be responsible for implementing the following avoidance measures at the project site: * To the extent possible, no trees would be removed from the project site. * Project activities in and immediately adjacent to the channel would be conducted during the dry season. * The two detention basins and the bioretention swale would be replanted with native species after construction is completed. * The bioretention swale would require occasional maintenance to restore or re- establish native vegetation, to remove or trim downed or damaged vegetation, and to remove parasites or non-native or exotic plant or animal species. 4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES If unanticipated resources are discovered during construction, the City would stop project activities in the vicinity of the discovery, take all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize harm to the property, and notify OES and FEMA as soon as practicable so that FEMA can reinitiate consultation with the SHPO, in accordance with the Programmatic Agreement. If the discovery appears to contain human remains, the City would also contact the San Bernardino County Coroner immediately. If the coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his or her authority, and if the coroner recognizes the remains to be those of a Native American or has reason to believe that they are those of a Native American, he or she would contact the NAHC by telephone within 24 hours. 4.6 LAND USE AND PLANNING The City would be responsible for securing any necessary easements or rights of way from property owners and for ensuring that the proposed action complies with applicable sections of the City’s master plan. The City would also take responsibility for permanent maintenance of the facility. 4.7 TRANSPORTATION The City would be responsible for minimizing the potential short-term impacts to transportation in the project area during construction by implementing the following measures: * Workers would park their privately owned vehicles at designated and appropriately developed locations to reduce transportation impacts. * A traffic plan would be implemented during mobilization of haul trucks and heavy equipment in and out of the project area to reduce the potential for accidents, slowing of public traffic flow, and street blockage. The traffic plan would include flaggers, lookouts, and barricades as necessary to reduce inconvenience and safety hazards to the public. * Staging areas and construction activities would occur completely within City or county rights-of-way, and no public traffic routes would be fully blocked at any time. 4.8 NOISE The City would be responsible for implementation of the following measures to reduce noise levels and their effects to the extent practicable: * Project activities that create noise levels of above 55 A-weighted decibels would not be conducted between 7:00 pm and 7:00 am, on Sundays, or on federal holidays. * All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines would be equipped with properly operating mufflers and air inlet silencers, where appropriate, that meet or exceed original factory specifications. This measure would assure that noise emissions from vehicles and other equipment are limited to the minimum feasible levels. 4.9 VISUAL RESOURCES The City would be responsible for implementing measures to minimize permanent impacts to visual resources, including revegetating and contouring finished surfaces to blend with adjacent natural terrain, where appropriate. The bioretention swale would require occasional maintenance to remove human-made debris. 5. REFERENCES Bortugno, E.J. and Spittler, T.E. 1986. Geologic Map of the Sand Bernardino Quadrangle, California. Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology, Map No. 3A, Sheet 4. California Air Resources Board. 2007. Area Designation Maps – State and National. Accessed http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm on September 15, 2007. California Department of Fish and Game. 2007. California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch Department. Yucaipa, California Quadrangle. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2003. Final Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Typical Recurring Actions, Flood, Earthquake, Fire, Rain, and Wind Disasters in California. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA Region IX. RBF Consulting. 2001. Detention Basins Benefit Analysis, Wilson Creek and Wildwood Creek, City of Yucaipa, California. Prepared for City of Yucaipa Public Works Department. April. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2007. Currently Designated Nonattainment Areas for All Criteria Pollutants. Accessed http://www.epa.gov/oar/oaqps/greenbk/ancl3.html on September 15, 2006. Woodruff, G.A. and Brock, Willie Z. 1971. Soil Survey of San Bernardino County Southwestern Part, California. United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, University of California Agricultural Experiment Station. Appendix A – Figures Figure 1 Regional Project Map of Yucaipa, California Figure 2 Project Location Map of Yucaipa, California Figure 3 Project Boundary Map: Aerial photograph of Wildwood Creek and the project boundaries. Figure also shows Wildwood Canyon Rd to the north of the project boundaries and Serape Dr to the southeast of the project boundaries. Appendix B – Concurrence from USFWS [Letter 1 of 1] United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Ecological Services Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office 6010 Hidden Valley Road Carlsbad, California 92011 In Reply Refer To: FWS-SB-4717.2 Stamped: AUGUST 30, 2007 Stamped: RECEIVED SEP 04 2007 Alessandro Amaglio Environmental Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, California 94607-4052 Subj. Informal Section 7 Consultation for the Proposed Wildwood Creek Flood Mitigation Detention Basin Project, City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California Dear Mr. Amaglio: On August 20, 2007, we received your August 17, 2007 letter requesting our concurrence that the above referenced project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. The following federally endangered species are known to have the potential to occur within the project area and are specifically addressed as part of the proposed project: the slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras), Nevin's barberry (Berneris nevinii), Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorium), and San Bernardino kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami parvus). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) proposed to provide financial assistance to the City of Yucaipa for the proposed flood control project. Under the proposed action, the City of Yucaipa would construct one desilting basin, two detention basins, and a natural bottom channel (bio-retention swale). The proposed project is located within a 29.5-acre area south of Wildwood Canyon Road, between Holmes Street and Pinewood Lane in the City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California. Biological surveys were conducted for each of the aforementioned federally listed species, and the reports were attached to your letter and a subsequent letter dated August 28, 2007. Based on the results of these surveys, which showed that no federally listed species are present within the proposed project site, we concur that the proposed project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species. Therefore, the interagency consultation requirements of section 7 of the Act have been satisfied. This completes our informal consultation; however, obligations under section 7 of the Act should be reconsidered if: 1) new information reveals effects of the agency action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner or to an extent not previously considered; 2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered; or 3) a new species is listed or critical habitat designated that may be affected by the action. [page 2] Mr. Alessandro Amaglio (FWS-SB-4717.2) If you should have any questions pertaining to this letter, please contact Eric Porter of this office at (760) 431-9440, extension 285. Sincerely [illegible signature] for Karen A. Goebel Assistant Field Supervisor Appendix C – Concurrence from SHPO [Letter 1 of 3] U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 June 16, 2006 Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation 1416 9th Street, Room 1442-7 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: City of Yucaipa Wildwood Creek Flood Mitigation Detention Basin Project, PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-036 Dear Mr. Donaldson: The purpose of this letter is to transimt the enclosed technical report and summarize the results of an archaeological field review of lands potentially affected by a project proposed in San Bernardino County, California. The City of Yucaipa (City) has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) for a Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program grant to design and construct multi-purpose detention/desilting basins at Wildwood Creek in the City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California. The proposed effort is designed to mitigate future impacts associated with flooding and silting in Wildwood Creek. The attached report presents the results of a literature and archival review and an archaeological field survey of lands potentially affected by the proposed project. This report was prepared by URS Corporation (URS), as a consultant to FEMA, to comply with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among FEMA, the State Historic Preservation Officer, OES, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. In summary, a field review of the project area was supplemented by a cultural resources records review conducted at San Bernardino County Museum Archaeological Information Center (SBAIC) of the california Historical Resources Information System. In additon to the literature review, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of its Sacred Lands File as well as a list of Native American groups and individuals is believes should be contacted. The Sacred Lands File search was negative. FEMA sent letters to those groups and individuals listed by the NAHC. To date two responses have been received. One respondent requested that a Native American monitor be present during construction. FEMA has concluded that the presence of an archaeological and Native American monitor is not warranted. An archaeological survey of the area of potential effects (APE) was undertaken on January 27, 2006 by URS. The results of the survey were negative. Mr. Milford Donaldson