FINAL

Supplemental Environmental Assessment

FEMA-1203-DR-CA

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Region IX

**Project Name:** Soule Park Bank Repairs

**Subgrantee:** County of Ventura, General Services Agency

**Project Number:** P.A. ID #111-00000; DSR #73861 and 52055

**Date:** July 16, 2002

**Project Location:** Soule Park, County of Ventura, California

# 1.0 Introduction

Ventura County, through the California Office of Emergency Services
(OES), has applied to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Public Assistance (PA) Program for funding to repair and stabilize a
portion of the stream banks along Thacher and upper San Antonio Creeks.
The stream banks, which were severely damaged during the winter storms
of 1998, are located within Soule Park near the City of Ojai, California
(Figure 1).

## 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 the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA 1998a) and hereby incorporates
the PEA by reference, in accordance with 40 CFR Part 1508.28.

## 1.2 Purpose of and Need for Action

The purpose of and need for action is described in Section 1.4 of the
PEA. Heavy rains from the winter storms of February 1998 caused severe
slope failure and erosion along Thacher and upper San Antonio Creeks
within Soule Park in Ventura County, California. The proposed bank
repairs to Thacher Creek are located adjacent to the main park road and
active recreation areas. The proposed bank repairs to San Antonio Creek
are located adjacent to a County equestrian trail, which was also
partially destroyed by the floods. The County of Ventura has identified
the need to take action to protect public health and safety, as the
steep and unprotected slopes are vulnerable to continued erosion and
possible failure.

# 2.0 Alternative Analysis

## Alternatives Analyzed and Dismissed

An alternative that would incorporate buried rock riprap was considered
for the repair of Thacher Creek. With this alternative, the toe of the
banks along Thacher Creek would be excavated approximately 5 feet and
the banks would be graded to a 2:1 slope. Filter material would be
placed on the new slope, then covered with 3 feet of ungrouted ½-ton
rock riprap. The filter material and rock slope protection would be
placed about halfway up the bank, which would correspond to the water
surface elevation during a 10-year storm event. Two to three feet of
native soil would be backfilled over the riprap and along the top of the
slope to create a smooth, natural appearing bank. The bank would then be
planted with native riparian and upland species, including a combination
of trees, shrubs, and perennial herbs and grasses. This alternative was
dismissed after a meeting between FEMA, Ventura County, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) in August 2001. During the meeting, NMFS expressed concerns
regarding streambed encroachment and loss of vegetation from the stream
bank due to rock riprap.

## Alternatives Analyzed

The No Action Alternative is discussed in Section 2.5.2.1 of the PEA.
Under the No Action Alternative, the repairs to the failed bank slopes
would not be conducted along Thacher and upper San Antonio Creeks in
Soule Park. The banks in these reaches of the two subject creeks would
continue to be vulnerable to future failure and erosion.

The Proposed Action is described in Section 2.5.2.3 of the PEA. The
Proposed Action would involve two separate bank repair projects, one on
Thacher Creek and the other on upper San Antonio Creek (Figure 2). These
repairs are described below:

The Thacher Creek bank repair project is located on the south bank of
the creek within Soule Park, approximately 1,500 feet upstream of its
confluence with San Antonio Creek. Soule Golf Course is located on the
north side of the creek. Two areas of the bank were eroded during high
flows in 1998, causing loss of the adjacent grassed areas. In total, the
two damaged bank areas measure 784 linear feet. The two areas are
separated by a 300-foot-long, stable, vegetated bank. The banks on the
445-foot upstream segment would be stabilized using interlocking,
x-shaped, concrete blocks called "A jacks". The toe of the banks would
be excavated approximately 3 feet deep and 5 feet wide, and the "A
jacks" would be placed in the trench. Existing willow trees that have
become established on the banks would be hand cut into 5- to 6-foot-long
poles, stripped of leaves, and placed among the "A jacks". Soil would
then be used to fill the voids among the "A jacks" to facilitate the
establishment of the willow poles. Above the "A jacks", the banks would
be graded to a more gradual 2:1 (H:V) slope. Filter material would be
placed on the new slope, which would be planted with native grasses. The
banks along the 339-foot downstream reach would be stabilized by cutting
the slope to a 2:1 slope, beginning above the streambed. Filter material
would be placed on the new slope and would be seeded with native
grasses. All work would be performed from the top of the bank.
Construction would be approximately 3 to 4 months in duration.

The San Antonio Creek bank repair would occur along 300 linear feet of
the creek's eastern bank in an area adjacent to the Soule Golf Course.
The top of the bank would be lowered approximately 3 to 5 feet and
smoothed to a more gradual slope (2:1, H:V). A 5-foot-wide, 4-foot-deep
trench would be excavated at the base of the bank, and "A jacks" would
be placed in the trench. Existing willow trees that have become
established on the banks would be hand cut into 5- to 6-foot-long poles,
stripped of leaves, and placed among the "A jacks". Soil would then be
used to fill the voids among the "A jacks" to facilitate the
establishment of the willow poles. Access to the channel would occur
along the equestrian trail and all work would be conducted from the
trail. Construction would be approximately 2 months in duration.

# 3.0 affected environment and environmental consequences

## 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 Section 4.1.1.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.2.1.3 of
the PEA.

Under the No Action Alternative, the Thacher Creek and San Antonio Creek
bank repairs would not be performed. If the channels are not repaired,
future flooding may be exacerbated and could result in soil erosion and
aggravated bank instability in Thacher and San Antonio Creeks.

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have any adverse impacts to
geology or geohazards; however, these activities have the potential to
cause the disruption and displacement of soils. To minimize erosion
impacts associated with the Proposed Action, the project applicant would
develop and implement a Soil Erosion Control Plan, which would include
the following measures:

-   Silt fences or other appropriate erosion control device would be
    installed and maintained to prevent discharge of soil from
    construction activities.

-   All construction activities would be conducted between May and
    October, when flows are typically absent from the two creeks.

-   Upon completion of construction, all temporary fill and construction
    debris would be removed from the project area.

There would be no construction of human-occupied buildings under any
alternative; therefore, the Proposed Action would be in compliance with
Executive Order (EO) 12699, Seismic Safety of Federal or Federally
Regulated New Building Construction.

## 3.2 Air Quality

The affected environment is described in Section 3.2 of the PEA. Impacts
of all alternatives are described in Section 4.1.2 of the PEA. Neither
the Proposed Action nor the No Action Alternative would result in any
changes to air quality. To control fugitive dust and the release of
particulate matter, the contractor would be required to implement dust
control practices during construction (i.e., water down the work area).
The use of construction vehicles (including backhoes, graders, and
trucks) with the Proposed Action would increase air pollutants; however,
their impacts would be temporary and negligible.

## 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 Section 4.2.3.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.2.3.3 of
the PEA.

Under the No Action Alternative, future erosion of the stream banks
could negatively affect water quality through increased siltation or
turbidity.

The Proposed Action would not be expected to have an adverse impact on
hydrology. The design of the bank stabilization activities would closely
conform to the current vertical height and slope contour of the bank
sides, both upstream and downstream of the project site. The proposed
bank stabilization plans were also developed in cooperation with the
USACE and the NMFS, and are designed to minimize changes to water
turbidity and velocity through the project area. Therefore, there would
be limited potential for scour downstream of the proposed project areas.

Ventura County would need to obtain a Section 401 permit from the Los
Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to construction. The
County would also need to obtain a streambed alteration permit from the
California Department of Fish and Game.

In order to minimize short-term impacts to water quality during
construction activities, the project applicant would be required to
develop and implement the Soil Erosion Control Plan referenced in
Section 3.3. In general, the Proposed Action is anticipated to have a
positive impact on water quality in both Thacher and San Antonio Creeks
by reducing siltation caused by the presently erosive banks.

## 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 Section 4.2.4.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.2.4.3 of
the PEA.

