ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF

THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY

FEE-TO-TRUST

MARCH 2010

PREPARED FOR:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS OF

THE COLUSA INDIAN COMMUNITY

FEE-TO-TRUST

MARCH 2010

LEAD AGENCY:

U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Pacific Regional Office

2800 Cottage Way, Room W-2820

Sacramento, CA 95825-1846

PREPARED BY:

Analytical Environmental Services

1801 7th Street, Suite 100

Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 447-3479

www.analyticalcorp.com
Analytical Environmental Services i Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

COLUSA FEE-TO-TRUST ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1-1 

1.2 Location and Setting ........................................................................................................ 1-1 

1.3 Purpose and Need for the Proposed Action ..................................................................... 1-6 

1.4 Overview of the Environmental Process .......................................................................... 1-6 

1.5 Environmental Issues Addressed ..................................................................................... 1-7 

1.6 Regulatory Requirements and Approvals ........................................................................ 1-7 

2.0 PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES 

2.1 Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 2-1 

2.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................................... 2-5 

2.3 Alternative C .................................................................................................................... 2-7 

2.4 Comparision of the Proposed Project and Alternatives ................................................... 2-7 

3.0 DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

3.1 Land Resources ................................................................................................................ 3-1 

3.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 3-7 

3.3 Air Quality ..................................................................................................................... 3-13 

3.4 Biological Resources ..................................................................................................... 3-16 

3.5 Cultural Resources ......................................................................................................... 3-33 

3.6 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice ...................................................... 3-41 

3.7 Transportation and Circulation ...................................................................................... 3-45 

3.8 Land Use ........................................................................................................................ 3-47 

3.9 Public Services ............................................................................................................... 3-52 

3.10 Noise .............................................................................................................................. 3-56 

3.11 Hazardous Materials ...................................................................................................... 3-59 

3.12 Visual Resources ............................................................................................................ 3-60 

 

4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

4.1 Alternative A .................................................................................................................... 4-1 

4.2 Alternative B .................................................................................................................. 4-16 

4.3 Alternative C .................................................................................................................. 4-23 

4.5 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................ 4-25 

4.6 Indirect And Growth-Inducing Effects .......................................................................... 4-29 

5.0 MITIGATION MEASURES 

5.1 Land Resources ................................................................................................................ 5-1 

5.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. 5-1 

5.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................... 5-2 

5.5 Cultural Resources ........................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.6 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice ........................................................ 5-5 
Table of Contents 

Analytical Environmental Services ii Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

5.7 Transportation and Circulation ........................................................................................ 5-5

5.8 Land Use .......................................................................................................................... 5-5 

5.9 Public Services ................................................................................................................. 5-5 

5.10 Noise ................................................................................................................................ 5-6 

5.11 Hazardous Materials ........................................................................................................ 5-6 

5.12 Visual Resources .............................................................................................................. 5-6 

6.0 CONSULTATION, COORDINATION AND LIST OF PREPARERS 

6.1 Federal Agencies Consulted ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 State Agencies Consulted ................................................................................................ 6-1 

6.3 Tribes Consulted .............................................................................................................. 6-1 

6.4 Local Agencies Consulted ............................................................................................... 6-2 

6.5 Preparers of Environmental Assessment ......................................................................... 6-2 

7.0 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................ 7-1 

LIST OF TABLES 

1-1 Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Acreage for Project Site Parcels ................................... 1-5 

3-1 Project Site Soils .............................................................................................................. 3-2 

3-2 Water Quality Objectives of Inland Surface Waters ...................................................... 3-11 

3-3 1% of Average Streamflow (CF/S) at USGS Gauging Station #11389500 ................... 3-12 

3-4 National Ambient Air Quality Standards and Colusa County Attainment Status.......... 3-15 

3-5 Summary of Habitat Types Within the Project Site ....................................................... 3-21 

3-6 Regionally Occurring Federally Listed Special-Status Species ..................................... 3-24 

3-7 Colusa County Population 2000-2009 ........................................................................... 3-42 

3-8 Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians Population and Labor Force Estimates .............. 3-42 

3-9 Level of Service for Unsignalized Intersections ............................................................ 3-46 

3-10 Existing Level of Service and Average Delay of Study Intersections ........................... 3-47 

3-11 Colusa Unified School District Public Schools ............................................................. 3-55 

3-12 Recommended Noise Levels for Land Uses .................................................................. 3-57 

4-1 Property Taxes for the Proposed Trust Parcels ................................................................ 4-9 

4-2 Typical Construction Noise Levels ................................................................................ 4-14 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1-1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................ 1-2 

1-2 Site and Vicinity .............................................................................................................. 1-3 

1-3 Aerial Parcel Map ............................................................................................................ 1-4 

2-1 Site Plan — Alternative A ............................................................................................... 2-3 

2-2 Site Plan — Alternative B ............................................................................................... 2-6 

3-1 Regional Fault Map ......................................................................................................... 3-3 

3-2 Soils Map ......................................................................................................................... 3-4 

3-3 FEMA Flood Zones ......................................................................................................... 3-9 

3-4 Colusa County Land Use and Zoning ............................................................................ 3-49 

3-5 Farmland Mapping & Monitoring Program (FMMP) Designations .............................. 3-51 

3-6 Site Photographs ............................................................................................................ 3-62 
Table of Contents 

Analytical Environmental Services iii Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

APPENDICES 

Appendix A Air Emissions Model Output 

Appendix B Biological Assessment 

Appendix C Cultural Resources Study (Confidential Document Bound Under Separate Cover) 

Appendix D National Resources Conservation Service Consultation Documents 

Appendix E Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 

 

 
SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION
Analytical Environmental Services 1-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 1.0 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1 INTRODUCTION 

This Environmental Assessment (EA) has been prepared for the U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) to 

support an application from the Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians of the Colusa Indian Community 

(CIC or Tribe) for land to be placed into federal trust (Proposed Action). The BIA is the federal agency 

that is charged with reviewing and approving tribal applications to take land into federal trust status. This 

land, known as the “CIC Property,” consists of approximately 225 acres in Colusa County, California, 

and is intended to be used for continued agricultural production of walnuts and construction of up to 20 

houses for Tribal members. The BIA will use this EA to determine if the Proposed Action would result in 

adverse effects to the environment. 

This document has been completed in accordance with the requirements set out in the National 

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. §4321 et seq.); the Council on Environmental 

Quality (CEQ) Guidelines for Implementing NEPA; and the BIA’s NEPA handbook (59 IAM 3). This 

document provides a detailed description of the Proposed Action and an analysis of the potential 

environmental consequences associated with the development of this project. This document also 

includes a discussion of alternatives, impact avoidance, and mitigation measures. Consistent with the 

requirements of NEPA, the BIA will review and analyze the environmental consequences associated with 

the Proposed Action, and either determine that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is 

appropriate, or initiate an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). 

1.2 LOCATION AND SETTING 

The proposed trust parcels addressed in this EA are located approximately three miles north of the Town 

of Colusa, California, between State Route (SR) 45 (Princeton Road) and the Sacramento River. The 

project site is located in unsectioned areas of Rancho Jimeno, Township 16 North, Ranges 1 and 2 West, 

on the Moulton Weir, California U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle 

(quad), Mount Diablo Base & Meridian. Figure 1-1 shows the regional location and Figure 1-2 shows 

the project site and vicinity. Figure 1-3 presents an aerial photograph of the entire project site, which 

consists of twelve separate parcels totaling approximately 225 acres, all currently owned in fee by the 

Tribe. 
^_

PROJECT

SITE

Figure 1-1

Regional Location

SOURCE: StreetMap World, 2008; AES 2009

^_

Colusa Fee-to-Trust 225-acre Fee-To-Trust EA / 209520

Colusa County

^_ Project Site

0 5 10

Miles

SCALE
Reese Ave-B

Princeton Rd (SR-45)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave

Wintun Rd

Reese Rd

Traditional Way

Colusa Fee-to-Trust 225-acre Fee-To-Trust EA / 209520

Figure 1-2

Site and Vicinity

SOURCE: "Moulton Weir, CA" USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle,

Unsectioned Area of Jimeno, T16N, R1W & R2W, Mt. Diablo Baseline & Meridian; AES, 2009

LEGEND

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels

Existing Trust Land

0 1,250 2,500

Feet
APN

015-030-079

(51.03 Acres)

APN

015-030-005

(32 Acres)

APN

015-030-089

(26.76 Acres)

APN

015-030-050

(22 Acres)

APN

015-030-049

(9.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-046

(20.45 Acres)

APN

015-030-081

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-083

(11.98 Acres)

APN

015-030-080

(10.01 Acres)

APN

015-030-082

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-048

(4.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-051

(17 Acres)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave-B

Princeton Rd (SR-45)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave

Sacramento River

Existing

Trust Land

Wintun Rd

Traditional Way

Colusa Fee-to-Trust Environmental Assessment / 209520

Figure 1-3

Aerial Parcel Map

SOURCE: Morrow Surveying, Inc., July 2009; "Moulton Weir NE, CA" USGS Aerial Photograph, 6/29/2005; AES, 2009

LEGEND

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels

0 440 880

Feet
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-5 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

The Colusa County Assessor Parcel Number (APN) and acreage for each parcel within the project site is 

shown in Table 1-1: 

TABLE 1-1 

Assessor’s Parcel Numbers and Acreage for Project Site Parcels 

APN Size (acres) 

015-030-005 32.00 

015-030-046 20.45 

015-030-048 4.30 

015-030-049 9.30 

015-030-050 22.00 

015-030-051 17.00 

015-030-079 51.03 

015-030-080 10.01 

015-030-081 10.00 

015-030-082 10.00 

015-030-083 11.98 

015-030-089 26.76 

Total 224.83 

Regional access is provided by SR 45, which runs in a general north-south direction and is located 

immediately adjacent to the west side of APN 015-030-005. Local access to the CIC Property from SR 

45 is provided by Reese Road, which is a two-lane County road that extends in a general east-west 

direction between several of the project parcels. Other roadways in the immediate vicinity include Reese 

Avenue, which turns north off of Reese Road between APNs 015-030-080 and 015-030-081. Reese 

Avenue leads into Reese Avenue B, a partially paved road along the top of the Sacramento River levee, 

which borders APNs 015-030-083, 015-030-089, 015-030-079, 015-030-046, 015-030-048, 015-030-049, 

015-030-050, and 015-030-051 (Figure 1-3). An unnamed, unpaved private road extends between the 

Tribe’s existing trust land and APNs 015-030-005 and 015-030-050. Additional unnamed, unpaved 

private roads and driveways also provide access between and within various parcels of the CIC Property. 

Three single-family homes are currently located within the project site boundaries. Two homes are 

located on APN 015-030-089; one of these homes is a rental property leased by the Tribe, and the other is 

currently vacant. APN 015-030-050 also contains an occupied single-family home. Land uses nearby the 

project site include rural housing (including Tribal residences), agricultural uses, Tribal offices and health 

center facilities in the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village, the Tribe’s casino, and undeveloped parcels adjacent 

to the Sacramento River. 