June 16, 2006 Page 2 Project Description The proposed action area encompasses approximately 13 acres within a 22.5-acre area that would comprise the cultural resources APE (see Figure 3 in attached report). Under the proposed action, the City would construct one desilting basin, two detention basins, and a natural bottom channel (bio-retention swale) on approximately 13 acres in and adjacent to Wildwood Creek. The project area is bounded by Wildwood Canyon Road to the north, Holmes Street to the west, and Jefferson Street to the south. The desilting basin would have a capacity of approximately 4 acre-feet. The detention basins would have capacitites of approximately 30 and 45 acre-feet. The basins would be situated in series, with Wildwood creek flowing into the desilting basin first, then westward to the 45-acre-foot detention basin, and then to the 30-acre-foot detention basin before continuing along the existing Wildwood Creek channel. A bio-retention swale approximately 20 feet wide would be constructed to by-pass the detention basins during the Creek's low-flow times. APE Determination The Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project is defined as a 22.5-acre area that includes the 13-acre area described above where actual construction will occur as well as potential staging areas and access routes. Pursuant to Stipulation VII.A. of the PA, FEMA seeks your concurrence with its determination of the APE. Literature Review Pursuant to Stipulation VII.B. of the PA, the project area was subject to a cultural resources literature review. The enclosed report provides a complete description of the literature review. Natural Setting The enclosed report provides a complete description of the natural setting. Prehistory, Ethnohistory, and History The enclosed report provides a complete description of the prehistory, ethnohistory, and history of the project area. Cultural Resources Inventory Methods and Results URS Staff Archaeologist, Mr. Dustin Kay, under contract to FEMA, conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE and buffer area for the presence of cultural resources on January 27, 2006. Mr. Brian W. Hatoff, M.A., RPA, of URS, qualified as an archaeologist under the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, served as Principal Investigator for the cultural resources survey. The survey was negative for cultural resources. Findings and Conclusions As described above, no properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were identified through a literature review or pedestrian survey of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have an effect on historic properties within the APE. There is always the possibility that previously recorded or previously unidentified archaeological resources could be discovered during project construction. In accordance with Stipulation X of the PA, FEMA will require the City to stop work in the event of an unexpected discovery and will comply with the steps outlined in Stipulation X. Mr. Milford Donaldson June 16, 2006 Page 3 In accordance with Stipulation VII of the PA, FEMA has conducted the Standard Project Review. FEMA made a determination of "no historic properties affected" within the survey area. In accordance with the PA, FEMA is submitting for review the enclosed report supporting that determination. In accordance with Stipulation VII, FEMA may authorize funding for the project unless you object to this determination within 21 days of your receipt of this documentation. If you have any questions, you can contact me at (510) 627-7284 or Mr. Hatoff at (510) 874-3195. Sincerely, Alessandro Amaglio, AIA Environmental Officer Enclosure Cc: Marcia Rentschler, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Dennis Castrillo, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Fermin Preciado, City of Yucaipa [Letter 2 of 3] Office of Historic Preservation Department of Parks and Recreation P.O. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001 (916) 653-6624 Fax: (916) 653-9824 calshpo@ohp.parks.ca.gov www.ohp.parks.ca.gov 28 September 2006 In Reply Refer To FEMA060619A Stamped: Received Sep 29 2006 Alessandro Amaglio, AIA Environmental Officer Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 RE: CITY OF YUCAIPA WILDWOOD CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION DETENTION BASIN PROJECT, PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-036 [SECTION 106 CONSULTATION (RND.01) ON THE WILDWOOD CREEK FLOOD MITIGATION DETENTION BASIN PROJECT, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA] Dear Mr. Amaglio: This letter is a response to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) submission of the June 2006 Cultural Resources Technical Report: Wildwood Creek, City of Yucaipa, PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-036. FEMA's submission and my comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the California State Historic Preservation Officer, the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (PA), and, where the PA so directs, pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800, the regulation that implements Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470f), as amended. Your letter of 16 June 2006 requests that I concur with FEMA's determination of the area of potential effects (APE) for the subject undertaking, and review