**FINAL**

**Supplemental Environmental Assessment FEMA-1008-DR-CA\
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX**

**Project Name:** Storm Drain Improvement Project

**Subgrantee:** City of Ione\
**HMGP Project Number**: 1008-6040

**Date:** Final-February 2003\
**Project Location:** Howard Park, City of Ione, California

# **INTRODUCTION**

The City of Ione, California has applied through the California Office
of Emergency Services (OES) to the Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA), for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) funding of a project
that would involve storm drainage improvements to prevent future flood
damage from overland runoff during heavy rain events. The proposed
project area is located in Howard Park south of downtown Ione,
California (Exhibits 1 and 2).

Improving the diversion and temporary storage of floodwaters associated
with overland runoff from the hills southeast of the city would
alleviate localized interior flooding conditions within the city of
Ione.

**1.1 Scope of Document**

This Supplemental Environmental Assessment (SEA) tiers from the Final
Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Typical Recurring
Actions Resulting from Flood Disasters in California as Proposed by FEMA
(FEMA 1998) and hereby incorporates the PEA by reference, in accordance
with regulations published in Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), Part 1508.28.

**1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action**

The purpose of and need for the action is described in Section 1.4 of
the PEA. As discussed previously, larger storm events currently threaten
to flood the City of Ione. Therefore, the City has determined that
action is needed to reduce the potential for damages related to future
flood events.

**[\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}**

# **ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS**

**2.1 No Action Alternative**

The No Action Alternative is described in Section 2.5.2.1 of the PEA.

### 2.2 Alternative 2 -- Construction of New Detention Pond (Proposed Action)

Alternative 2 is described as a "Combination Alternative" in Section
2.5.6 of the PEA. The project components include improvements to a
drainage channel and construction of a new detention pond, which are
described in Sections 2.5.2.3 and 2.5.3.4 of the PEA, respectively.
Alternative 2 would involve the enhancement of existing flood control
features, including the lining of an existing drainage ditch and
constructing a diversion berm and ditch with associated berm
(ditch/berm) to divert storm water runoff to the detention facility, and
the construction of a new detention pond within the city's existing
baseball fields (Exhibits 3 and 4). The dimensions of project features
are approximate, pending final design. Analysis has been conducted
assuming maximum impact.

The existing drainage ditch is a sparsely vegetated shallow depression
that connects a natural drainage swale on the west side of State Route
(SR) 124 to the existing retention pond located within Howard Park. A
branch of the existing drainage ditch diverges north towards the
existing ball field area. With the proposed action, branches and the
common channel (approximately 1,600 linear feet) would be graded to a
bottom width of 8 feet. Both branches of the existing drainage ditch and
the common channel would then be lined with "facing grade" rock (stones
weighing 30 to 50 pounds each) from the racetrack to the culverts
beneath SR 124. The rock would prevent erosion of the ditch, reduce flow
velocity, and allow the growth of vegetation. Channel lining would occur
along approximately 1,600 linear feet of drainage ditch. Following
placement of the rock, the final channel would be 6 feet wide at the
bottom, approximately 2.5 feet deep and have 3 to1 side slopes.

The new detention pond would be located on the existing baseball fields
within Howard Park. The current playing surface of the fields would be
lowered 1 to 6 feet by excavating approximately 35,000 cy of soil. An
earthen berm would be constructed around the south and west sides of the
baseball fields using the excavated soil. This berm would be
approximately 1,300 feet long with a width that would range up to 125
feet, and up to a height of 10 feet. The berm would tie into the higher
topography on the north and east sides. Once the construction is
completed, the city would replace the baseball fields, reconfiguring the
layout to expand the number of fields from two to four. The water
detention area would be approximately 780 feet by 780 feet and encompass
approximately 14 acres. The discharge of the stored water would occur
from the southwest corner of the pond via a pipe approximately 24 inches
in diameter and 140 feet in length running through the berm and under
the racetrack. An "L"-shaped concrete headwall would be constructed at
the pipe's discharge point with the drainage ditch. The detention
facility, with a maximum storage capacity of 30 acre-feet, would be
designed to hold runoff in excess of that which would be expected during
the 100-year rain event (approximately 20.5 acre-feet) and to drain
completely within 48 hours once the event ceases (Exhibit 4).