The majority of the project site contains walnut orchards. Adjacent parcels support additional walnut 

orchards of varying ages, as well as pomegranate groves. Uncultivated and undeveloped portions of the 
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-6 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

project site support mixed oak woodland, annual grassland, and mixed riparian vegetative communities. 

The topography of the site is relatively level, ranging in elevation from approximately 55 to 65 feet above 

mean sea level. 

1.3 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION 

The Tribe’s purpose for taking the 225 acres of land into trust is to ensure the continued social and 

economic independence and well-being of its members. The proposed trust acquisition would allow the 

Tribe to meet the following goals: 

 Expand the Tribe’s land base to promote stewardship of the CIC’s historical territory in a manner 

consistent with Tribal priorities; 

 Provide sufficient residential housing and associated infrastructure for Tribal members; 

 Engage in diverse and self-sustaining economic development activities compatible with the rural, 

agricultural setting of Colusa County; and 

 Allow the CIC Tribal Government to exercise sovereign authority over a greater percentage of the 

land that it owns, and protect and enhance the wellbeing of Tribal members and natural resources 

on those lands. 

The CIC consists of 82 Tribal members, governed by a council of 31 members. While most Tribal 

members currently live on the existing Rancheria, the Tribe is growing, with more than half of the CIC 

population under the age of 25. Some Tribal families are currently living in overcrowded housing on the 

Rancheria or on nearby fee lands, because there are no available housing units on the existing Rancheria. 

As the young people of the Tribe reach adulthood and establish families of their own, the availability of 

Tribal housing on trust lands will be of paramount importance in maintaining the Tribal heritage and 

community. Acceptance of the subject parcels into federal trust would assist the Tribe in meeting the 

long-term goals of adequate housing, self-governance, and economic self-sufficiency. 

1.4 OVERVIEW OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROCESS 

The BIA and the Tribe will use the EA to determine whether the Proposed Action will result in adverse 

effects on the environment and whether a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) or an Environmental 

Impact Statement should be prepared, pursuant to NEPA and the BIA’s NEPA Handbook (59 IAM 3). 

The EA is first released for a 30-day comment period. Comments will be considered by the BIA, and 

either a FONSI will be prepared, or additional environmental analysis will be conducted. After the NEPA 

process is complete, the BIA may issue a determination on the Tribe’s fee-to-trust application. 
1.0 Introduction 

Analytical Environmental Services 1-7 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

1.5 ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES ADDRESSED 

In accordance with NEPA, and based on a review of the 225-acre project site, the following 

environmental issue areas are evaluated in this EA: 

 Land Resources; 

 Water Resources; 

 Air Quality; 

 Biological Resources; 

 Cultural Resources; 

 Socioeconomic Conditions/Environmental Justice; 

 Transportation and Circulation; 

 Land Use; 

 Public Services; 

 Noise; 

 Hazardous Materials; and 

 Visual Resources. 

1.6 REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND APPROVALS 

The following direct and indirect federal approvals and actions may occur as a result of the Proposed 

Action: 

 Transfer of the 225-acre site into Federal trust status for the Tribe by the Secretary of the 

Interior. 

 Compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General 

Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. 

 Consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) under Section 7 of the 

Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), if endangered species may be impacted by the 

Proposed Action. 

 Consultation with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) under Section 106 of the 

National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), if historic properties may be impacted by the 

project. 

 Encroachment permit for construction of water infrastructure and associated pipeline 

within Colusa County Right-of-Way, if the option to connect to the wells on Tribal trust 

land is chosen. 
SECTION 2.0 

PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES
Analytical Environmental Services 2-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 2.0 

PROPOSED PROJECT AND ALTERNATIVES 

The Proposed Project and project alternatives are described in this section. This section also summarizes 

the potential environmental consequences associated with each alternative as well as the protective 

measures and Best Management Practices (BMPs) incorporated into the project to reduce potential 

adverse impacts to environmental resources. A summary of each development alternative and associated 

components is provided below. Under each of the alternatives analyzed, the majority of the CIC Property 

would be maintained in its current state for agricultural production of walnuts. The project alternatives 

evaluated in the Environmental Assessment (EA) include: 

 Alternative A - 20 residences and continued agricultural uses with water provided by wells and 

wastewater treatment provided by septic systems (Proposed Project); 

 Alternative B - 10 residences and continued agricultural uses with water provided by wells and 

wastewater treatment provided by septic systems (Reduced-Intensity Alternative); 

 Alternative C - No-Action Alternative. 

2.1 ALTERNATIVE A - PROPOSED PROJECT 

Alternative A consists of two main components: (1) placing 12 parcels that total approximately 225 acres 

(APNs 015-030-005, 015-030-046, 015-030-048, 015-030-049, 015-030-050, 015-030-051, 015-030-079, 

015-030-080, 015-030-081, 015-030-082, 015-030-083, and 015-030-089) into Federal trust status, and 

(2) construction of up to 20 residential units and associated facilities. The existing walnut orchards would 

be maintained on the majority of the land. Alternative A is described in more detail below. 

2.1.1 LAND TRUST ACTION

Alternative A consists of the fee simple conveyance of the approximately 225-acre site into Federal trust 

status for the benefit of the Tribe. This trust action would shift civil regulatory jurisdiction over the 12 

parcels from the State of California and Colusa County to the Tribe and the federal government. The 

State and County would continue to exercise criminal jurisdiction under 18 U.S.C. §1162 (Public Law 

280) and other federal laws pertaining to jurisdiction in Indian country. 

2.1.2 RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT

The Tribe would develop the project site to provide up to 20 residential single-family units on quarteracre plots. No construction would take place on APNs 015-030-049 and 015-030-051. A site plan for 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-2 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Alternative A is shown in Figure 2-1. Houses are sited to utilize existing access roads, to minimize the 

number of walnut trees that would need to be removed, and to avoid impacts to biological resources. 

Most of the expected residents of the proposed housing would be Tribal members currently living on the 

existing Colusa Rancheria. 

2.1.3 AGRICULTURAL COMPONENT 

As shown in Figure 2-1, existing walnut orchards would stay in production under Tribal management, 

with a minimum number of trees removed to make room for the housing component. Existing 

agricultural groundwater wells, pumps, and pipelines would continue to provide irrigation for the trees. 

Existing agricultural support buildings on APNs 015-030-050, 015-030-082 and 015-030-089 would 

continue to house equipment, fertilizers, and other supplies for orchard maintenance and support. 

2.1.4 WATER SUPPLY

Two options are available for domestic water supply for Alternative A. Under the first option, water 

would be supplied using the existing groundwater wells, treatment facility, and storage tank on the Colusa 

Rancheria (Figure 2-1), which currently serves the Colusa Casino Resort, 27 Tribal homes, a preschool, 

and the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village community office and health complex. Distribution pipelines would 

be installed within existing roads on and between the proposed trust parcels. The existing water supply 

facilities on the Rancheria are discussed in more detail in Section 3.9.1. Under the second supply option, 

domestic water would be drawn from groundwater production wells that currently supply the existing 

homes on APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089. If required, improvements would be made to these wells 

including deepening, replacement of existing pumps, or installation of new well screens and casings, as 

well as expanded treatment facilities to ensure compliance with safe drinking water standards. 

Distribution pipelines would be installed within existing roads as needed. Agricultural water for onsite 

walnut orchards would continue to be supplied by the existing agricultural wells on the CIC property. 

2.1.5 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

Wastewater from Alternative A would be treated using individual septic systems. Disposal of treated 

effluent would be through individual drainfields associated with each house or small cluster of houses. 

Similar septic systems are common in rural areas of Colusa County. The Tribe would comply with 

County guidelines to ensure proper size, depth, and setbacks from water sources. Existing homes on 

APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089 currently utilize septic tanks for wastewater treatment; these would 

continue to be used and maintained as needed. 

 
EXISTING DETENTION

BASIN

APN

015-030-079

(51.03 Acres)

APN

015-030-005

(32 Acres)

APN

015-030-089

(26.76 Acres)

APN

015-030-050

(22 Acres)

APN 015-030-049

(9.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-046

(20.45 Acres)

APN

015-030-081

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-083

(11.98 Acres)

APN

015-030-080

(10.01 Acres)

APN

015-030-082

(10 Acres)

APN 015-030-048

(4.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-051

(17 Acres)

Sacramento River

Reese Rd

Reese Ave-B

Princeton Rd (SR-45)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave

Sacramento River

Wintun Rd

Traditional Way

EXISTING WELLS

AND STORAGE TANKS

EXISTING WWTP

COLUSA CASINO

RESORT

Existing Houses (Occupied)

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels

Existing Access Roads

Existing Walnut Orchard

LEGEND

0 410 820

Feet

Housing Envelopes

Figure 2-1

Site Plan - Alternative A

SOURCE: Morrow Surveying, Inc., July 2009; "Moulton Weir NE, CA" USGS Aerial Photograph, 6/29/2005; AES, 2009 Colusa Indian Community 225-acre Fee-To-Trust EA / 209520
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-4 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

2.1.6 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

The housing units and associated water supply and wastewater collection system components would be 

constructed after the 225-acre property has been placed into federal trust. Construction would involve 

earthwork, placement of concrete foundations, steel and wood structural framing, masonry, electrical and 

mechanical work, and building finishing, among other construction trades. Development of the housing 

and infrastructure is anticipated to begin in 2011, with an estimated maximum footprint of approximately 

3,000 square feet for each house. Construction would take place on one to five units at a time on an asneeded basis. This would continue until all 20 units are completed, estimated in 2021. A worksite safety 

plan would be prepared for construction. 

2.1.7 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Protective measures and BMPs have been incorporated into the project design to eliminate or 

substantially reduce environmental impacts from the project. These measures and BMPs are discussed 

below. 

Land Resources 

 All structures would meet the California Building Code (CBC) requirements for the site, 

including the seismic design criteria of the most recent edition of the Uniform Building Code 

(UBC). 

 Protective coatings for buried steel pipelines and other facilities would be used in construction 

occurring on corrosive soils. 

Water Resources 

 Areas outside of buildings and existing roads would be kept as permeable surfaces to the extent 

practicable; either as vegetation or high infiltration cover, such as mulch, gravel, or turf. No 

additional paving of roads is anticipated. 

 Existing vegetation (including walnut trees) would be retained where possible. 

 High water-demand plants would be minimized in residential landscaping plans. Native and 

drought-tolerant plant species (trees, shrubs, and ground cover) would be emphasized. 

 Water-efficient fixtures and appliances would be installed in residences. 

 Septic systems would be installed and maintained according to Indian Health Services (IHS) 

guidelines. 

 Drainage from the proposed trust parcels would continue to be directed across an existing 

detention basin on the Rancheria, shown in Figures 2-1 and 2-2. The detention basin has been 

designed to slow the velocity of peak stormwater flows and allow increased infiltration of 

groundwater, reducing stormwater discharge to off-Reservation lands. 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-5 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Biological Resources 

 All native oak trees would be preserved. 

 Mixed riparian habitats on APNs 015-030-049 and 015-030-051 would be preserved. 

Public Services 

 Structural fire protection would be provided through compliance with Uniform Fire Code 

requirements for residential structures. The Tribe would ensure that appropriate water supply and 

pressure is available for emergency fire flows. 