the agency's finding that the implementation of the undertaking will, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.4(d)(1), affect no historic properties. The letter closes with a reminder that, pursuant to stipulation VII.C of the PA, I have 21 days from my receipt of the letter to object to that finding. The 21-day review period for the above finding is over. I will, nonetheless, comment on FEMA's determinations of the APE for the undertaking and the level of effort necessary to identify and define the limits of any historic properties in that APE. I provide this comment to advise FEMA on my current guidance on such determinations to other Federal agencies in California, and to advise FEMA that, to the extent the agency chooses to continue making determinations in this manner, I may not be able to support FEMA's future attempts, under stipulation X of the PA, to resolve the adverse effects to historic properties that may occur as the direct result of such determinations. Neither FEMA's determination of the APE for the undertaking, nor its determination of the appropriate scope of its identification effort in that APE appear to fully take into account the potential character of the undertaking's effects on historic properties. FEMA defines the APE as "a 22.5-acre area that includes the 13-acre area ... where actual construction will occur as well as potential staging areas and access routes." The agency follows this determination with a pedestrian survey of the surface of the APE for an undertaking that involves what appear to be the moderately large-scale excavation of a desilting basin, two detention basins, and a natural bottom channel. I have no information in hand that indicates to what depth these excavations will occur, but, unless the excavations were going to be less than 1 m in depth, I would not agree that the survey of the surface of the APE provides FEMA with adequate information to assess the undertaking's potential to affect archaeological deposits greater than 1 m below the present surface of the APE. Under such circumstances, I typically recommend that a Federal agency include an explicit vertical dimension in its APE determination and evidence that it has taken into account any potential effects to subsurface archaeological deposits. In the present case, I would typically ask how deep the excavation work would be for the construction of the subject basins and channel, and what information the agency could cite to demonstrate whether the implementation of the undertaking may affect buring archaeological deposits. It is unquestionably FEMA's prerogative under the PA to proceed with the implementation of the present undertaking. Whether or how FEMA chooses to address my comment on the undertaking here is subject to FEMA's sole discretion. If FEMA wishes to re-open discussion of its effort to comply with stipulation VII of the PA for the undertaking, then I would be glad to do so. If it does not, I understand and simply request that FEMA consider this comment as it conducts future compliance efforts under the PA. Please direct any questions or concerns that you may have to Project Review Unit archaeologist Mike McGuirt at 916.653.8920 or at mmcgu@parks.ca.gov. Sincerely, [signed] Susan K Stratton for Milford Wayne Donaldson, FAIA State Historic Preservation Officer MWD:MDM:mdm [Letter 3 of 3] U.S. Department of Homeland Security 1111 Broadway, Suite 1200 Oakland, CA 94607-4052 April 23, 2007 Mr. Milford Wayne Donaldson State Historic Preservation Officer Office of Historic Preservation 1416 9th Street, Room 1442-7 Sacramento, California 95814 Re: City of Yucaipa Wildwood Creek Flood Mitigation Detention Basin Project, PDMC-PJ-09-CA-2005-036 Dear Mr. Donaldson: The purpose of this letter is to transimt the enclosed technical report and summarize the results of an archaeological field review of lands potentially affected by a project proposed in San Bernardino County, California. The City of Yucaipa (City) has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) through the California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) for a Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Program grant to design and construct multi-purpose detention/desilting basins at Wildwood Creek in the City of Yucaipa, San Bernardino County, California. The proposed effort is designed to mitigate future impacts associated with flooding and silting in Wildwood Creek. The attached report presents the results of a literature and archival review and an archaeological field survey of lands potentially affected by the proposed project. This report was prepared by URS Corporation (URS), as a consultant to FEMA, to comply with the Programmatic Agreement (PA) among FEMA, the State Historic Preservation Officer, OES, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Since the project area has been revised from the report originally submitted to your office on June 16, 2006, we are reinitiating consultation. In summary, a field review of the project area was supplemented by a cultural resources records review conducted at San Bernardino County Museum Archaeological Information Center (SBAIC) of the california Historical Resources Information System. In additon to the literature review, the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was contacted for a review of its Sacred Lands File