According to the most recent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), both
project areas are located within the 100-year floodplain; however, no
structures would be constructed that would affect the function of the
floodplain. In compliance with FEMA policy implementing EO 11988,
Floodplain Management, it has been determined that the Proposed Action
would not result in long-term effects associated with the occupancy of
or modification to floodplains and the direct or indirect support of
floodplain development. However, it is anticipated that the Proposed
Action would require a Floodplain Development Permit to be obtained from
the County of Ventura prior to construction activities. In addition,
because the Proposed Action Alternative would potentially occur within
the floodplain, a public notice would be circulated explaining the
project and reasons for the project being sited in the floodplain for
compliance with EO 11988 (Floodplain Management) and 44 CFR Part 9.

## 3.5 Biological Resources

The affected environment is described in Section 3.5 of the PEA. Impacts
of the No Action Alternative are described in Section 4.2.5.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.2.5.3 of
the PEA.

The top of the Thacher Creek bank at the Soule Park site is located
adjacent to an active recreation area with mowed grass and scattered
ornamental (ash \[*Fraxinus spp.*\]) and native trees (coast live oak
\[*Quercus agrifolia*\], western sycamore \[*Platanus racemosa*\]). The
area is used primarily for picnicking and field games. The area between
the fence and the top of the eroded bank has been colonized by
non-native weeds and grasses, including black mustard (*Brassica nigra*)
and wild oat (*Avena sp.*), among others.

Riparian woodland and scrub occur along the banks and sandbars in
Thacher Creek. The lower slopes and sandbars are dominated by
moderate-sized (up to 10 feet tall) mule fat (*Baccharis salificifolia*)
and arroyo willow (*Salix lasiolepis*) trees, along with telegraph weed
(*Heterotheca randiflora*), horseweed (*Conyza sp.*), rabbits foot grass
(*Polypogon onspeliensis*), Himalayan blackberry (*Rubus discolor*), and
giant reed grass (*Arundo donax*). The vegetation is continually
subjected to disturbances from winter flows and remains in an early
successional stage of development. Larger willow trees and occasional
sycamore trees are located on the middle and upper portions of the
banks. Figure 3 shows the vegetation along the Thacher Creek site.

The top of the bank along the San Antonio Creek consists of a disturbed
corridor that is mostly denuded of vegetation as a result of heavy
traffic along the horse trail and dirt bike activities. Wild oats are
present at the fence and along the top of the eroded slope. Several
coast live oak trees are also present along the upstream end of the
project area, and a grove of large eucalyptus (*Eucalyptus spp.*) trees
is present at the downstream end. The channel consists of a mosaic of
willow-dominated riparian woodland and scrub. Young willows and mulefat
occur along the base of the eroded slopes and on the nearby sand bars in
the center of the channel. Figure 4 shows the vegetation along the San
Antonio Creek site.

In compliance with EO 11990, Protection of Wetlands, and 44 CFR Part 9,
the proposed alternatives were analyzed for the impacts to wetlands and
other jurisdictional "waters of the United States" as defined under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. On September 1, 2001, biologists
from URS Corporation completed a wetlands delineation at the project
site along San Antonio Creek. Based upon the results of the delineation
and subsequent correspondence from the USACE (Appendix B), it was
determined that the wetlands boundary near the San Antonio Creek project
area is approximately 10 feet outside of the work area. Therefore,
placement of the concrete jacks at the base of the eroded slope would
avoid jurisdictional wetlands or waters of the U.S. and a Section 404
permit would not be required. The area proposed for repair along Thacher
Creek has not been surveyed for wetlands; however, given the nature of
the project and project location, it is likely that the project area is
within USACE jurisdiction. Therefore, prior to implementation of the
project, Ventura County would coordinate with the USACE to determine
whether a Section 404 permit would be required, and if necessary, obtain
appropriate permits.

## 3.6 Threatened and Endangered Species 

The affected environment is described in Section 3.6 of the PEA. Impacts
of the No Action Alternative are described in Section 4.2.6.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.2.6.3 of
the PEA.

Information concerning threatened, endangered, or other special status
species that may occur in the project area was obtained from the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Ventura Field Office in a letter to
FEMA dated March 19, 2001. The potential occurrence of these species at
the project site was assessed from a review of pertinent scientific
literature, previous survey reports, and field surveys in February and
April 2001. Critical habitat for these species is not present at or near
the project sites.

List of Special Status Species that Could Occur in the Region

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Least Bell's Vireo *Vireo bellii pusilus* E

Southwestern willow flycatcher *Empidonax traillii extimus* E

California red-legged frog *Rana aurora draytonii* T

Southern California Steelhead *Oncorynchus mykiss* E

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Key: E=Endangered T=Threatened

Least bell's vireo and the southwestern willow flycatcher are not known
to occur at either project site. Therefore, these species are not
expected to be impacted by the Proposed Action.

In a letter dated March 4, 2002 (Appendix B), the USFWS indicated that
breeding habitat for California red-legged frog is not present at either
project site. However, suitable foraging habitat is present along both
Thacher Creek and San Antonio Creek. Although no California red-legged
frogs were present at the project sites during surveys conducted in
2000, California red-legged frogs were observed within San Antonio Creek
in 2001, approximately 2.5 miles from the San Antonio project site, and
approximately 3.5 miles from the Thacher Creek project site. Because of
the proximity of known occurrences of California red-legged frogs, the
potential exists for California red-legged frogs to disperse into or
through the project area.

Ventura County would be responsible for implementing the following
measures to avoid adverse effects to the California red-legged frog
within the project area:

-   A USFWS-approved biologist would conduct a training session for all
    construction personnel. At a minimum, the training would include (1)
    a description of the least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow
    flycatcher, California red-legged frog, and their habitat; (2) the
    importance of the California red-legged frog and its habitat; (3)
    the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the
    California red-legged frog as they relate to the proposed project;
    and (4) the boundaries within which the project may be accomplished.
    Brochures, book, and briefings may be used in the training session,
    provided that a qualified person is on hand to answer any question.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Preconstruction surveys would be conducted by a qualified biologist
    within 24 hours of construction initiation in both project areas. If
    California red-legged frogs are found within the project area,
    construction would not commence until the USFWS is notified and the
    appropriate level of consultation with the Service has been
    completed.

-   Drift fences would be used to exclude California red-legged frogs
    from the construction area. Fences would be placed at the project
    boundaries to prevent frogs and other wildlife from entering the
    construction area.

-   The eroded banks would be graded to a more gradual slope and native
    grasses would be used to revegetate the project areas.

-   Although some willows would be removed from the project area during
    the installation of the A-jacks, cuttings of the willows would be
    used form re-establishment around the A-jacks.

-   Construction equipment would be restricted to the terrace above the
    creeks and at no time would be in the water course.

-   Construction work would be conducted during the dry season to help
    avoid impacts to potential California red-legged frogs.

There are no records of the Southern Evolutionarily Significant Unit
(ESU) of anadromous steelhead spawning and rearing in upper San Antonio
Creek, nor in Thacher Creek. However, steelhead may occasionally travel
to these reaches during winter flows in search of spawning habitat.
Several stray adults were stranded in a man-made pool connected to San
Antonio Creek on the Soule Golf Course in 1999.

Suitable habitat for spawning and rearing is not present at either of
the project sites in Soule Park due to the absence of overhanging
vegetation, suitable gravel sizes, and shallow water conditions (the
creeks are typically dry during the summer months). Suitable spawning
habitat is present downstream of the San Antonio Creek site at the golf
course; however, rearing habitat is absent from this reach, as this
portion of the creek also dries up in the early summer.

To avoid potential impacts to steelhead or its habitat in the vicinity
of the project area, Ventura County would implement the following
measures:

-   The project would be constructed during the period of May 1 to
    October 1, when flows are typically absent from Thacher and upper
    San Antonio Creeks. In the event that flows are present, all work
    must occur outside the wetted channel. Hence, there would be no
    direct impact to aquatic species, including fish, in the channel at
    that time.

-   Grading activities at the base of the slope along Thacher Creek
    would be minimized to the extent feasible to reduce impacts to the
    channel bed. All equipment would operate from the bank. The limits
    of construction would be flagged and monitored. Finally, the
    substrate would be restored to its pre-construction condition,
    including placement of suitable cobbles.

-   The creek bed along San Antonio Creek would not be disturbed, as the
    jacks would be placed between the base of the slope and the line of
    willow trees. The low-flow channel is located over 50 feet away from
    the base of the slope.

-   The contractor would employ standard best management practices to
    prevent erosion and off‑site sedimentation, per requirements of the
    California Department of Fish and Game and the Regional Water
    Resources Control Board. Erosion control devices can be combined
    with red-legged frog exclusion devices.

-   The banks at both project sites would revegetated with native
    plants, which would provide long-term stabilization of the banks, as
    well as provide shade over time that would benefit aquatic habitat
    and fish.

Based on the above evaluation and with the avoidance and minimization
measures outlined above, FEMA has determined that the proposed project
is "not likely to adversely affect" federally listed species. The
Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office issued a letter of concurrence
regarding FEMA's determination on March 4, 2002 (Appendix B). In a
letter dated January 24, 2002 (Appendix B), the NMFS also concurred that
the proposed action is "not likely to adversely affect" steelhead.

In addition to the avoidance and minimization measures listed above, the
County would notify FEMA to re-initiate consultation if any of the
following occur (1) new information becomes available revealing effects
of the Proposed Action Alternative on listed species in a manner or to
an extent not previously considered, (2) if project plans change, (3) if
the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an
effect to listed species that was not considered, or (4) if a new
species is designated that may be affected by this action.

## 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 Section 4.1.7.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.1.7.4 of
the PEA. FEMA has reviewed the Proposed Action as required under Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as amended, and
the Programmatic Agreement for FEMA-1203-DR-CA (PA; FEMA 1998b).

Pursuant to the revised implementing regulations of the NHPA found at 36
CFR 800.4(a)(2), a records search was conducted by the South Central
Coastal Information Center on February 8, 2001. The record search
encompassed the two project locations and a 0.25-mile radius around
them. The record search indicated one previously recorded prehistoric
cultural resource within the 0.25-mile radius. Excavations at this site
have removed numerous burials, artifacts including mortars and pestles,
and the base walls of a rock bordered sweathouse. The easternmost edge
of this site is approximately 600 feet from the project area at San
Antonio Creek and 900 feet from the Thacher Creek project area. No
historic archeological sites have been recorded within the 0.25-mile
search radius of the project area.

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 to FEMA's request on March 21, 2001 with a negative
search of its Sacred Lands Files. An informational letter was sent by
FEMA on March 26, 2001 to 21 groups or individuals listed by the NAHC.
To date, three responses have been received. These individuals were
contacted in April 2001 by FEMA's archaeological consultant who
explained that as a condition of funding it will be required that an
archeological monitor be present during excavation activities (as
described below). A Native American monitor would also be present during
all excavation activities.

On August 22, 2001, the SHPO concurred with FEMA's determination that
the Proposed Action would not affect historic properties (Appendix B).
The SHPO also concluded that the project area has a high probability of
being archaeologically sensitive. Therefore, pursuant to the
Programmatic Agreement, all ground-disturbing activities within the APE
would be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. In addition, in a
letter dated June 19, 2001, FEMA also indicated that the following
stipulations would be included in the Proposed Action:

-   In the event of an archaeological discovery, all work within 15
    meters (45 feet) of the find would halt so the find may be
    documented and its significance assessed by a qualified
    archaeologist. The County would notify FEMA immediately, and FEMA
    would consult with the SHPO in accordance with Section VII of the
    PA.

-   If the aforementioned find is considered significant, all reasonable
    efforts would be made to avoid further disturbance of the find
    through project modification or engineering measures, as may be
    recommended by the archaeologist. If the find cannot be avoided or
    protected through such measures, impacts to the find would be
    minimized to the greatest extent possible, and the archaeologist
    shall carry out appropriate data recovery. Work would be redirected
    away from the discovery site while data recovery is carried out.
    Results of the data recovery would be reported to FEMA, the South
    Central Information Center, and the SHPO.

-   Archaeological monitoring would be continued during any additional
    excavation in the APE. In addition, if the find is of Native
    American origin, a local Native American would be retained to
    monitor with the archaeologist during any remaining excavation of
    the APE.

-   With respect to discovery of any human remains, the provisions of
    California Public Resources Code (PRC) 5097 would apply. The County
    would halt work, and the County Coroner would be notified
    immediately. If the remains are determined to be Native American,
    the Coroner will contact the NAHC. If it is necessary to relocate
    any human remains, a qualified archaeologist would document and
    excavate the remains in the presence of a Native American monitor.

## 3.8 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 Section 4.1.8.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.1.8.4 of
the PEA.

The proposed project is located within land owned by the County of
Ventura adjacent to the city of Ojai. Approximately 75 miles northwest
of Los Angeles and 35 miles southeast of Santa Barbara, Ojai is situated
in a deep coastal valley at the foot of Los Padres National Forest. Ojai
supports a population of 7,862 and is comprised of 90.7% white, 12.5% of
Hispanic origin, 2.7% Asian or Pacific Islander, 1.4% American Indian,
Eskimo, or Aleut, and 1% black (Census 2002a).

At the present time, the U.S. Census Bureau (Census) has not yet
released the results of the 2000 economic census. Therefore, the 1990
Census data was used. Based on this data, the median household income
for the City of Ojai is \$33,247, and of those persons for whom poverty
status is determined, 5.75% were classified as being below the poverty
threshold (Census 2002b).

Based on information provided by the applicant, Soule Park draws the
majority of its visitors from Ventura, Los Angeles, and Santa Barbara
Counties, with the greatest use by residents of Ventura County.

It does not appear from this information that there are any concentrated
minority or low-income populations within the city of Ojai. In
compliance with FEMA's policy implementing EO 12898, Environmental
Justice, the socioeconomic conditions and potential effects related to
the No Action Alternative and Proposed Action have been reviewed.
Neither the No Action Alternative nor the Proposed Action are expected
to result in any adverse and/or disproportionate adverse impacts on
minority or low-income populations.

At present, the eroded banks along Thacher and San Antonio Creeks pose a
risk to public safety due to potential unexpected bank instability and
slope failures in the future. Both areas are presently fenced, so public
access is restricted. Under the No Action Alternative, this risk would
continue to be present; however, by stabilizing and reinforcing the
stream banks, the Proposed Action would be expected to reduce this risk
to public safety.

## 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 Section 4.1.9.1 of the
PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section 4.1.9.4 of
the PEA.

No impact to land use or zoning would result from the No Action or
Proposed Action Alternatives. All project activities would occur within
the existing County of Ventura property boundaries.

## 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 the Proposed Action are described in Section
4.1.10.4 of the PEA.

Under the No Action Alternative, no activities would be performed. The
No Action Alternative is not anticipated to cause any immediate and
direct impacts to public services, although it is possible that future
erosion could result in closures of portions of Soule Park and the
adjacent equestrian trail due to public safety concerns.

The Proposed Action is anticipated to lead to positive impacts to parks
and recreation by reducing the risk of future closure due to bank
erosion.

No impacts to police, fire, emergency services, or public utilities are
anticipated as a result of the No Action or Proposed Actions.

## 3.11 Transportation

The affected environment is described in Section 3.11 of the PEA.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Section 4.1.11.1
of the PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section
4.1.11.4 of the PEA.

The Proposed Action is not anticipated to have any permanent adverse
impacts to transportation in the project vicinity. During construction
activities, no roadways would be closed or otherwise impacted as a
result of project activities; however, construction staging areas would
be located on parking lots at Thacher Creek. For construction activities
at San Antonio Creek, the project applicant has anticipated using the
equestrian trail as the primary staging area and access point for
construction.

## 3.12 Noise

The affected environment is described in Section 3.12 of the PEA.
Impacts of the No Action Alternative are described in Section 4.1.12.1
of the PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section
4.1.12.4 of the PEA.

The Proposed Action would result in temporary noise impacts during
construction. Noise is expected to remain within legal limits and would
comply with local noise ordinances. To reduce noise impacts to park
users and adjacent properties, construction would be conducted during
normal business hours.

## 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 Section 4.1.13.1
of the PEA. Impacts of the Proposed Action are described in Section
4.1.13.4 of the PEA.

The No Action Alternative would not result in any new impacts to
hazardous materials and wastes at the project site. To reduce incidental
release of hazardous materials (e.g., petroleum-related products) under
the Proposed Action Alternative, the contractor would be required to
have a Spill Response Plan and appropriate Spill Response materials
on-site. Workers would be instructed on the location of the Spill
Response materials and appropriate methods to be used for cleanup.
Refueling of construction equipment would not occur within 60 feet of
any waterway.

## Cumulative Impacts

Ventura County Flood Control District (VCFCD) has plans for a project on
Thacher Creek to begin in 2003. The proposed project site is located on
Thacher Creek approximately 0.5 miles downstream of Highway 150, within
Siete Robles Tract upstream of Boardman Road east of the City of Ojai,
and would involve approximately 1,000 linear feet of the stream.

The proposed project would consist of the following features (Lindsey
2002):

-   Widening Avenida del Recreo and Avenida de la Vereda culverts from
    22 to 36 feet

-   Replacing the existing approximately 800 feet of deteriorating
    gunited pipe and wire revetment channel with reinforced concrete
    retaining walls

-   Widening the soft bottom channel from approximately 22 feet to 36
    feet, and lowering the channel bottom approximately 2 feet

-   Placement of flood walls at the easterly boundary of the tract to
    contain overbank flows from the Creek and storm flows from the Black
    Mountain watershed

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Limited land acquisition would be required upstream and downstream
    of the Tract to accommodate the construction of project features.

-   Trees, including 4- to 24-inch-diameter oak trees, within the
    District\'s right-of-way would be removed to accommodate the
    proposed improvements.

The VCFCD is preparing an Environmental Impact Report for their project.
This document would discuss the potential impacts to the environment
related to their project. However, the VCFCD's project is located
approximately 0.5 miles upstream of the Soule Park project area.
Therefore, the potential exists for cumulative impacts on Thacher Creek,
especially in regard to water quality, threatened and endangered
species, riparian habitat, and noise.

The Soule Park project would involve approximately 785 linear feet of
Thacher Creek. The VCFCD's project would involve approximately 1,000
linear feet of Thacher Creek. The largest contributing factor to the
cumulative impacts issue is the limited construction period. Due to the
potential for steelhead in Thacher Creek, the construction period for
the Soule Park project has been limited to May 1 to October 1. It is
anticipated that the VCFCD's project would have a similar constraint.
This increases the likelihood that construction of both projects would
overlap to some degree, or could occur at the same time. If this were to
happened, impacts related to water quality, threatened and endangered
species, riparian habitat, and noise would be additive.

If both projects were under construction at the same time, any potential
impacts related to erosion and siltation and their effects on water
quality would be additive. Negative impacts would be limited by Soil
Erosion Control Plans for each project and the use of best management
practices. Overall, water quality in the creek would be improved once
the projects are completed because bank repair and stabilization would
decrease the amount of erosion and siltation within the creek. However,
VCFCD indicated that their project would not increase flows downstream
of Boardman; therefore, there would be no increase in erosion within
Soule Park related to the VCFCD's project.

Threatened and endangered species with the greatest potential to be
affected by the projects include the California red-legged frog and the
Southern California Steelhead. The May 1 to October 1 construction
period established for the Soule Park project would minimize potential
impacts to these species. During this period, the creek is typically
dry. As stated above, it is expected that the VCFCD's project would have
a similar restriction. It is also expected that other minimization
measures recommended for the Soule Park project (i.e., training for
construction personnel, preconstruction survey, gradual slopes, native
grass vegetation, tree plantings, minimal impacts to stream channel
etc.) would be recommended and implemented for the VCFCD's project.
Therefore, although the impacts of these projects may be additive, they
would be minimized to the extent possible.

Construction noise would also be cumulative if these projects were under
construction at the same time. However, the distance between them (0.5
miles) would limit that effect.

Based on the above evaluation, cumulative effects of the bank repair
projects in Soule Park and the VCFCD along Thacher Creek would be
minimized through the use of avoidance and minimization measures.
Therefore, the projects are not expected to significantly impact
environmental resources within the region.

# 4.0 References

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

---. 1998b. Programmatic Agreement among the Federal Emergency
Management Agency, the California State Historic Preservation Officer,
the California Office of Emergency Services, and the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation, Regarding the El Nino '98 Winter Storms,
FEMA-1203-DR-CA. July 22.

Lindsey, Pam. 2002. Ventura County Flood Control District. Thacher Creek
Channel Replacement Project. Unpublished information. March 26.

U.S. Census Bureau (Census). 2002a. American Factfinder. Profile and
Demographic Characteristics: 2000. Website accessed February 8.
[http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/)

---. 2002b. American Factfinder. Income and Poverty Status in 1989:
1990. Website accessed February 8.
[http://factfinder.census.gov](http://factfinder.census.gov/)

# 5.0 List of Persons and Agencies consulted

Theresa Lubin

Landscape Architect

Parks Department

800 South Victoria Ave., L#1030

Ventura, CA 93009

Rodney R. McInnis

Acting Regional Administrator

National Oceanic and Atmosphere Administration

National Marine Fisheries Service

Southwest Region

501 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 4200

Long Beach, CA 90802-4213

Anthony A. Klecha

Sanitary Engineering Associate

California Regional Water Quality Control Board

320 W. 4^th^ Street, Suite 200

Los Angeles, CA 90013

Esther Won

South Central Coastal Information Center

California State University, Fullerton

Department of Anthropology

800 North State College Boulevard

Fullerton, CA 92834-6846

Dr. Knox Mellon

State Historic Preservation Officer

Office of Historic Preservation

P.O. Box 942896

Sacramento, CA 94295-0001

Pam Lindsey

Planner IV

Ventura County Flood Control District

800 South Victoria Avenue

Ventura, CA 93009

Ms. Isabel Ayala Valdez

1034 N. 5th Street

Port Hueneme, CA 93041

Chief Joseph Ballesteros

5801 Lone Pine Place

Paso Robles, CA 93446

Mr. Charles Cook

32835 Santiago Road

Acton, CA 93510

Ms. Ernestine DeSoto-McGovern

1027 Cacique Street, #A

Santa Barbara, CA 93103

Ms. Beverly Salazar Folkes

1931 Shadybrook Drive

Thousand Oaks, CA 91362

Dr. Kote Lotah

Owl Clan

48825 Sapaque Road

Bradley, CA 93426

Ms. Lin A-Lul\'Koy Lotah

Owl Clan

48825 Sapaque Road

Bradley, CA 93426

Mr. Vincent Armenta

Santa Ynez Band of Mission Indians

P.O. Box 517

Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Ms. Julie Lynn Tumamait

365 North Pole Avenue

Ojai, CA 93023

Mr. Patrick Tumamait

992 El Camino Corto

Ojai, CA 93023

Mr. Mark Steven Vigil

San Luis Obispo County Chumash Council

315 South Elm Street

Arroyo Grande, CA 93420

Mr. Qun-tan Shup

Owl Clan

48825 Sapaque Road

Bradley, CA 93426

Mr. Sal Perez

876 Olympia

Ventura, CA 93004

Mr. Paul Varela

10770 Banning Avenue

Hesperia, CA 92345

Ms. Regina Washtiqoliqol

614 Jordan Avenue

Ventura, CA 93001

Mr. Stephen William Miller

189 Cartagena

Camarillo, CA 93010

Mr. John Valenzuela

P.O. Box 402597

Hesperia, CA 92340

Mr. Art Lopez

Santa Ynez Tribal Elders Council

P.O. Box 365

Santa Ynez, CA 93460

Ms. Carol A. Pulido

165 Mountain View Street

Oak View, CA 93022

Mr. Randy Guzman-Folkes

614 Jordan Avenue

Ventura, CA 93001

Mr. Alfred L. Valenzuela

18678 Pad Court

Newhall, CA 91321

#   {#section .unnumbered}

# appendix a - figures

![](media/image1.png){width="7.5in" height="5.625694444444444in"}

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# 

# ![](media/image3.png){width="7.93125in" height="5.949305555555555in"}

# 

# 

![](media/image5.png){width="7.125in" height="5.344444444444444in"}

![](media/image7.png){width="7.625in" height="5.719444444444444in"}

![](media/image8.png){width="7.5in" height="5.625in"}

# appendix b -- agency correspondence

###### Not available online, please view hard copy version

# appendix C -- PUBLIC COMMENTS

Not available online, please view hard copy version.