 All structures would be constructed in accordance with all Uniform Building Codes, as adopted 

or supplemented by Colusa County. 

 Existing roads would be maintained to standards adequate for emergency vehicle access. 

Visual Resources 

 Homes would be designed and constructed to be visually compatible with the rural agricultural 

setting of the project area and vicinity. 

2.2 ALTERNATIVE B - REDUCED-INTENSITY ALTERNATIVE 

As with Alternative A, Alternative B would include placing the 225-acre site into federal trust status for 

the benefit of the Tribe; however under Alternative B, only ten residential units would be constructed. No 

homes would be constructed on APNs 015-030-049 or 015-030-051. Houses would be sited to minimize 

the number of walnut trees that would need to be removed, and to avoid impacts to biological resources. 

A site plan for Alternative B is shown in Figure 2-2. Existing rural roadways would be maintained to 

provide access to the residences. As with Alternative A, most of the expected residents of the proposed 

housing would be Tribal members currently living on the existing Colusa Rancheria. 

2.2.1 WATER SUPPLY 

The same two options for domestic water supply that are described in Section 2.1.4 would also be 

available for implementation with Alternative B. Domestic water would either be supplied from existing 

wells and a treatment facility on the Colusa Rancheria, or water would be supplied from domestic wells 

on the CIC property, with capacity, treatment, and distribution improvements implemented as necessary. 

2.2.2 WASTEWATER TREATMENT AND DISPOSAL

As with Alternative A, Alternative B includes construction of onsite septic systems for the proposed 

homes. 
Sacramento River

APN

015-030-005

(32 Acres)

APN

015-030-081

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-082

(10 Acres) APN

015-030-083

(11.98 Acres)

APN

015-030-080

(10.01 Acres)

APN

015-030-079

(51.03 Acres)

APN

015-030-089

(26.76 Acres)

APN

015-030-046

(20.45 Acres)

APN 015-030-048

(4.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-050

(22 Acres)

APN

015-030-051

(17 Acres)

APN 015-030-049

(9.3 Acres)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave-B

Princeton Rd (SR-45)

Reese Rd

Sacramento River

Wintun Rd

Traditional Way

EXISTING WELLS

AND STORAGE TANKS

EXISTING WWTP

EXISTING DETENTION

BASIN

COLUSA CASINO

RESORT

Figure 2-2

Site Plan - Alternative B

SOURCE: Morrow Surveying, Inc., July 2009; "Moulton Weir NE, CA" USGS Aerial Photograph, 6/29/2005; AES, 2009

Existing Houses (Occupied)

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels

Existing Access Roads

Existing Walnut Orchard

Colusa Indian Community 225-acre Fee-To-Trust EA / 209520

LEGEND

0 400 800

Feet

Housing Envelopes
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-7 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

2.2.3 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION

Project construction methodology would be similar to that described for Alternative A, with anticipated 

completion of all residential units by 2016. 

2.2.4 PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Protective measures and BMPs would be similar to those described for Alternative A. 

2.3 ALTERNATIVE C - NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE 

Under the No-Action Alternative, the 225-acre site would not be placed into trust for the benefit of the 

Tribe and would not be developed with up to 20 housing units as identified under the Proposed Project. 

Jurisdiction of the property would remain with Colusa County. Ultimately, the 225-acre site could be 

developed by the Tribe with the property owned in fee, or by a private purchaser, consistent with local 

zoning. However, for the purposes of the environmental analysis in this EA, it is assumed that the 

property would remain in agricultural production with two occupied residences, and would not be further 

developed. 

2.4 COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND 

ALTERNATIVES 

Among the project alternatives evaluated in Section 4.0, the Proposed Project and Alternative B both 

include housing units and the continued use of the majority of the land for growing walnut trees. Options 

for supplying domestic water and for the treatment and disposal of wastewater would be identical for 

these two alternatives. However, Alternative B would include only 10 houses, whereas the Proposed 

Project (Alternative A) would develop up to 20 houses. Under Alternative C, the No-Action Alternative, 

no development or change in use would occur on the property for the foreseeable future. 

Impacts to land resources would be proportionally greatest under Alternative A, due to the larger project 

footprint needed for construction of up to 20 houses. This would require additional site grading and 

removal of slightly more existing walnut trees compared to Alternative B. The No-Action Alternative 

would have no effect on land resources, as no changes in land use are anticipated. 

Water resources would likewise be impacted the most by Alternative A. This alternative would result in a 

greater area of impermeable surfaces than Alternative B, due to the greater amount of residential 

development. Water demands of the Proposed Project would be slightly higher than Alternative B due to 

the greater percentage of residential uses compared to agricultural water demands; however, water for 

both purposes would be drawn from the same aquifer under both water supply options. The No-Action 

Alternative would continue to use existing wells for agricultural production and existing residential uses. 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-8 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

For both Alternatives A and B, wastewater treatment from the proposed houses would consist of septic 

systems, which would be installed and maintained according to County guidelines. The greater number 

of houses associated with Alternative A would generate greater quantities of wastewater, and therefore 

would result in greater potential impacts to groundwater quality and a need for more infrastructure 

construction and maintenance compared to Alternative B. No impacts to water resources would result 

from Alternative C. 

Construction and operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and greenhouse gases would be similar 

under both the Proposed Project and Alternative B; however, these emissions would be proportionally 

lower under Alternative B due to the reduced amount of construction and the reduction in residential 

vehicle trips generated. Under Alternative C, no impacts to air quality would occur. 

No sensitive biological habitats would be directly impacted by the development of either Alternative A or 

Alternative B, because housing locations have been specifically chosen to avoid such impacts. BMPs 

have been incorporated into development plans to minimize direct and indirect adverse impacts to 

sensitive habitats, special-status species, native vegetation, waters of the U.S., and protected birds; 

however, the greater amount of development proposed under Alternative A would slightly increase the 

potential for any impacts to occur compared with Alternative B. No impacts to biological resources 

would occur under Alternative C, because this alternative involves no new development or changes in 

land use. 

Potential impacts to cultural resources resulting from inadvertent discovery of previously unknown 

subsurface archaeological or paleontological sites would increase proportionately to the amount of ground 

disturbance; therefore, Alternative A would have the greatest potential for adverse effects to cultural 

resources. Alternative B would involve less ground-disturbing construction work, thereby reducing the 

potential for these impacts. The No-Action Alternative would not result in impacts to cultural resources. 

No adverse impacts to socioeconomic conditions or environmental justice would result from the Proposed 

Project or Alternatives B or C. Alternative A would provide a beneficial socioeconomic impact for the 

identified minority population of the CIC by easing a housing shortage and ensuring continued economic 

diversification and self-sufficiency; Alternative B would also extend these benefits to the Tribe, but to a 

lesser degree. Alternative C would result in no change to existing socioeconomic conditions. 

Alternative A would generate the greatest number of daily vehicle trips, due to the higher number of 

housing units. Impacts to the local transportation network from this alternative would therefore be 

proportionally greater than Alternative B, although still less than significant. Alternative C would 

generate no new vehicle trips, and would therefore cause no impacts to local transportation and 

circulation networks. 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-9 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Development of Alternatives A and B would result in the construction of low-density residential housing, 

septic systems, and extension of other utilities, and continued agricultural production on the majority of 

the CIC Property. Both alternatives are compatible with the surrounding land uses, and similar residential 

densities currently occur in the project vicinity. Alternative C would have no impact on local land use. 

Alternative A would have minimal impacts on solid waste, electricity, natural gas, telecommunications, 

law enforcement, fire protection and emergency medical services, public schools, and parks and 

recreation. Alternative B would have proportionately less impact on these services because of the 

reduced number of residents requiring these utilities and services. Alternative C would have no impact on 

public services and utilities. 

Neither of the project alternatives would have any impact on municipal water supply and wastewater 

treatment facilities, as both Alternatives A and B would use domestic water supplied from existing 

Tribally owned and operated wells either on the project site or the Colusa Rancheria, and would 

accomplish wastewater treatment using individual on-site septic systems. Alternative C would not result 

in an increase in demand for municipal water supply or wastewater treatment. 

Impacts related to construction noise would be greatest under Alternative A, due to the larger number of 

houses that would be constructed, and the longer period of construction. Alternative B would have a 

proportionately lessened noise impact, as construction would take place in fewer areas and for a shorter 

duration of time. Operational noise would be similarly minimal under these two alternatives, although the 

greater number of new vehicle trips anticipated under Alternative A would slightly increase the potential 

for operational noise compared to Alternative B. No noise-related impacts would occur under Alternative 

C. 

Impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials would be greatest under Alternative A, due to the 

larger amount of construction that would utilize fuels and spark-producing equipment. These impacts 

would be proportionally reduced under Alternative B. Impacts related to agricultural production would 

be essentially identical under both project alternatives. No new impacts related to hazards or hazardous 

materials would occur under Alternative C, although if current land uses continue, the use of agricultural 

fertilizers, pesticides, and mechanical farm equipment would also continue. 

Visual resource impacts would be greatest under Alternative A, due to the greater number of housing 

units, some of which would be wholly or partially visible to local sensitive receptors (other residences). 

Alternative B would include half the number of housing units compared to the Proposed Project, and 

would accordingly result in reduced visual impacts. No visual impacts would occur under Alternative C. 

While both Alternatives A and B meet the Tribe’s objectives of an enlarged land base and diversified 

economic development opportunities compatible with the rural, agricultural setting of Colusa County, 

Alternative A would provide more houses for the Tribe’s growing population. Alternative B would result 
2.0 Proposed Project and Alternatives 

Analytical Environmental Services 2-10 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

in proportionately fewer overall environmental impacts than the Proposed Project, but would include only 

half of the housing units, as compared to the Proposed Project. While the No-Action alternative would 

not result in any of the environmental effects identified for the Proposed Project or Alternative B, this 

alternative would not meet the Tribe’s objectives of providing a sufficient number of housing units for 

Tribal families. Despite the proportionately greater overall effects on the environment of Alternative A, 

none of the identified impacts would be significant and unavoidable, following implementation of 

protective measures and mitigation recommended in this document. 
SECTION 3.0 

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT
Analytical Environmental Services 3-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 3.0 

DESCRIPTION OF AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT 

This section presents relevant information about existing resources and other values that may be affected 

by the Proposed Project and alternatives. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA) implementing guidelines (59 IAM 3), the existing 

conditions described herein provide the base line for determining the environmental effects identified in 

Section 4.0. Descriptions include the following resource and issue areas: 

 Land Resources 

 Water Resources 

 Air Quality 

 Biological Resources 

 Cultural Resources 

 Socioeconomic Conditions / Environmental Justice 

 Transportation and Circulation 

 Land Use 

 Public Services 

 Noise 

 Hazardous Materials 

 Visual Resources 

3.1 LAND RESOURCES 

3.1.1 GEOLOGICAL SETTING

Colusa County is comprised of three major physiographic and geologic provinces: the Sacramento Valley 

in the east, the Coast Range foothills in central to southwestern areas, and the Coast Range Mountains in 

the northwest. Rocks underlying the various provinces range from Paleozoic and Mesozoic age 

crystalline and metamorphic rocks to young alluvial deposits (NRCS, 1997). 