as well as a list of Native American groups and individuals is believes should be contacted. The Sacred Lands File search was negative. FEMA sent letters to those groups and individuals listed by the NAHC. To date two responses have been received. One respondent requested that a Native American monitor be present during construction. FEMA has concluded that the presence of an archaeological and Native American monitor is not warranted. An archaeological survey of the area of potential effects (APE) was undertaken on January 27, 2006 by URS, and again on February 23, 2007 for the modified project area. The results of the survey were negative. Mr. Milford Donaldson April 20, 2007 Page 2 Project Description The proposed action area encompasses approximately 29.53 acres (see Figure 3 in attached report). Under the proposed action, the City would construct one desilting basin, two detention basins, and a natural bottom channel (bio-retention swale) in and adjacent to Wildwood Creek. The project area is bounded by Wildwood Canyon Road to the north, Holmes Street to the west, and Jefferson Street to the south. The desilting basin would have a capacity of approximately 4 acre-feet. The detention basins would have capacitites of approximately 30 and 45 acre-feet. The basins would be situated in series, with Wildwood creek flowing into the desilting basin first, then westward to the 45-acre-foot detention basin, and then to the 30-acre-foot detention basin before continuing along the existing Wildwood Creek channel. A bio-retention swale approximately 20 feet wide would be constructed to by-pass the detention basins during the Creek's low-flow times. APE Determination Pursuant to direction received by your office in your letter of September 29, 2006, we have expanded our discussion of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) for the proposed project to include a more explicit discussion of the vertical APE and the geologic and geomorphic setting in order to assess the potential for intact subsurface archaeological resources. The horizontal APE for the proposed project is defined as a 29.53-acre area that includes the area described above where actual construction would occur, as well as potential staging areas and access routes. The vertical APE for proposed excavation activity to remove silt within the active wash would involve a maximum depth of six feet from the surface of the wash in order to increase capacity in the desitling basin and detention basins. The terraces to the north and south of the wash could be excavated to a maximum of 14 feet. Since the project proponent has not finalized engineering, where excavation activity within the terrace area would occur precisely within the APE cannot be specifically identified at this time. Pursuant to Stipulation VII.A. of the PA, FEMA seeks your concurrence with its determination of the APE. Literature Review Pursuant to Stipulation VII.B. of the PA, the project area was subject to a cultural resources literature review. The enclosed report provides a complete description of the literature review. Natural Setting The enclosed report provides a complete description of the natural setting. Prehistory, Ethnohistory, and History The enclosed report provides a complete description of the prehistory, ethnohistory, and history of the project area. Cultural Resources Inventory Methods and Results URS Staff Archaeologist Mr. Dustin Kay, under contract to FEMA, conducted a cultural resources survey of the APE and buffer area for the presence of cultural resources on January 27, 2006, and again on February 23, 2007 for the modified project area. Mr. Brian W. Hatoff, M.A., RPA, of URS, qualified as an archaeologistunder the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards, served as Principal Investigator for the cultural resources survey. The survey was negative for cultural resources. Mr. Milford Donaldson April 20, 2007 Page 3 Findings and Conclusions As described above, no properties eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) were identified through a literature review or pedestrian survey of the project area. Therefore, the proposed project is not expected to have an effect on historic properties within the APE. There is always the possibility that previously recorded or previously unidentified archaeological resources could be discovered during project construction. In accordance with Stipulation X of the PA, FEMA will require the City to stop work in the event of an unexpected discovery and will comply with the steps outlined in Stipulation X. In accordance with Stipulation VII of the PA, FEMA has conducted the Standard Project Review. FEMA made a determination of "no historic properties affected" within the survey area. In accordance with the PA, FEMA is submitting for review the enclosed report supporting that determination. In accordance with Stipulation VII, FEMA may authorize funding for the project unless you object to this determination within 21 days of your receipt of this documentation. If you have any questions, you can contact me at (510) 627-7027 or Mr. Hatoff at (510) 874-3195. Sincerely, Alessandro Amaglio, AIA Environmental Officer Attachment Cc: Marcia Rentschler, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Dennis Castrillo, California Governor's Office of Emergency Services Fermin Preciado, City of Yucaipa