The proposed action would also include the construction of a ditch/berm
along the slope northeast of the racetrack to carry the collected upland
runoff to the detention pond (Exhibit 3). The ditch would be
approximately 1,600 feet in length, 4 to 8 feet wide at the bottom with
2 to 1 side slopes and a depth of 3 to 6 feet. Rock slope protection
similar to that used for the drainage ditch would be place where the
slope of the ditch exceeds 5 percent. Approximately 15,000 cy of soil
would be excavated to construct the ditch. The excavated soil would be
used to construct a berm on the downhill bank of the ditch (Exhibit 3).
The berm would be approximately 1,600 feet long, 11 feet wide at the
base, 3 feet wide at the top, and 3 to 4 feet high. The side slopes
would be approximately 2 to 1. A diversion berm would also be
constructed at the north end of the ditch/berm to divert storm runoff
into the ditch/berm structure (Exhibit 3). The diversion berm would be
approximately 300 feet long and 100 feet wide, and would require
approximately 3,500 cy of soil for construction.

At the point where the ditch/berm meet the existing racetrack, a
concrete headwall would be constructed and a storm conduit would be
installed to allow flow to pass beneath the racetrack. The conduit would
be approximately 100 feet in length. The conduit would drain to a
concrete structure that would serve as the inlet to the detention
facility. This structure would dissipate the energy of the flow as it
passes into the detention facility (Exhibits 3 and 4).

The proposed action would also include a diversion pipe extending from
just upstream of the inlet structure on the eastern edge of the new
detention pond to the existing pond located to the south and inside the
race track (Exhibit 3). This pipe would be approximately 800 feet in
length and convey low flow volumes (\< 10-year rain event) away from the
new detention pond in order to avoid saturation of the baseball fields
located within the new detention basin. This diversion of low volumes of
storm water would be most critical in the event of late spring storms
when the baseball fields would be in use.

Two construction staging areas would be located to the southwest of the
existing pond along the entrance road to Howard Park (Exhibit 3). These
areas would be within an area approximately 400 feet long (east to west)
and 200 feet wide (north to south) (less than 2 acres). This area is
currently clear of trees and vegetation.

No fill would be imported and all excavated soils would be used on site.
Following completion of construction activities, the baseball field
area, including the berm, would be seeded with a turf grass mixture
approved by the City Planner. All other disturbed areas would be seeded
with a dry pasture mix of native grasses.

The construction of the retention facility, ditch/berm, diversion berm
and ancillary features would take approximately 120 days.

### 2.3 Alternative 3 -- Expanding Existing Retention Pond 

Alternative 3 is described as a "Combination Alternative" in Section
2.5.6 of the PEA. The project components include improvements to a
drainage channel and retention pond, which are described in Sections
2.5.2.3 and 2.5.3.3 of the PEA, respectively. Alternative 3 would
involve the enhancement of existing flood control features, including
the lining of an existing drainage ditch, enlarging an existing
retention pond, and constructing a diversion berm and a ditch/berm to
divert storm water runoff toward the retention facility (Exhibits 3 and
5). As with Alternative 2 dimensions are approximate, pending final
design. Potential impacts were assessed based on maximum size.

The existing drainage ditch is a sparsely vegetated shallow depression
that connects a natural drainage ditch west of SR 124 to the existing
retention pond located within Howard Park. With Alternative 3, the
southern branch of the existing drainage ditch (Exhibit 3) would be
graded to 8 feet wide and lined with "facing grade" rock (stones
weighing 30 to 50 pounds each) from the racetrack to the culverts
beneath SR 124. The rock would prevent erosion of the ditch, reduce flow
velocity, and allow the growth of vegetation. Channel lining would occur
along approximately 1,200 linear feet of drainage ditch. At completion,
the channel would be 6 feet wide at the bottom, approximately 2.5 feet
deep and have 3 to1 side slopes.

As part of this alternative, the existing retention pond within the
former racetrack infield would be enlarged to accommodate greater
storage (Exhibits 3 and 5). The retention pond is currently 240 feet
long and 180 feet wide (approximately 1 acre), with gently sloping
unvegetated banks and lying along a southwest-northeast axis. With this
alternative, the pond would be widened to encompass an area
approximately 800 feet in length and 375 feet in width along a
southwest-northeast axis with 2 to 1 or 3 to 1 side slopes
(approximately 7 acres total area). The enlarged retention pond would be
approximately 10 feet deep with a maximum stored water depth of 8 feet
(2-foot freeboard). All excavation would occur south and west of the
existing pond. Total storage would be between 20 to 25 acre-feet to
accommodate runoff from a 100-year event. Enlarging the existing
retention pond would require the excavation of approximately 20,000 cy
of soil. The pond would drain within 24 hours of the end of the rain
event, but would retain enough water to support wetland vegetation. In
order to enlarge the pond, live oak trees along the south side of the
pond would be cleared and grubbed.

Several features associated with this alternative would be the same as
those described for Alternative 2. A brief description of these features
is provided below.