The project site is situated in the Central Sacramento Valley physiographic region. The Valley is an 

elongated structural trough that trends northwest through central California, bounded by the Sierra 

Nevada on the east and the Coast Ranges on the West. The Sacramento Valley soils are deeply weathered 

due to heavy moisture and vegetation that characterized the native conditions under which they were 

formed. The project site is underlain by quaternary age alluvium formed from sedimentary rock (NRCS, 

1997). 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-2 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

3.1.2 TOPOGRAPHY

The project site is situated immediately west of the Sacramento River, south of the Hamilton Bend. The 

topography of the area is relatively flat, and elevations on the project site range between approximately 50 

and 80 feet above mean sea level (amsl). A topographic map of the project site is provided in Figure 1-2.

3.1.3 SEISMIC CONDITIONS

Four fault zones classified by the California Division of Mines and Geology transect the general region of 

the Colusa Rancheria. These include the Corning Fault, the Swain Ravine fault zone, the Great Valley 

fault zone, and the Dunnigan Hills fault zone. The closest of the four faults to the project site is the Great 

Valley fault zone, which runs in a general north-south direction, approximately 14 miles to the west of the 

project site. Figure 3-1 shows regionally active faults and their relative distances to the project site. 

The project area could be subject to moderate ground shaking from the surrounding fault at Sutter Buttes 

in the event of an earthquake. The Modified Mercalli Intensity (MMI) scale is commonly used to 

measure earthquake effects due to ground shaking. The MMI values for intensity range from I 

(earthquake not felt) to XII (damage nearly total). MMI values ranging from IV to X could cause 

moderate to significant structural damage. The project site is located within an area of minor potential 

shaking intensity of MMI level VI to VIII. This corresponds to the potential for considerable damage to 

poorly built or designed structures, but negligible damage in buildings of good design and construction 

(USGS, 1989). 

3.1.4 SOIL TYPES AND CHARACTERISTICS

The project site contains four soils formed in alluvium derived from mixed rock sources (NRCS, 2009a). 

Table 3-1 summarizes the characteristics for each soil type, while Figure 3-2 shows the location of each 

soil type on the project site. 

TABLE 3-1 

PROJECT SITE SOILS 

Map 

Unit 

Symbol 

Map Unit 

Name Slope Range Hydraulic Conductivity Class 

Erosion 

Hazard 

Percent of 

Project 

Site 

124 Moonbend silt 

loam 0-2% C Slight 5.3% 

125 Moonbend silt 

loam 0-2% C Slight 82.4% 

170 Vina loam 0-2% B Slight 8% 

171 Vina loam 0-2% B Slight 0.7% 

Source: NRCS Soil Survey (2009b) 
Cross Spring fault zone

Hunting Creek-Berryessa fault system, unnamed section

Collayomi fault zone

Great Valley fault zone

Resort fault zone

Dunnigan Hills fault zone Resort fault zone

Bartlett Springs fault system, Bartlett Springs section

tt Springs section

Stoney Creek fault

Great Valley fault zone

Chico Monocline Fault

Corning Fault

lt

PROJECT SITE

13.14 M 

13

11 .7 1 M i les

11 .3 8 M i les

Spenceville fault

Swain Ravine fault zone

Swain Ravine fault zone

Swain Ravine fault zone

Placer

County

Sa

Yuba

County

Sutter

County

32 Miles

27 Miles

22 Miles

14 Miles

Hunting Creek-Berryessa fault system, Wilson section

Hunting Creek-Berryessa fault system, Wilson section

Butte

County

Colusa

County

Glenn

County

Yolo

County

Sutter

County

Yuba

County

Lake

County

Napa

County

Placer

County

Tehama

County

Sacramento

County

Plumas

County

Nord

Yolo

Biggs

Glenn

Chico

Linda

Concow

Durham

Artois

Orland

Honcut

Guinda

Grimes

Sutter

Colusa

Lodoga

Palermo

Magalia

Willows

Esparto

Robbins

Gridley

Maxwell

Delevan

Oroville

Richvale

Paradise

Newville

Nicolaus

Sheridan

Woodland

Dunnigan

Arbuckle

Meridian

Williams

Live Oak

Princeton

Elk Creek

Loma Rica

Wheatland

Yuba City

Stonyford

Thermalito

Olivehurst

Marysville

Tierra Buena

Hamilton City

South Oroville

Knights Landing

South Yuba City

Hidden Valley Lake

Figure 3-1

Regional Fault Map

SOURCE: USGS Earthquake Hazards Program, 2007; AES, 2009

Historic (none)

<11,000 - Holocene (none)

<100,000 - late Quaternary

<1.6 Million Quaternary

Other Faults

LEGEND

0 2 4 6 8 10

Miles

Colusa Fee-to-Trust Environmental Assessment / 209520
Reese Rd

Reese Ave-B

Princeton Rd (SR-45)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave

Sacramento River

Existing

Trust Land

Wintun Rd

Traditional Way

125

170

172

652

124

130

126

171

185

107

125

124

125

125

125

170

652 125

124

125

125

125

125 170 170

125

125

652

125

125

125

170

185

125

125

125

185

Figure 3-2

Soils Map

SOURCE: Morrow Surveying, Inc., July 2009; "Moulton Weir NE, CA" USGS Aerial Photograph, 6/29/2005; AES, 2009

LEGEND

Soil Types

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels

Existing Trust Land 0 400 800

Feet

124 – Moonbend silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

125 – Moonbend silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

170 – Vina loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded

171 – Vina loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes

652 – Water

SOIL TYPES WITHIN PROJECT AREA

Colusa Fee-to-Trust Environmental Assessment / 209520
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-5 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

A description of the four soil types are included below: 

• Moonbend silt loam (124 and 125) – These soils are generally found in low areas along the 

Sacramento River, in elevations between 45 to 55 feet. The parent material of Moonbend silt 

loams is alluvium derived from mixed rock sources. Both soils have a very high available water 

capacity of about 10.5 inches and moderate shrink-swell potential. Moonbend silt loams are 

characterized as moderately corrosive to uncoated steel (NCRS, 2009a). 

• Vina loam (170 and 171) – These highly productive soils occur at elevations between 25 to 75 

feet and are commonly located inside levees along the Sacramento River. Vina loams are welldrained soils, with a high available water capacity of about 9.5 inches and a low shrink-swell 

potential. Both are characterized as moderately corrosive to uncoated steel (NRCS, 2009a). 

The hydraulic conductivity class describes the rate at which water flows though the soil; a high hydraulic 

conductivity refers to soils that can absorb a lot of water quickly, so that only a moderate percentage of 

storm water becomes runoff (NRCS, 2009b). The hydrologic conductivity classes are described below: 

 

• Hydrologic Group B: Soils having a moderate infiltration rate and a moderately low runoff rate 

when thoroughly wet. Group B soils typically have between 10 percent and 20 percent clay and 

50 percent to 90 percent sand and have loamy sand or sandy loam textures. Some soils having 

loam, silt loam, silt, or sandy clay loam textures may be placed in this group if they are well 

aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock fragments. Water 

transmission through the soil is unimpeded. 

• Hydrologic Group C: Soils having a moderately high runoff rate and moderately low infiltration 

rate when thoroughly wet. Group C soils typically have between 20 percent and 40 percent clay 

and less than 50 percent sand and have loam, silt loam, sandy clay loam, clay loam, and silty clay 

loam textures. Some soils having clay, silty clay, or sandy clay textures may be placed in this 

group if they are well aggregated, of low bulk density, or contain greater than 35 percent rock 

fragments. Water transmission through the soil is somewhat restricted. 

SOIL HAZARDS

Soil Erosion 

Soil erosion is the wearing and removal of soil materials from the ground surface and the transportation of 

these soil materials resulting in deposition elsewhere. Mechanisms of soil erosion include storm water 

runoff and wind, as well as human activities, such as changes in drainage patterns and removal of 

vegetation. Factors that influence erosion include physical properties of the soil, topography (slope), and 

annual rainfall and peak intensity. The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) rates the 

erosion potential of a map unit by taking all of the above into consideration. The ratings range from 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-6 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

“slight” to “very severe.” The erosion ratings of the four soils within the project site are provided in 

Table 3-1. 

Liquefaction 

Liquefaction involves soils that become highly saturated and lose their cohesive strength and 

subsequently act as a liquid, rather than as a solid mass. Soils comprised of sands and inland fill in areas 

with high groundwater tables or heavy rainfall are subject to liquefaction during intense seismic shaking 

events. The soils on the project site have a relatively high percentage of silt, making the area susceptible 

to liquefaction. 

 

Landslides 

Areas susceptible to landslides are comprised of weak soils on sloping terrain. Landslides can be induced 

by weather, such as heavy rains or strong seismic shaking events. The project site is located within an 

area designated as having a low incidence of landslides, although high incidence areas are located on the 

western border of Colusa County. 

SOIL SUITABILITY FOR SEPTIC SYSTEMS

Septic systems distribute effluent into the soil through subsurface tiles or perforated pipe. The NRCS 

provides ratings for a soil’s suitability to accept septic system effluent based on the soil properties that 

affect absorption of the effluent, construction and maintenance of the system, and public health. The 

ratings are both narrative and numerical; rating class terms indicate the extent to which the soils are 

limited while numerical ratings indicate the severity of individual limitations. All of the soils on the site 

are classified as “Limitations”, which indicates that the soil has features that are favorable to unfavorable 

for use by septic systems. The most limiting limitations for the soils on-site are flooding frequency, slow 

percolation, and saturation at less than four inches below ground surface. These limitations can be 

overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation (NRCS, 2010), and therefore the soils 

are suitable for septic systems. 

3.1.5 MINERAL RESOURCES

Mining in Colusa County is limited to sand and gravel extraction, primarily used locally as surface 

material for infrastructure (Colusa County, 1989). Past mineral activity has occurred in the western 

portion of Colusa County, where regional geologic patterns have indicated a high probability for gold and 

mercury deposits. According to the General Plan (Colusa County, 1989), there are no areas within the 

County designated as a Mineral Resource Zones and no mineral resources exist within the project site 

boundaries. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-7 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

3.2 WATER RESOURCES 

3.2.1 SURFACE WATER, DRAINAGE, AND FLOODING

Watersheds and Hydrology 

The project site is located within the Sacramento River Basin, Colusa subbasin. The Sacramento River is 

the largest river in California, with headwaters approximately 6,600 feet above mean seal level (msl) at 

Mount Eddy in the Trinity Mountains. Major tributaries to the Sacramento River include the Yuba, 

Feather, Pit, and American Rivers. The Colusa subbasin extends north-south throughout the length of 

Colusa County west of the Sacramento River floodplain. The subbasin is approximately 6 to 20 feet 

lower than the banks of the Sacramento River. The ground slopes away from the main channel of the 

River relatively steeply, gradually flattening towards the center portions of the subbasin west of the River. 

The construction of levees built along the Sacramento River to control floods has slowed sediment load in 

the subbasin, which is now mostly leveled for rice production and other crops (PSOMAS, 2003a). 

More than 80 percent of the precipitation in the Colusa subbasin occurs during November through March, 

and annual precipitation averages between 15.5 and 15.9 inches. The Coast Range to the west shields the 

Sacramento Valley from the abundant precipitation and thunderstorms that affect higher elevations, 

resulting in a rain-shadow effect. Rainfall from strong Pacific storms generated to the southwest 

occasionally cause widespread flooding in streams as well as in the Colusa subbasin and Butte Sink 

(PSOMAS, 2003a). 

Drainage 

Slopes in the general vicinity of the project site average around 0.2 percent. Drainage in the foothill 

region west of the project area occurs via streams flowing east to the Sacramento Valley. Stream 

channels of many foothill streams have lowered due to increased run off, and are channelized and 

diverted for farmland, towns, and roads in the valley. The foothill streams flow to the Colusa Basin and 

the south-flowing Colusa Basin Drain. The Colusa Basin Drain is the single largest source of agricultural 

return flows to the Sacramento River. It discharges runoff and agricultural return flows from about one 

million acres of watershed to the River at Knight’s Landing. During high flow, the Colusa Basin Drain is 

diverted through the Knights Landing Ridge Cut to the Yolo Bypass (DWR, 2009). 

Runoff in the project area and surrounding land typically travels as shallow overland flow into an existing 

detention basin that extends in a generally north-south direction from APN 015-030-005 to the southern 

boundary of the Reservation, as shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. The detention basin has been 

designed to slow the velocity of peak stormwater flows and allow increased infiltration of groundwater, 

reducing stormwater discharge to off-Reservation lands. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-8 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Flooding 

Executive Order 11988 pertaining to floodplain management states that each federal agency shall 

“provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss.” In order for each agency to 

carry out its responsibility, the order requires that each agency determine whether a project is located 

within a floodplain and consider alternatives to a project’s location within a floodplain. If the project 

must reside on a floodplain, the agency must minimize any potential impacts. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for predicting the potential for 

flooding in most areas. FEMA routinely performs this function through the update and issuance of Flood 

Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), which depict various levels of predicted inundation. Map number 

06011C0375F shows that the project site contains both Zone X and Zone A classifications. Zone A is 

designated for those lands that are inundated by 100-year flooding (FEMA, 2009). Zone X is designated 

for those lands which are located between the 100 and 500 year floodplain or that are protected by levees 

from a 100 year flood. As shown in Figure 3-3, only two of the proposed trust parcels (APNs 015-030-

049 and 015-030-051), which are located east of the Sacramento River levee, are within the 100-year 

floodplain. No construction is planned on either of these parcels. 
APN

015-030-005

(32 Acres)

APN

015-030-081

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-082

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-083

(11.98 Acres)

APN

015-030-089

(26.76 Acres)

APN

015-030-079

(51.03 Acres)

APN

015-030-046

(20.45 Acres) APN

015-030-049

(9.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-051

(17 Acres)

APN

015-030-050

(22 Acres)

APN

015-030-048

(4.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-080

(10.01 Acres)

Figure 3-3

FEMA Flood Zones

SOURCE: "Moulton Weir, CA" USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle,

Unsectioned Area of Jimeno, T16N, R1W & R2W, Mt. Diablo Baseline & Meridian; 

FEMA FIRM Data, 2003; AES, 2009

LEGEND

0 500 1,000

Feet

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels FEMA FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP DATA

A - An area inundated by 100-year flooding, for 

which no BFEs have been determined.

X - An area that is determined to be between 

the 100- and 500-year floodplains.

Colusa Fee-to-Trust Environmental Assessment / 209520
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-10 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Levees maintained in place along the Sacramento River by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers protect the 

subbasin from floodwaters from Willow Creek to the north and many others to the west. The floodwaters 

are diverted through the Colusa, Moulton, and Tisdale weirs into the Sutter Bypass. The bypass drains 40 

miles south to Knights Landing where water is diverted into the Yolo Bypass and ultimately to the 

Sacramento River Delta (PSOMAS, 2003b). 

The project site is located within the Sacramento-San Joaquin Drainage District, created by the California 

Legislature in 1913 to aid flood control efforts along the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers and their 

tributaries. The Central Valley Flood Protection Board oversees the management and control of all areas 

within the drainage district. The project site is not located within the Central Valley Flood Protection 

Board’s Designated Floodway (CVFPB, 2009). 

3.2.2 GROUNDWATER

The project site lies within the Colusa Groundwater Subbasin (DWR Basin No. 5-021.52), part of the 

larger Sacramento Valley Groundwater Basin that occupies the northern one-third of California’s Central 

Valley. The Basin is classified as a single heterogeneous aquifer, having no continuous confining layer, 

faults, or other distinct internal boundaries. The Colusa Groundwater Subbasin is bounded by Cache 

Creek on the south, Stony Creek on the north, the Sacramento River on the east, and the Coast Range and 

foothills on the west. The Subbasin has a surface area of 918,380 acres. The depth to groundwater does 

not exceed 25 feet below the surface within the greater Colusa-Grimes area, and there are six deep wells 

in the area with artesian surface flows for a portion of the year (PSOMAS, 2003a). The Tehama 

Formation is the principal water-bearing unit within the Subbasin. It is overlain by alluvial material and 

reaches a thickness of 2,000 feet. 

Groundwater in the project area fluctuates seasonally from approximately 5 to 10 feet annually in normal 

to dry years. The known well yields for the project area are greater than 1,000 gallons per minute 

(PSOMAS, 2003a). 

3.2.4 WATER QUALITY

Surface Water Quality 

The National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program was implemented by the USGS in 1991. 

The Sacramento River Basin was selected for investigation under the program to identify the most 

pertinent concerns for surface water quality. According to the NAWQA Sacramento River Basin 

assessment program, pertinent water quality concerns in the project area include elevated concentrations 

of trace metals, pesticide contamination of surface water, urban runoff and volatile organic compound 

contamination, and issues with affected aquatic species (PSOMAS, 2003a). 

The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta is a primary source of drinking water for over 23 million people in the 

Central Coast, Central Bay, and Southern California regions (CVRWQCB, 2007). The California Bay-
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-11 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Delta Act was signed by the Governor in 2002 to address water quality and restore ecological integrity in 

the Bay-Delta (PSOMAS, 2003a). The act includes management plans for water supply reliability, water 

quality, levee system integrity, and ecosystem restoration. 

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires that each State identify those waters within its boundaries that do not 

meet the water quality standards that have been set for them. Impaired water bodies occur where 

industrial and technological waste limits, or other legal mechanisms for pollution control, are not enough 

to meet water quality standards. When identified, a priority schedule for the development of total 

maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for each contaminant or “stressor” impacting the water body. The Colusa 

Basin Drain is listed as impaired by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). The 

Colusa Basin Drain is impaired due to agriculture and the TMDL was scheduled to be completed in 2008 

for various pesticides from agricultural runoff. TMDLs for Group A Pesticides are scheduled for 

completion in 2011 (USEPA, 2009). 

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Valley Region (Basin Plan) provides water quality 

objectives of waters for the Central Valley region, including the entire Sacramento and San Joaquin River 

Basins. Table 3-2 lists the general water quality objectives by parameter. The Sacramento River 

watershed is listed under Section 303(d) as a water quality limited waterbody. In addition, four sections 

of the Sacramento River and the Sacramento Slough are listed as impaired for mercury and unknown 

toxic contamination. The River segments are from Keswick dam to Cottonwood Creek, from 

Cottonwood Creek to Redbluff, from Redbluff to Knight’s Landing, and from Knight’s Landing to the 

Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. TMDLs are scheduled to be completed by 2019 in the River segments, 

and in 2020 for the Sacramento Slough. 

TABLE 3-2 

WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES OF INLAND SURFACE WATERS 

Parameter Description 

Color Waters shall be free of coloration that causes nuisance or adversely affects beneficial 

uses 

Tastes and 

Odors 

Waters shall not contain taste or odor producing substances in concentrations that 

impart undesirable tastes or odors to fish flesh or other edible products of aquatic 

origin, or that cause nuisance of adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Floating Material Waters shall not contain floating material in concentrations that could cause nuisance 

or adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Suspended and 

Settleable 

Material 

Waters shall not contain suspended or settleable material in concentrations that could 

cause nuisance or adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Oil and Grease 

Waters shall not contain oils, greases, waxes, or other materials in concentrations 

that result in a visible film or coating on the surface of the water or on objects in the 

water, that cause nuisance, or that otherwise adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Biostimulatory 

Substances 

Waters shall not contain biostimulatory substances in concentrations that promote 

aquatic growths to the extent that such growths cause nuisance or adversely affect 

beneficial uses. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-12 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Turbidity 

Turbidity shall not be increased more than 20 percent above naturally occurring 

background levels. Allowable zones of dilution within which higher percentages can 

be tolerated may be defined for specific discharges upon the issuance of discharge 

permits or waiver thereof. 

pH Some waters have specific pH limits listed within the Basin Plan. For waters not 

listed, the pH shall not be reduced below 6.5 nor raised above 8.5. 

Dissolved 

Oxygen 

Some waters have specific dissolved oxygen concentrations listed within the Basin 

Plan. For waters not listed, dissolved oxygen concentration limitations are based on 

the water’s designation. 

Bacteria 

The Bacteriological quality of waters of the North Coast Region shall not be degraded 

beyond natural background levels. Specific limits have been set for coliform in 

waters designated for contact recreation or where shellfish may be harvested for 

human consumption. 

Temperature 

The natural receiving water temperature of intrastate waters shall not be altered 

unless it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Board that 

such alteration in temperature does not adversely affect beneficial uses. 

Toxicity 

All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic 

to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or 

aquatic life. 

Pesticides 

No individual pesticide or combination of pesticides shall be present in concentrations 

that adversely affect beneficial uses. There shall be no bioaccumulation of pesticide 

concentrations found in bottom sediments or aquatic life. 

Radio Activity 

Radionuclides shall not be present in concentrations which are deleterious to human, 

plant, animal or aquatic life nor which result in the accumulation of radionuclides in 

the food web to an extent which presents a hazard to human, plant, animal, or 

indigenous aquatic life. 

Source: SWRCB, 2007a 

USGS gauging station #11389500 measures the stream flow of the Sacramento River at Colusa 

downstream from the project area (Table 3-3). Records at the station date from April 1921. The 

maximum flow recorded at the gage was 51,800 cubic feet per second (cfs) in 1983, and the minimum 

was 820 cfcs in 1931. 

TABLE 3-3 

1% OF AVERAGE STREAMFLOW (CF/S) AT USGS GAUGING STATION #11389500 

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 

Mean 

Monthly 

1945-2008 

180 197 174 127 109 92 89.1 83 72.6 64.3 83.8 136 

Mean Daily 

1945-2008 160 194 189 146 117 100 89.5 89.2 76.6 69.1 66.7 10.9 

Source : USGS, 2009 

The NPDES program established pursuant to the Clean Water Act (33 USC §§ 1251 to 1387) is a national 

program for regulating and administering permits for discharges to receiving waters. Under the Federal 

Clean Water Act, Indian Tribes can be treated as states for the purposes of the NPDES program [33 USC 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-13 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

§ 1377(e)]. However, the USEPA maintains regulatory authority over discharges to surface waters on 

Tribal trust lands. Because the WWTP on the Colusa Rancheria uses leachfields to dispose of treated 

effluent, no NPDES permit is required, although USEPA standards for Class V shallow injection wells 

must be met. 

Groundwater Quality 

In order to protect drinking water supplies under the mandate of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the USEPA 

defines National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (primary standards). These are legally enforceable 

standards that apply to public water systems. These standards are established to protect human health by 

limiting the levels of contaminants in drinking water. The USEPA also defines National Secondary 

Drinking Water Regulations (secondary standards) for constituents that may affect the taste, odor, or 

appearance of water, but do not pose a threat to human health. 

The USGS designated six distinct areas within the Sacramento Valley based on groundwater chemical 

composition, or hydrochemical facies. The project area is within the Sutter Basin hydrochemical facies, 

characterized as having high concentrations of dissolved solids, sodium, chloride, bicarbonate, potassium, 

and boron. The geochemical makeup of the groundwater is very similar to that of the Sacramento River 

and is generally of good quality. 

Water quality analysis was completed from samples of water taken from 26 local wells in the vicinity of 

the project site. The results of the analysis show variable concentrations of total dissolved solids at local 

wells ranging from 190 mg/L to over 2000 mg/L (PSOMAS, 2003a). 

3.3 AIR QUALITY 

3.3.1 PROJECT AREA AND VICINITY

The project area lies within the Colusa County Air Pollution Control District (CAPCD). The CAPCD 

regulates air quality through regulation of air pollutant emissions from stationary sources within Colusa 

County. The project site is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). 

The area is characterized by a Mediterranean climate, with warm, dry weather from May to September 

and mild, rainy weather from November through March. Winds are channeled through the Sacramento 

Valley, while the surrounding mountain ranges inhibit dispersion of pollutant emissions. Wind direction 

in the valley corresponds with the season and its associated predominant wind flow pattern. The 

predominant annual and summer wind pattern is a full sea breeze originating from the Pacific Ocean, 

referred to locally as the Delta breezes. Northerly winds predominate in the winter season, when calm 

atmospheric conditions in the Sacramento Valley leads to a stagnation of valley air and increased air 

pollution. The regional temperature averages in the mid-70s (degrees Fahrenheit) for highs and the high-
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-14 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

40s for lows. Precipitation averaged approximately 16 inches per year during the period between 1948 

and 2008 (WRCC, 2009). 

3.3.2 REGULATORY CONTEXT

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) was enacted for the purposes of protecting and enhancing the quality of 

the nation’s air resources to benefit public health, welfare, and productivity. Basic components of the 

CAA and its amendments include national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) for major air 

pollutants and state implementation plans (SIPs) to ensure these standards are met. Regulation of air 

pollution is achieved through both the NAAQS and emission limits for individual sources of air 

pollutants. The USEPA is the federal agency responsible for identifying criteria air pollutants (CAPs), 

establishing NAAQS, and approving and overseeing SIPs as they relate to the CAA. 

3.3.3 FEDERAL CONFORMITY

The General Conformity Rule of the CAA (42 USC 7401) implements Section 176(c) of the Act, and 

establishes minimum thresholds for CAPs in nonattainment and maintenance areas. 

Title 40 Part 93 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) was promulgated in order to determine 

conformity of federal actions to SIPs. A lead agency must make a determination that a federal action 

conforms to the applicable SIP before the action is taken. A conformity determination is required for 

each CAP where a total of direct and indirect emissions in a nonattainment or maintenance area caused by 

the federal action are greater than de minimis thresholds as listed in CFR Section 93.153(b). 

These thresholds provide simple and direct guidance for federal agencies to ensure that they comply with 

an approved SIP. The general conformity rule includes a procedure for determining whether the rule is 

applicable to the actions of a federal agency. There are two phases to general conformity: 

1) The Conformity Review process entails a review of each analyzed alternative to assess whether a 

full conformity determination is necessary, and 

2) The Conformity Determination process, which demonstrates how an action would conform to the 

applicable SIP. 

The first step has four components; 1) determine if the federal action causes emissions of CAPs; 2) 

determine whether the emissions of CAPs would occur in a nonattainment or maintenance area; 3) 

determine whether the federal action is exempt from the CAA; and 4) estimate emissions from the federal 

action and compare them to the appropriate general conformity de minimis threshold based on 

nonattainment type. If the federal action does not emit CAPs or is not within a nonattainment area or is 

exempt from the CAA or does not exceed applicable de minimis thresholds, then a Conformity 

Determination is not warranted and no further review is needed. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-15 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

3.3.4 CLIMATE CHANGE

In 1997 the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) circulated an internal draft memorandum (CEQ, 

1997a) on how global climate change should be treated for the purposes of NEPA. The CEQ draft 

memorandum advised federal lead agencies to consider how proposed actions subject to NEPA would 

affect sources and sinks of green house gases (GHGs). During the same year, CEQ released guidance on 

the assessment of cumulative effects in NEPA documents (CEQ, 1997b). Consistent with the CEQ draft 

memorandum, climate change impacts were offered as one example of a cumulative effect. GHG 

emission estimates for the Proposed Project were modeled using URBEMIS 9.2.4, with results included 

in Appendix A. 

3.3.5 POLLUTANTS OF CONCERN 

The USEPA has identified six CAPs that are both common and detrimental to human health. These 

CAPs are used as indicators of regional air quality. The six CAPs include: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide 

(CO), particulate matter ≤ 10 microns and ≤ 2.5 microns in diameter (PM10 and PM2.5), nitrogen dioxide 

(NO2), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). Pollutants of concern are CAPs that are present in quantities exceeding 

the NAAQS in the applicable County, air quality management district, or air basin boundaries. Colusa 

County is in attainment for all NAAQS pollutants (see Table 3-4); therefore, there are no pollutants of 

concern in Colusa County. 

TABLE 3-4 

NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS AND COLUSA COUNTY ATTAINMENT STATUS 

Pollutant Averaging 

Time 

NAAQS 

Colusa County 

Attainment Status

Standard in 

parts per 

million (ppm) 

Standard in 

micrograms per 

cubic meter (μg/m3)

Violation Criteria 

O3 8 hours 0.075 157 If exceeded on more 

than 3 days in 3 years 

Unclassified/ 

Attainment 

CO 8 hours 9 10,000 If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year Attainment 

PM10 24-hour N/A 150 If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year 

Unclassified/ 

Attainment 

PM2.5 24-hour N/A 35 If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year Attainment 

NO2 Annual N/A 100 If exceeded Attainment 

SO2 1-hour 0.03 80 If exceeded on more 

than 1 day per year Attainment 

Source: CARB, 2009 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-16 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

3.3.6 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Sensitive receptors are generally defined as land uses that house or attract people who are susceptible to 

experience adverse impacts from air pollution emissions and, as such, should be given special 

consideration when evaluating air quality impacts from projects. Sensitive receptors include facilities that 

house or attract children, the elderly, people with illnesses, or others who are especially sensitive to the 

effects of air pollutants. Hospitals, schools, convalescent homes, parks and recreational facilities, and 

residential areas are examples of sensitive receptors. 

Sensitive receptors in the area of potential construction are as follows: one off-site single-family residence 

is located approximately 800 feet northwest of a proposed house location on APN 015-030-081. Existing 

on-site houses are located within approximately 300 feet of proposed residential construction on APN 

015-030-089, and approximately 1,000 feet from a proposed homesite on APN 015-030-050. Tribal 

members’ houses on the existing Rancheria, as well as a preschool/child care facility, fitness center and 

medical offices in the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village complex, are located more than 0.5 miles from any 

proposed development on the project site. 

3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

This section describes the existing biological resources that occur within the project site and general 

vicinity. The assessment of the existing biological resources is based upon the results of biological field 

surveys, which were conducted to document the existing habitat types onsite and to assess the potential 

for occurrence and/or presence of federally listed species and/or their habitats. The following discussion 

of existing biological resources provides the basis from which potential environmental consequences were 

identified and measured. More detailed information is provided in the Biological Assessment included as 

Appendix B. 

3.4.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is situated within the Sacramento Valley, on the east side of State Highway 45, northwest 

of the City of Colusa, in Colusa County, California. It is located within the Sacramento River Basin, 

Colusa subbasin and within the Yolo – American Basins subregion of the Great Valley ecological section 

in California. The climate within the region is characterized by hot, dry summers and mild winters. The 

majority of the project site is currently planted in walnut orchards. 

3.4.2 REGULATORY SETTING

Federal Endangered Species Act 

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) implement the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (16 USC Section 1531 et seq.). 

Under FESA, threatened and endangered species on the federal list and their habitats (50 CFR Subsection 

17.11, 17.12) are protected from “take” (i.e., activities that harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-17 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

trap, capture, or collect) as well as any attempt to engage in any such conduct, unless a Section 10 Permit 

is granted to an individual or a Section 7 consultation and a Biological Opinion with incidental take 

provisions are rendered from the lead federal agency. Pursuant to the requirements of FESA, an agency 

reviewing a Proposed Project within its jurisdiction must determine whether any federally listed species 

may be present within the project site and vicinity and determine whether the Proposed Project will have 

a potentially significant impact upon such species. Under FESA, habitat loss is considered to be an 

impact to the species. In addition, the agency is required to determine whether the project is likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of any species proposed to be listed under FESA or result in the 

destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat proposed to be designated for such species (16 USC 

Section 1536[3], [4]). Therefore, project-related impacts to these species, or their habitats, would be 

considered significant and require mitigation. 

Under FESA, critical habitat may be designated by the Secretary of the Interior for any listed species. 

The term "critical habitat" for a threatened or endangered species refers to the following: specific areas 

within the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the 

species, which may require special management considerations or protection; and specific areas outside 

the geographical range of the species at the time it is listed that contain suitable habitat for the species and 

is determined to be essential for the conservation of the species. Under Section 7 of FESA, all federal 

agencies (including USFWS and NMFS) are required to ensure that any action they authorize, fund, or 

carry out will not likely jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species or modify their critical 

habitat. 

Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. 

The USACE has primary federal responsibility for administering regulations that concern Waters of the 

U.S. (including wetlands), under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Section 404 of the CWA 

regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. The USACE requires that a 

permit be obtained if a project proposes the placement of structures within, over, or under navigable 

waters and/or discharging dredged or fill material into waters below the ordinary high-water mark 

(OHWM). The USACE has established a series of nationwide permits (NWP) that authorize certain 

activities in waters of the U.S. 

Waters of the U.S. are defined as “All waters used in interstate or foreign commerce; all interstate waters 

including interstate wetlands; all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including 

intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet 

meadows, playa lakes or natural ponds, where the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect 

interstate commerce; impoundments of these waters; tributaries of these waters; or wetlands adjacent to 

these waters” (Section 404 of the CWA; 33 CFR Part 328). The limit of USACE jurisdiction for nontidal waters (including non-tidal perennial and intermittent watercourses and tributaries to such 

watercourses) in the absence of adjacent wetlands is defined by the OHWM.
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-18 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

The OHWM is defined as “The line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by 

physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the 

character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other 

appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas” (Section 404 of the CWA; 

33 CFR Part 328). 

Wetlands are defined as “Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a 

frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a 

prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (Section 404 of the CWA; 

33 CFR Part 328). 

Rivers and Harbors Act 

The Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) of 1899 governs specified activities in navigable waters of the U.S. 

Like the CWA, the mandates of the RHA are also administered by the USACE. Specifically, Section 9 

requires authorization from the Secretary of the Army, as delegated by the Chief of Engineers, for the 

construction of any structure in or over a navigable water of the U.S. This includes bridges, dams, dikes, 

or causeways over or in any ports, roadsteads, havens, harbors, canals, and navigable rivers. Construction 

of any structure in or over a navigable water of the U.S. without proper authorization is considered 

unlawful. Within the context of Section 9, the U.S. Coast Guard is largely concerned with safe navigation 

in navigable waters. As such, the U.S. Coast Guard also reviews projects subject to Section 9 of the RHA 

with respect to navigation safety. Section 10 of the RHA applies to any other activities that have the 

potential to affect the course, location, condition, or physical capacity of navigable waters of the U.S. 

This includes the building or commencement of any wharf, pier, dolphin, boom, weir, breakwater, 

bulkhead, jetty, or any other structure in any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, navigable river, or 

other water of the U.S. outside established harbor lines, or where no harbor lines have been established. 

Section 10 prohibits the excavation, fill, or any other alteration or modification to the course, location, 

condition, or capacity of, any port, roadstead, haven, harbor, canal, lake, harbor of refuge, or enclosure 

within the limits of any breakwater, or the channel of any navigable waters. Activities of this nature, 

without USACE authorization are unlawful. As with Section 9 of the RHA, Section 10 also requires 

approval from the Chief of Engineers and authorization by the Secretary of the Army. 

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act 

The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSFA) conserves and manages the 

fishery resources found off the coasts of the United States, the anadromous species, and the Continental 

Shelf fishery resources of the United States, including the conservation and management of highly 

migratory species through the implementation and enforcement of international fishery agreements. The 

NMFS enforces the MSFA and regulates commercial and recreational fishing and the management of 

fisheries resources. The Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996 amended the MSFA to include new fisheries 

conservation provisions by emphasizing the importance of fish habitat in regards to the overall 

productivity and sustainability of U.S. marine fisheries (Public Law 104-267). The revised MSFA 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-19 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

mandates the identification and protection of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for managed species during the 

review of projects conducted under federal permits that have the potential to affect such habitat. Federal 

agencies are required to consult with NMFS on all actions or proposed actions authorized, funded, or 

undertaken by the agency, which may adversely affect EFH (MSFA 305.b.2). 

Under the MSFA, NMFS identifies, conserves, and enhances EFH for those species regulated under a 

federal fisheries management plan (FMP). EFH is defined as “those waters and substrates necessary to 

fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity.” The EFH Regulatory Guidelines (50 CFR 

600.110) further interpret this definition as: 

• Waters include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that 

are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate. 

• Substrate includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and associated biological 

communities. 

• Necessary means the habitat required to support a sustainable fishery and the managed species’ 

contribution to a healthy ecosystem. 

• “Spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity” covers a species’ full life cycle. 

Projects that have the potential to adversely affect EFH must initiate consultation with the NMFS. 

Adverse affects are any impacts that reduce the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Adverse affects can 

include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey or reduction in 

species fecundity), site-specific or habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic 

consequences of actions (50 CFR 600.810). There are four FMPs in California, Oregon, and Washington 

that identify EFH for groundfish, coastal pelagic species, Pacific salmon, and Pacific highly migratory 

fisheries. The Pacific Coast groundfish FMP manages over 82 species (e.g., rockfish, sablefish, flatfish, 

and Pacific whiting). Species considered pursuant under this FMP often, though not exclusively, occur 

on or near the ocean floor or other structures. The coastal pelagic species FMP manages finfish such as 

sardine, mackerel, anchovy, and the market squid. Species addressed in this FMP tend to occur nearer to 

the surface and EFH for these species is based on temperature range, life history cycles, and geographic 

distributions of these species. The Pacific salmon FMP includes both marine and freshwater EFH 

because of the unique biology of these species. As such, lakes, rivers, streams, ponds, wetlands, and other 

bodies of water that were historically accessible to salmon are considered EFH, including certain areas 

above artificial barriers. The FMP for highly migratory species manages mobile fish including tuna, 

swordfish, and shark. EFH identified in this FMP is highly variable. It typically is defined in terms of 

area, depth, temperature, salinity, oxygen levels, currents, and topography. 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act 

Most bird species (especially those that are breeding, migrating, or of limited distribution) are protected 

under federal and/or state regulations. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 USC Subsection 

703-712), migratory bird species, their nests, and their eggs are protected from injury or death, and any 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-20 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

project-related disturbances during the nesting cycle. As such, project-related disturbances must be 

reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle. 

3.4.3 METHODOLOGY

Preliminary Research and Data Gathering 

Standard references used for the biology and taxonomy of plants include: Abrams (1951, 1960), Barbour 

and Major (1988), California Native Plant Society (CNPS; 2001, 2009), CDFG (2003, 2007), Hickman, 

ed. (1993), Mason (1957), Munz (1959), and Sawyer and Keeler-Wolf (1995). Standard references used 

for the biology and taxonomy of wildlife include: CDFG (2003, 2007), Ehrlich et al. (1988), Jennings 

and Hayes (1994), Peterson (1990), Sibley (2003), Stebbins (2003), and Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

(2005). 

AES obtained information for the action area from the following sources: color aerial photograph of the 

action area (USGS, 2005); National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Online Mapper (USFWS, 2009) for the 

Moulton Weir quad; soil type descriptions and soil survey map (USDA, 2007); hydric soil information for 

Colusa County (NRCS, 2009); a USFWS list, dated January 29, 2009, of federally listed special-status 

species with the potential to occur on or be affected by projects on the Moulton Weir and adjacent 

Meridian, Colusa, and Sanborn Slough quads (USFWS, 2009); a California Natural Diversity Database 

(CNDDB) query, dated May 30, 2009, of state and federally listed special-status species known to occur 

on the Moulton Weir and adjacent Meridian, Colusa, and Sanborn Slough quads (CDFG, 2003); and a 

CNDDB map (CDFG, 2003) of state and federally listed special-status species known to occur within five 

miles of the action area. The CNDDB map for species within five miles of the action area was obtained 

from known occurrences documented on the Lakeport 100k quad (CNDDB, 2009; CDFG, 2003). The 

USFWS and CNDDB, and CNPS database research lists of regionally occurring special-status species are 

included in Appendix B. 

A complete list of all of the regionally occurring special-status species reported in the scientific database 

queries was compiled for the project site (Appendix B). An analysis to determine which of these specialstatus species have the potential to occur within the project site was conducted. The habitat requirements 

for each regionally occurring special-status species were assessed and compared to the type and quality of 

habitats observed onsite during the field surveys. Several regionally occurring special-status species were 

eliminated due to lack of suitable habitat within the project site, elevation range, lack of suitable 

soil/substrate, and/or distribution. The analysis was also based on reviews of resource agency materials, 

pertinent scientific literature, aerial photography of the project site, topographic maps of the project site, 

and other local information. Special-status species determined to have the potential to occur within the 

project site are discussed in Section 3.4.4. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-21 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Biological Field Surveys 

AES biologist Kelly Buja, M.S., conducted a biological survey of the action area on July 22, 2009. The 

biological survey consisted of evaluating biological communities and documenting potential habitat for 

federally listed special-status species with the potential to occur within the action area. The habitat types 

were identified using the California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) (CDFG, 2005). A list of 

plants and wildlife observed within the action area is included in Appendix B. 

3.4.4 RESULTS

This section summarizes the results of the field surveys that were conducted within the project site and 

provides further analysis of the data collected in the field. 

Habitat Types 

Dominant habitat types in the project site include: agricultural, riparian, ruderal/developed, pond, and 

irrigation ditch. Dominant vegetation in each habitat type is discussed below. Table 3-5 provides a 

summary of habitat types by acreages. A habitat map of the action area is illustrated in Figure 6 of 

Appendix B. Photographs of the action area are illustrated in Figures 7a and 7b of Appendix B. 

Agricultural 

Agricultural habitat occurs throughout the majority of the project site. Dominant overstory vegetation 

observed in the agricultural habitat includes walnut (Juglans hindsii). Dominant understory vegetation 

observed in the agricultural habitat includes: hairy geranium (Geranium molle), plantain (Plantago 

lancolata), Spanish clover (Lotus purshianus), willow herb (Epilobium sp.), filaree (Geranium botrys), 

yellow star-thistle (Centaurea solstitialis), common groundsel (Senecio vulgaris) and morning glory 

(Convolvulus arvensis). The CWHR classifies this habitat type as deciduous orchard (CDFG, 2005). 

TABLE 3-5 

SUMMARY OF HABITAT TYPES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE 

Habitat Type Acreage1 Linear Feet1

Agricultural 175.55 - 

Riparian 18.66 - 

Ruderal/Disturbed 27.12 - 

Pond 3.67 - 

Irrigation Ditch 0.005 212.90 

TOTAL 225.00 212.90 

1 Data rounded to three decimal places

Riparian 

Riparian habitat occurs primarily within the southeast portion of the project site. A small portion of 

riparian habitat occurs within the central portion of the project site and surrounds an irrigation ditch. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-22 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Dominant overstory vegetation observed in the riparian habitat includes: Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus 

fremontii), willow (Salix sp.), Valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California black walnut (Juglans 

californica). Dominant understory vegetation observed in the riparian habitat includes: common 

buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), California black walnut (Juglans californica), Oregon ash 

(Fraxinus latifolia), California wild grape (Vitis californica), stinging nettle (Urtica dioica), California 

blackberry (Rubus ursinus), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), fig (Ficus carica), and poison oak 

(Toxicodendron diversilobum). The CWHR classifies this habitat type as Valley foothill riparian (CDFG, 

2005). A CNDDB occurrence numbers 72 and 73 identify the riparian habitat on the southeast portion of 

the project site as Great Valley Mixed Riparian Forest (CDFG, 2003). 

Ruderal/Developed 

Ruderal/disturbed habitat occurs in isolated locations within the project site. This habitat type includes 

dirt roads, grubbed and graded areas, houses and associated infrastructure, and ornamental landscaping. 

A few isolated native trees including Valley oak occur within the ruderal/disturbed areas. The CWHR 

does not have a classification for this habitat type (CDFG, 2005). 

Pond 

A portion of a pond is located on the southeast portion of the project site. Dominant overstory vegetation 

observed along the banks of the pond includes: broad-leaf cattail (Typha latifolia) and common 

buttonbush. Dominant understory vegetation observed along the banks of the pond includes: water 

primrose (Ludwigia peploides ssp. peploides), annual bluegrass (Poa annua), and inland saltgrass 

(Distichlis spicata). The CWHR classifies this habitat type as lacustrine (CDFG, 2005). 

Irrigation Ditch 

A portion of an irrigation ditch is located along the central portion of the project site. Dominant overstory 

vegetation observed in the irrigation ditch is identified above in the riparian habitat type. Dominant 

understory vegetation observed in the irrigation ditch includes: prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), 

Johnson grass (Sorghum halepense), common sheep sorrel (Rumex acetocella), morning glory, poison 

oak, California blackberry, Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor), and barley (Hordeum murinum). The 

CWHR does not have a classification for this habitat type. 

Wildlife 

A variety of wildlife species were observed within the project site during the field surveys. Wildlife 

species observed onsite include: Brewer’s blackbird (Euphagus cyanocephalus), American crow (Corvus 

brachyrhynchos), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), tree 

swallow (Tachycineta bicolor), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), great blue heron (Ardea Herodias), 

great egret (Ardea alba), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), 

osprey (Pandion haliaetus), and wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). A complete list of wildlife species 

observed within the project site is included in Appendix B. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-23 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Waters of the U.S. 

Two wetland features (pond and irrigation ditch) were observed during the biological survey. Wetland 

features along with the habitat types mapped within the project site are illustrated in Figure 6 of

Appendix B. The NWI classifies four wetlands and deepwater habitats within the action area. A NWI 

map in the vicinity of the action area is illustrated in Figure 8 of Appendix B. A formal wetland 

delineation of the action area has not been conducted because no wetland features are proposed to be 

filled. 

Special-Status Species 

For the purposes of this assessment, special-status has been defined to include those species that are listed 

as endangered or threatened under FESA (or formally proposed and/or candidates for listing). While 

other state listed species may have potential to occur within the project site and its vicinity (and have been 

included in the baseline research that was conducted for the Proposed Project, these species generally 

receive no specific protection on Tribal trust land and are not necessarily afforded protection by FESA. 

The USFWS and CNDDB research queries of regionally occurring species are included in Appendix B. 

CNDDB map of known occurrences of state and federally listed species documented to occur within five 

miles of the project site is included as Figure 9 of Appendix B. A complete list of plant species observed 

within the project site is included in Appendix B. Table 3-6 provides a summary of regionally occurring 

federally listed special-status species based on the USFWS file data and CNDDB queries and provides a 

rationale as to whether the species has the potential to occur within the project site based on the presence 

of each species or its habitat during the biological survey. Federally listed species without the potential to 

occur within the project site are not discussed further. The seven federally listed species that are 

addressed in this BA are described in detail below. 

SPECIES DESCRIPTIONS

Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus; VELB) 

Federal Status: Threatened 

VELB are completely dependent on elderberry (Sambucus sp.) shrubs as their host plants during their 

entire life cycle. VELB larvae live within the soft pith of elderberry shrubs where they feed for one to 

two years. Adults emerge from pupation inside the wood of elderberry shrubs during the spring as the 

plants begin to flower. The adults feed on the elderberry foliage until they mate. Females lay their eggs 

in the crevices of elderberry bark. The larvae subsequently tunnel into shrub stems to feed upon hatching. 

VELB typically utilize stems that are greater than one inch in diameter at ground level. VELB inhabit 

elderberry shrubs in the vicinity of California’s Central Valley. VELB are known from Amador, Butte, 

 
Analytical Environmental Services 3-24 209520 

TABLE 3-6 

REGIONALLY OCCURRING FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES AND THEIR CRITICAL HABIT

SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

FEDERAL STATUS DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF IDENTIFICATI

Plants Cordylanthus palmatus palmate-bracted bird’s beak

FE Known to occur in Alameda, Colusa, 

Fresno, Glenn, Madera, San Joaquin* and Yolo counties (CNPS, 2009). 

Found in chenopod scrub and valley and foothill grasslands that occasionally occur on alkaline soils from 5 to155 meters (CNPS, 2009). 

May to Octob

Animals Invertebrates Branchinecta conservatio conservancy fairy shrimp 

FE Known from a few isolated 

populations distributed over a large portion of California’s Central Valley and in southern California including Glenn, Merced, Solano, Stanislaus, and Tehama counties (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). 

Found in ephemeral wetland habitats and vernal pools that fill by winter and hold water until June on clay, volcanic, and alluvial soils within grassland communities from 5 to 145 meters (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). 

Wet season

November to A

(adults) 

Dry season: M

October (cyst

(Eriksen and B

1999) 

Branchinecta lynchi vernal pool fairy shrimp 

FT Known from Shasta County south 

through the Central Valley to Riverside County in the South Coast Mountains Region (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). 

Found commonly in a small swale earth slump or basalt-flow depression basin with grassy or muddy bottom in unplowed grassland from 10 to 290 meters in the Central Valley and up to 1,159 meters in the South Coast Mountains Region (Eriksen and Belk, 1999). 

Wet season

December to M

(adults) 

Dry season: Ju

November (cys

(Eriksen and B

1999) 

Desmocerus californicus dimorphus valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

FT Known from Amador, Butte, 

Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Placer, Fresno, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba counties (USFWS, 1994a). 

Found in riparian forest communities from 0 to 762 meters. Exclusive host plant is elderberry (Sambucus species), which must have stems at least one inch in diameter for the beetle (USFWS, 1994a). 

Year round 

Lepidurus packardi vernal pool tadpole shrimp 

FE/CH Known from Alameda, Butte, Colusa, 

Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kings, Merced, Placer, Fresno, San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba counties (USFWS, 1994b). 

Found in a variety of natural and artificial, seasonally ponded habitat types including: vernal pools, swales, ephemeral drainages, stock ponds, reservoirs, ditches, backhoe pits, and ruts caused by vehicular activities. Wetland habitats vary in size from 2 square meters to 356,253 square meters and vary in depth from 2 to 15 centimeters (Helm, 1998). 

Wet season

November to A

(adults) 

Dry season: Ma

October (cyst
Analytical Environmental Services 3-25 209520 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

FEDERAL STATUS DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF IDENTIFICATI

FishAcipenser medirostris green sturgeon

FT Adults occur in coastal waters from 

Mexico to Alaska and have been observed along the west coast of North America. Spawning occurs within the Rogue and Illinois Rivers in Oregon, the Klamath River Basin, the Sacramento River, the Feather River, the Pit River, and the McCloud River. Spawning is suspected within the Trinity River, South Fork Trinity, and the Eel River. Known from Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Humboldt, Mendocino, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Sierra, Siskiyou, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Trinity, Yolo, and Yuba counties (Moyle, 2002). 

Utilizes both freshwater and saltwater habitats. Spawning occurs in deep pools or holes in large, turbulent, freshwater river mainstems. Eggs are cast over large cobble, clean sand, or bedrock substrates. Cold, clean water is required for development. Adults live in oceanic waters, bays, and estuaries (Moyle, 2002). 

Consult Agen

Hypomesus transpacificus Delta smelt 

FT Known almost exclusively in the 

Fresno-San Joaquin estuary, from the Suisun Bay upstream through the Delta in Contra Costa, Fresno, San Joaquin, Solano, and Yolo counties. May also occur in the San Francisco Bay (Moyle, 2002). 

Found in estuarine waters. Majority of life span is spent within the freshwater outskirts of the mixing zone (saltwaterfreshwater interface) within the Delta (Moyle, 2002). 

Consult Agen

Oncorhynchus mykiss Central Valley Steelhead

FT/CH Spawn in the Fresno and San 

Joaquin rivers and tributaries before migrating to the Delta and Bay Area (Moyle, 2002). 

Found in cool, clear, fast-flowing permanent streams and rivers with riffles and ample cover from riparian vegetation or overhanging banks. Spawning occurs in streams with pool and riffle complexes. The species requires cold water and gravelly streambed to successfully breed (Moyle, 2002). 

Consult Agen

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon Central Valley springrun 

FT/CH Spawn in the Sacramento river and 

some of its tributaries. Juveniles migrate from spawning grounds to the Pacific Ocean (Moyle, 2002). 

Spawning occurs in large deep pools in tributaries with moderate velocities (Moyle, 2002). 

Consult Agen

Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Chinook salmon 

FE/CH Spawn in the upper Sacramento 

River. Juveniles migrate from spawning grounds to the Pacific 

Returns to the Upper Sacramento River in the winter but delay spawning until spring and summer. Juveniles spend 5-9 months 

Consult Agen
Analytical Environmental Services 3-26 209520 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

FEDERAL STATUS DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF IDENTIFICATI

winter-run, Sacramento River

Ocean (Moyle, 2002). in the river and estuary before entering 

the ocean (Moyle, 2002). 

AmphibiansAmbystoma californiense California tiger salamander Central population

FT Known from Alameda, Butte, Contra 

Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Merced, Monterey, Fresno, San Benito, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Solano, Sonoma, Stanislaus, Tulare, and Yolo counties (Californiaherps, 2008). The Central population range excludes CTS populations in Santa Barbara and Sonoma counties (Californiaherps, 2009). 

Found in vernal pools, ephemeral wetlands, and seasonal ponds, including constructed stockponds, in grassland and oak savannah plant communities from 3 to 1,054 meters (Stebbins, 2003). 

November to 

February (adu

March 15 to Ma

(larvae and 

metamorphs

Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog 

FT Known along the Coast from 

Mendocino County to Baja California, and inland through the northern Fresno Valley into the foothills of the Sierra Nevada mountains, south to eastern Tulare County, and possibly eastern Kern County. Currently accepted range excludes the Central Valley (USFWS, 1994). 

Found in permanent and temporary pools of streams, marshes, and ponds with dense grassy and/or shrubby vegetation from 0 to 1,500 meters (NatureServe, 2009). 

November to Ju

ReptilesThamnophis gigas giant garter snake 

FT Known from Butte, Colusa, Contra 

Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Merced, Fresno, San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties (Stebbins, 2003). 

Inhabits agricultural wetlands and other waterways such as irrigation and drainage canals, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low gradient streams, and adjacent uplands. Requires adequate water during its active season (early spring through mid-fall) to provide food and cover, emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation for foraging and cover, grassy banks and openings in waterside vegetation for basking, and higher elevation uplands for cover and refuge from flood waters during its dormant season (winter). Inhabits small mammal burrows and other soil crevices with sunny exposure along south and west facing slopes, above prevailing 

March to Octob
Analytical Environmental Services 3-27 209520 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME 

FEDERAL STATUS DISTRIBUTION HABITAT REQUIREMENTS PERIOD OF IDENTIFICATI

flood elevations when dormant (Stebbins, 2003). 

Birds Coccyzus americanus yellow-billed cuckoo

FC West of the Continental Divide, this 

species occurs in California, Arizona, and New Mexico. This species occurs in all counties of Arizona. In California it occurs along the Colorado River, in the Sacramento and Owens valleys, along the South Fork of the Kern River, along the Santa Ana River, along the Amargosa River, and along the Luis Rey River (Hughes, 1999). Occurs at isolated sites in Sacramento Valley in northern California, and along Kern and Colorado River systems in southern California (Gaines and Laymon, 1984). 

Breeds and forages in valley foothill and desert riparian communities. