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
1.0 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.
________________________________________________________________________
2. 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 citys 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 pipes 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 Citys 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 Iones 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.  
3.5 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).
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 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, Its 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.  Californias 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 9th 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 39th 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




Final Supplemental Environmental Assessment		Federal Emergency Management Agency
HMGP #1008-6040
February 2003		Page 1