-   Ditch: 1,600 feet long, 4 to 8 foot bottom width, 3 to 6 feet deep,
    2 to 1 side slopes, rock slope protection where slopes exceed 5
    percent, 15,000 cy of soil excavated, disturbed areas would be
    seeded with dry pasture mix of native grasses.

-   Berm: 1,600 feet long, 11 feet width at the base, 3 feet width at
    the top, 2 to 1 side slopes, 3 to 4 feet high, constructed with soil
    excavated from the diversion ditch, seeded with dry pasture mix of
    native grasses.

-   Inlet structure: concrete headwall, storm conduit under track
    approximately 100 feet in length.

-   Two staging areas: southwest of the existing pond along the entrance
    road to Howard Park, approximately 400 feet long (east to west) and
    200 feet wide (north to south), currently clear of trees and
    vegetation.

-   Diversion berm: 3,500 cy of soil to construct, approximately 300
    feet by 100 feet in size (0.7 acre).

Once on the inside of the track, the 100-foot storm conduit would
connect to a 36 to 48 inch storm drain conduit approximately 800 feet in
length. This conduit would carry the storm water south toward the
existing retention pond. At the level of the existing retention pond,
the conduit would discharge to an open channel that would convey the
water to the existing retention pond (Exhibits 3 and 5).

Following completion of construction activities, all disturbed areas
would be seeded with a dry pasture mix of native grasses. Additionally,
any remaining excavated soils would be stockpiled by the City of Ione at
a state-approved location. Construction of the alternative features
would take approximately 120 days.

# **3. AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES**

Alternatives 2 and 3 are "combination alternatives." Potential impacts
related to combination alternatives are described and evaluated
separately from single alternatives in the PEA. In most cases, the
resulting impacts would be equal to the addition of the impacts
identified for the single alternatives. However, in some cases the
cumulative impacts may be greater in magnitude, extent, or duration than
the sum of the separate impacts. In such cases, these impacts are
identified in this section of the SEA.

## **3.1 Geology, Geohazards, and Soils**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.1 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.1.1
and 4.3.1.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternative 2 (Proposed Action) and
Alternative 3 are described in Section 4.1.1.5 of the PEA. Most of the
soils (approximately 14 acres) within the project area have been
previously disturbed during the construction of the racetrack, baseball
and soccer fields, and existing retention pond. To reduce impacts to
drainages, and to prevent soil erosion, the following mitigation
measures would be implemented for both action alternatives:

-   Erosion control measures would be implemented, as necessary. This
    would include the use of best management practices (BMPs) such as
    silt fences, hay bales, etc.

-   Equipment would not be allowed on soils when the moisture content is
    at or above field capacity.

Under the both alternatives, approximately 1.4 acres of soil would be
impacted by the diversion berm and ditch/berm. These structures would be
placed outside the area previously affected by the track, baseball
fields, and soccer fields. Approximately 0.7 acre of soil under the
ditch/berm would be compacted and permanently affected. Approximately
0.7 acre of soil would be compacted by the diversion berm. Once
development occurs in the area, the diversion berm would be removed.
Following completion of the construction activities, the ditch/berm
would be seeded with a dry pasture mix of native grasses. The two
staging areas are also located outside the area that was previously
disturbed. Less than 2 acres of soil would be temporarily impacted.
Following completion of the construction activities, the staging areas
would be seeded with a dry pasture mix of native grasses.

Under the proposed action, approximately 0.3 acre of soil would be
permanently impacted by grading the drainage channel and placement of
rock within the channel. Alternative 3 would impact approximately 0.2
acre of soil by grading the drainage channel and placement of rock.

For both alternatives, the total amount of soil impacted would small and
the impacts would be insignificant based on the amount of soil within
the project area.

Under the No Action Alternative, soil erosion and channel siltation
would continue during future rain events.

There would be no construction of human occupied buildings with either
Alternative 2 or Alternative 3; therefore, there is no requirement for
compliance with Executive Order (EO) 12699, pertaining to Seismic Safety
of Federal and Federally Assisted or Regulated New Building
Construction.

## **3.2 Air Quality**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.2 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative and Alternatives 2 and 3 are
described in Section 4.1.2 of the PEA. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result
in minor temporary impacts on local air quality during construction due
to exhaust from equipment and possibly increased dust levels. If dust
becomes a problem, the contractor would need to implement dust control
procedures (i.e. water down the work area). Once construction is
completed, air quality would return to pre-project levels.

## **3.3 Hydrology and Water Quality**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.3 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.3.1
and 4.3.3.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in
Section 4.1.3.5 of the PEA. Presently, storm water runoff flows overland
through the city of Ione entering and inundating the City's downtown
underground storm drain system, and finally discharging into Sutter
Creek, which runs through the city of Ione north of the project area. A
portion of the existing flow also enters the existing detention pond
within Howard Park, discharges through an existing channel toward SR
124, and is then conveyed overland to Sutter Creek south of existing
development within Ione.

Alternatives 2 and 3 would collect the stormwater before it reaches the
city proper and use the detention/retention facilities and drainage
ditches to bypass the city. The stored water would then be transported
through existing drainage ditches to Sutter Creek. The overall volume
handled by the drainage system would not be changed by either action
alternative. Both action alternatives would have a beneficial impact on
the hydrology of Sutter Creek and the city of Ione's stormwater sewer
system during periods of heavy precipitation by allowing peak flows to
dissipate before overland runoff volumes would be added to the system.

Both action alternatives would be expected to improve water quality
following a major rain event. Instead of runoff flowing through the city
where numerous contaminants (including oil, gasoline, and lawn
chemicals) would be picked up by the water, the runoff would be
channeled into storage areas bypassing the city.

The proposed action would affect two distinct existing storm water
flows. Under current conditions, approximately 100 cubic feet per second
(cfs) flows in the existing channel located northeast of the racetrack
on the property adjacent to and east of Howard Park. This water
currently flows to the Buena Vista culvert and enters the downtown Ione
storm drain system. Additionally, approximately 102 cfs flows generally
across Howard Park as unrestricted flow and is directed to the existing
SR 124 culvert located at the western boundary of Howard Park.

Within the proposed action, approximately 50 cfs of the flow currently
entering the Buena Vista culvert would be diverted into the detention
pond. Additionally, approximately 35 cfs of the flows currently flowing
to the SR 124 culvert would be diverted into the detention pond. The
outflow of the detention pond would be designed such that the current
flow of 102 cfs at the SR 124 culvert would not be increased.

Inflows for Alternative 3 would be the same as the proposed action --
102 cfs. Similarly, the post-project flows directed to the SR 124
culvert would not be increased above current flows.

All flow quantities described herein are approximate and minor
variations in flow quantities may occur based upon final design.

Mitigation measures discussed in Section 3.1 of this SEA would be
implemented during construction to reduce impacts to water quality of
surface waters. Erosion control measures would be taken to minimize
sedimentation and changes in water quality or substrate quality. The
applicant would implement BMPs as identified by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. All erosion control devices would be checked for
integrity and repaired if needed.

The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA) Amendments of 1972
created the system for permitting discharges (Section 402), know as the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Clean Water
Act prohibits discharging pollutants through a point source into a
"water of the United States" without a permit. In 1990, Phase I
Stormwater regulations were enacted that addressed construction
activities disturbing 5 or more acres of land as Category (x) of the
definition of "storm water discharges associated with industrial
activity" (40 CFR 122.26(b)(14)(x)) (EPA 2001).

The No Action Alternative would not disturb any soil; therefore, no
NPDES permit would be required for this alternative. Both action
alternatives would disturb more than 5 acres of soil; therefore, the
City of Ione would be required to obtain a NPDES permit from the State
prior to beginning any construction activities.

## **3.4 Floodplain Management**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.4 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.4.1
and 4.3.4.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are
described in Section 4.1.4.5 of the PEA. The project area is designated
as Zone X, an area of minimal flood risk, on panels 935 and 955 of the
June 6, 2000 Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). No features associated
with Alternatives 2 or 3 would be built within the 100-year floodplain
nor would any structures be constructed which would affect the function
of the floodplain. Additionally, both alternatives would reduce local
flooding conditions that are not shown on the FIRM. Therefore, both
alternatives would be in compliance with EO 11988 regarding Floodplain
Management.

## **Biological Resources**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.5 of the PEA.

Vegetation types and wildlife species were identified in a
reconnaissance-level field survey conducted on January 22, 2002 by URS
Corporation (URS) and FEMA personnel. A subsequent field visit with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) was conducted on April 2, 2002.

The project area is located in Howard Park, which sits inside the former
Ione Racetrack. The existing retention pond is located within an active
recreation area with turf grass amongst a live oak forest. In the
project area, live oak forest occurs along the north and south sides of
the existing pond, and along the existing drainage ditch. A closed
canopy of live oaks with a sparse understory of annual grasses and forbs
characterizes live oak forest. Overstory cover typically exceeds 80
percent and is dominated entirely by interior live oak (*Quercus
wislizenii*). The area south of the existing pond also had an understory
of coyote bush (*Baccharis pilularis*), digger pine (*Pinus sabiniana*),
and manzanita (*Arctostaphylos vicida vicida*).

During field reconnaissance with USFWS personnel, several wetland areas
were identified within the general project area. These areas are shown
on Exhibit 6 (City of Ione 2002). The largest wetland area is located
southwest of the existing pond and vegetation within the wetland area is
dominated by rush (*Juncus sp.*), Himalayan blackberry (*Rubus
discolor*), cattail (*Typha latifolia*), cocklebur (*Zanthium
spinosum*), and curly doc (*Rumex crispus*). Live oak forest also exists
along the drainage ditch that drains into the existing pond. The
drainage ditch is a shallow channel approximately 3 feet wide and
contained approximately 1 inch of water during the site visit on January
22, 2002. The ditch was muddy with patches of grass growing sporadically
in the channel.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.5.1
and 4.3.5.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 are
described in Section 4.1.5.5 of the PEA.

Under the proposed action, the baseball fields would be excavated to
make the detention pond. This area is currently grassed. Following
excavation, the detention pond area and associated berm would be seeded
with an approved turf grass mixture. The ditch/berm are currently
grassed with 4 to 8 scrub oaks (6-inch diameter) in the area. The area
would be seeded with a dry pasture mixture of native grasses following
excavation activities. However, no tree replacement would occur. Grass
and other vegetation within and along the drainage ditch west of the
racetrack would be lost due to grading and rock riprap.

With Alternative 3, impacts to vegetation associated with diversion
berm, ditch/berm and drainage ditch would be the same as those described
above. In order to expand the existing retention pond, approximately 4.5
acres of vegetation would be removed. The vegetation includes a live oak
forest and understory. Following excavation of the pond, the area would
be seeded with a dry pasture mixture of native grasses. Tree replacement
is not part of alternative.

The No Action Alternative would not involve the permanent destruction,
loss, or degradation of wetland areas; therefore, the No Action
Alternative would be in compliance with EO 11990, Protection of
Wetlands, and 44 CFR Part 9.

Alternative 2 would impact a small wetland located at the junction of
the drainage ditch and SR 124. The wetland is approximately 200 feet x
100 feet (0.5 acre) in size. Coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) would be required to determine if the wetland is a
jurisdictional wetland and if mitigation measures would be needed.

Under Alternative 3, the wetland southwest of the existing pond would be
excavated to create the enlarged retention area. The wetland is
approximately 1.4 acres in size. Although the enlarged retention pond
would be designed to retain water, coordination with the USACE would be
required to determine if the wetland is a jurisdictional wetland and if
mitigation measures would be needed.

# **3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.6 of the PEA.

In formation concerning threatened, endangered, or other special status
species that may occur in Amador County was obtained from the Sacramento
field office of the USFWS on February 6, 2002. Their list included
special-status species under the jurisdiction of the USFWS (3 plants, 1
invertebrate, 1 amphibian, 3 fish, 1 bird, and 1 mammal). In addition,
the California Department of Fish and Games' Natural Diversity Database
for known occurrences of special status species within the USGS
7.5-minute quadrangles of Ione, Jackson, Amador City, and Irish Hill
were reviewed.

After a literature review, site reconnaissance (January 22, 2002, and
April 2, 2002 with Mr. Harry McQuillen of the Sacramento Office of the
USFWS), communication with experts, and consideration of the activities
associated with the action alternatives, FEMA determined that the only
species with the potential to be impacted by Alternatives 2 and 3 were
the Ione manzanita, Ione buckwheat, Irish Hill buckwheat, and the
California red-legged frog. Descriptions of the life history and habitat
requirements for these species are provided below. In addition, a
discussion of potential impacts to the species from project
implementation is provided below.

### Ione Manzanita

Ione manzanita (*Arctystaphylos myrtifolia*) is listed as a threatened
species under the federal Endangered Species Act and is a California
Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1B species (CDFG 2002b). This species
is an endemic shrub of the central Sierra Nevada foothills that is
almost entirely limited to outcrops of deltaic formation called the Ione
formation that formed during the Eocene period, 58 to 37 million years
before present (Gankin and Major 1964). Soils of the Ione formation have
an exceptionally low pH that varies between 2.0 and 3.95 (Gankin and
Major 1964), high aluminum content and low fertility. This shrub is low
growing, usually attaining a height of less than 4 feet and grows at
elevations between 360 and 1,640 feet (Gankin and Major 1964). Ione
manzanita blooms from November through February.

The nearest occurrences of Ione manzanita is reported approximately 0.5
to 1-mile southeast of the project area where it was observed along
Brickyard and Buena Vista Roads in 1997 (CDFG 2002b). There are four
other reports of the Ione manzanita in the Ione 7.5-minute quadrangle,
as well as one in the Irish Hill 7.5-minute quadrangle. These other
occurrences are 3 to 5 miles from the project area. No Ione manzanita
were identified during the field reconnaissance survey.

### Ione Buckwheat

Ione buckwheat (*Erogonum apricum var. apricum*) is listed as endangered
under the federal Endangered Species Act and is CNPS List 1B species
(CDFG 2002b). This species is an herbaceous perennial in the Buckwheat
family (Polygonaceae) that is endemic to kalinitic clays unique to the
Ione formation. It is associated with Ione manzanita (*Arctostaphylos
myrtifolia*), white leaf manzanita (A. viscida), and chamise
(*Adenostoma fasciculatum*). Ione buckwheat blooms from July to October.

The nearest occurrence of Ione buckwheat is reported about 0.5-mile
southwest of the project area, along Highway 124 between Firebrick and
Buena Vista Roads in 1987 (CDFG 2002a). There are seven other reports of
the Ione buckwheat in the Ione 7.5-minute quadrangle, all within 3 miles
of the project area. No Ione buckwheat were observed in the project area
during the field reconnaissance survey.

### Irish Hill Buckwheat

Irish Hill buckwheat (*Eriogonum apricum var. prostratum*) is listed as
endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act and is a CNPS List
1B species (CDFG 2002b). This species is an herbaceous perennial in the
Buckwheat family (Polygonaceae) that is closely related to Ione
buckwheat described above. Irish Hill buckwheat is known from only two
locations near Irish Hill and Carbondale Mesa. This species is
associated with clearings in Ione chaparral that are dominated by Ione
manzanita. Where it grows it dominates its immediate environment. Irish
Hill buckwheat blooms from June to July.

No Irish Hill buckwheat has been documented in the project area (CDFG
2002a). The nearest occurrence of Irish Hill buckwheat is reported in an
unsectioned portion of the Irish Hill 7.5-minute quadrangle in Amador
County. It is reported in open, cobbly areas within chaparral. No Irish
Hill buckwheat were observed in the project area during the field
reconnaissance survey.

### California Red-Legged Frog

California red-legged frog (*Rana aurora draytonii*) is listed as a
threatened species under the federal Endangered Species Act.
Historically, this species ranged from the Cascade Range south to
northwestern Baja California, and from coastal California to the crest
of the Sierra Nevada mountains (USFWS 2000). Today, California
red-legged frogs are primarily limited to small coastal drainages
between Santa Barbara and areas just north of San Francisco (Jennings
and Hayes 1994).

Red-legged frogs are generally found along marshes, streams, ponds, and
other permanent sources of water where dense scrubby vegetation such as
willows, cattails, and bullrushes dominate, and water quality is good.
Breeding sites occur along watercourses with pools that remain long
enough for breeding and the development of larvae. Breeding time depends
on winter rains, but is usually between late November and late April
(Jennings 1988; Zeiner et al. 1988). No red-legged frogs have been
documented in the project area (CDFG 2002a). The nearest occurrence is
approximately 50 miles northeast of the project area in the Michigan
Bluff 7.5-minute quadrangle in Placer County.

The proposed project area is not located within designated Critical
Habitat for the California red-legged frog or within a Core Recovery
Area identified in the Draft Recovery Plan for the species (Federal
Register 2001). Critical habitat has not been designated for Ione
manzanita, Ione buckwheat, or Irish Hill buckwheat. Additionally, none
of these species were observed during field reconnaissance. Therefore,
FEMA has determined that the project is "not likely to adversely affect"
the California red-legged frog, Ione manzanita, Ione buckwheat, or Irish
Hill buckwheat. USFWS concurred with this determination in a letter
dated August 2, 2002 (Appendix B).

## **3.7 Cultural Resources**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.7 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.7.1
and 4.3.7.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in
Section 4.1.7.5 of the PEA. FEMA has reviewed Alternatives 2 and 3 as
required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(NHPA), as amended. The Programmatic Agreement for this disaster
(FEMA-1008-DR-CA) would be invoked for unanticipated discoveries.

Pursuant to the revised implementing regulations of the NHPA found at 36
CFR 800.4(a)(2), a cultural resources literature review was performed at
the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical
Resources Information System on January 17, 2002 (NCIC File No:
AMA-02-5). The record search encompassed the project area and 0.25 mile
radius surrounding the project area. Results of the records search
indicated one historic resource and no prehistoric resources within the
search area. The historic resource was previously known as the Amador
Ditch, but has since been renamed the Ione Ditch. It is now part of the
extensive system operated by the Amador Canal Company. This site does
not extend into the project Area of Potential Effect (APE).

Five previous surveys have been completed within 0.25 mile of the
project area. One prior survey covers the eastern third of the project
area. These previous surveys have all produced negative results.

Pursuant to the revised implementing regulations of the NHPA found at 36
CFR §800.4(a)(4), the California Native American Heritage Commission
(NAHC) was contacted by FEMA to request a review of its Sacred Lands
Files and a list of individuals or groups it believes should be
contacted for information or concerns related to the project area. The
NAHC responded on January 18, 2002, with a negative search of its Sacred
Lands Files (Appendix B). FEMA consulted with the 11 individuals and
groups recommended by the NAHC. To date, one response has been received.
The respondent had no comments after reviewing the project.

Pursuant to 36 CFR §800.11(e)(4) and 36 CFR §800.11(e)(5), FEMA has
determined that Alternatives 2 and 3 would not have an adverse effect on
historic properties. The California State Historic Preservation Officer
concurred with this determination on September 24, 2002 (Appendix B).

## **Socioeconomics and Public Safety**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.8 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.8.1
and 4.3.8.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in
Section 4.1.8.5 of the PEA. In compliance with EO 12898 (Environmental
Justice), FEMA determined that implementation of either action
alternative would not have a disproportionate adverse impact minority or
low-income persons. The two action alternatives would have a beneficial
impact on all residents of Ione by reducing the potential for property
damage due to floods.

## **3.9 Land Use and Zoning**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.9 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.9.1
and 4.3.9.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in
Section 4.1.9.5 the PEA. The proposed action would temporarily impact
land use of the park during construction of the retention facility and
reconfiguration of the baseball fields. However, the fields would be
returned to use once the construction and revegetation activities are
completed. Land use would also be temporarily and intermittently
impacted during periods of high precipitation when the pond (i.e.,
baseball fields) would be used to store floodwaters.

With Alternative 3, approximately 7 acres of land would be converted
from open green space to flood water storage. However, this change would
not affect the overall land use for Howard Park.

## **3.10 Public Services**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.10 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Section 4.1.10.1
of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described in Section
4.1.10.5 of the PEA. As indicated in Section 3.9, when the detention
pond proposed under Alternative 2 was in use, the baseball fields would
not be available for use. This interruption of service would be
short-term and intermittent. No other public services would be directly
impacted by this alternative. However, this alternative would have an
indirect benefit on the other public services offered by the community
due to a reduction in the potential for floodwaters to interrupt
services.

With Alternative 3, an existing water main located south of the existing
pond would need to be relocated outside the area of excavation. The
beneficial impacts associated with this alternative would be similar to
those described for the proposed action.

## **3.11 Transportation**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.11 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.11.1
and 4.3.11.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described
in Section 4.1.11.5 of the PEA. No direct impacts related to traffic
would be expected with either of the action alternatives. However, both
alternatives would be expected to have a positive indirect impact
related to traffic during future flood events by decreasing street
flooding and road damage from floodwaters.

## **3.12 Noise**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.12 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.12.1
and 4.3.12.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described
in Section 4.1.12.5 of the PEA. Construction activities for both action
alternatives would occur outside the range of any sensitive receptors.
In the long-term, neither Alternative 2 nor Alternative 3 would be
expected to adversely impact noise levels in the area.

## **3.13 Hazardous Materials and Wastes**

The affected environment is described in Section 3.13 of the PEA.

Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Sections 4.2.13.1
and 4.3.13.1 of the PEA. Impacts of Alternatives 2 and 3 are described
in Section 4.1.13.5 of the PEA. No facilities are located in the
immediate project area that would have the potential to produce
hazardous materials and wastes. Therefore, hazardous materials and
wastes are not expected to be present in the project area. The City of
Ione and its contractors would take measures to prevent spills or leaks
of hazardous materials or wastes related to construction activities.

## **3.14 Cumulative Impacts**

Two other storm drain improvement projects have been identified within
the general project area.

The City of Ione through a cooperative agreement with California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) plans to replace the two
existing 36 by 22-inch corrugated metal pipe arch (CMPA) culverts
located within the existing right-of-way at the intersection of SR 124
and the drainage ditch from Howard Park (Exhibit 3) with three 35 by
24-inch CMPA culverts. These three culverts would convey water from the
detention/retention basin site away from the storm drain system on West
Marlette and into the storm drain ditch along the Union Pacific Railroad
tracks.

The culverts, together with the proposed action, would improve the
overall hydrology of the area by conveying overland runoff that
currently flows through downtown Ione through a remote contained system.
Despite the increase in flow capacity of the SR 124 culverts, the
combination of actions would not increase flows downstream of SR 124.
However, the replacement of the culverts would impact the wetland area
located at the intersection of SR 124 and the drainage ditch. Both
Alternative 2 and Alternative 3 would also impact this wetland by
modifications to the drainage ditch. Replacement of the culverts should
be coincide with work in the drainage ditch to minimize potential
impacts to the wetland.

The second project involves a culvert replacement under Buena Vista
Court at the point of connection to the West Marlette storm drain. This
project was approved under a separate HMGP grant from FEMA but has not
yet been completed. The replacement of this culvert would improve storm
drainage within the developed area of Ione and reduce the risk of
flooding. The diversion of flows into the proposed detention system
would also reduce flow through the culvert, further reducing the flood
risk.

# **4. References**

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002a. California Natural
Diversity Database occurrence records. Natural Heritage Division.
Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2002b. Special Vascular
Plant, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. January 2002.

City of Ione. 2002. Department of Public Works. Unpublished information.
Map showing existing conditions in Howard Park. Sheet 2 of 5. October 2.

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 1998. Final Programmatic
Environmental Assessment (PEA) for Typical Recurring Actions Resulting
from Flood Disasters in California as Proposed by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. April 16, 1998. FEMA 1203-DR-CA.

Federal Register. 2001. Federal Register Department of the Interior.
Final Determination of Critical Habitat for the California Red-Legged
Frog. Volume 66, No. 49. March 13.

Gankin, R., and J. Major. 1964. Arctostaphylos Myrtifolia, It's Biology
and Relationship to the Problem of Endemism. Ecology 45:792-808.

Jennings, M.R.1988. Natural History and Decline of Native Ranids in
California. Pages 61-72. In Proceedings of the conference on California
herpetology. H.F. DeLisle, P.R\> Brown, B.Kaufman, and B.M. McGurty,
(eds). Southwestern Herpetologists Society Special Publication (4):
1-143.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of
Special Concern in California. Report prepared for the California
Department of Fish and Game, Inland Fisheries Division, Rancho Cordova,
California. 255 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2000. Endangered and Threatened
Wildlife and Plants; Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for the
California Red-Legged Frog (*Rana aurora draytonii*). Federal Register
65(176):54892-54932.

Zeiner, C. David, William F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and Kenneth E. Mayer.
1988. California's Wildlife Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles.
California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.

# **5. List of Persons and Agencies Consulted**

Wayne White

Field Supervisor

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

# 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

Harry McQuillen

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

# 2800 Cottage Way, Suite W-2605

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

# Dr. Knox Mellon

State Historic Preservation Officer

Office of Historic Preservation

1416 9^th^ Street, Room 1442-7

### Sacramento, CA 95814

# 

### California Native American Heritage Commission

915 Capitol Mall, Room 364

Sacramento, California 95814

Dwight Dutschke

Sierra Native American Council

P.O. Box 12045

Ione, CA 95640

Randy Yonemura

4305 39^th^ Avenue

Sacramento, California 95824

Rhonda Morningstar Pope

Buena Vista Rancheria

P.O. Box 162283

Sacramento, California 95816

Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk/Miwok

4650 Coalmine Road

Ione, California 95640

Debra Grimes

Calaveras Band of Miwuk Indians

P.O. Box 899

West Point, California 95255

Reba Fuller

Spokesperson, Central Sierra MeWuk Cultural and Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 699

Tuolumne, California 95379

Glenn Villa, Jr.

Cultural Committee Chairperson

Ione Band of Miwok Indians

P.O. Box 1190

Ione, California 95640

Kathryn Ramey

Interim Chairperson

Ione Band of Miwok Indians

P.O. Box 1190

Ione, California 95640

Margaret Dalton

Chairperson

Jackson Band of Mi-Wuk Indians

P.O. Box 1090

Jackson, California 95642

Clifford McKean

Miwok Indian Community of the Wilton Rancheria

9301 Rancheria Drive

Wilton, California 95693

Kenneth McKean

Miwok Indian Community of the Wilton Rancheria

9344 Rancheria Drive

Wilton, California 95693

Roark Weber

Engineer, City of Ione

#1 Main Street, P.O. Box 398

Ione, California 95640

# **Appendix A -- Exhibits**

# **Appendix A -- Exhibits**

Exhibit 1 Project Vicinity

Exhibit 2 Project Area

Exhibit 3 Alternative 2 -- Construction of New Detention Pond

Exhibit 4 Detailed View of New Detention Pond

Exhibit 5 Detailed View of Enlarged Retention Pond

Exhibit 6 Location of Wetlands

# **Appendix B -- Agency Correspondence**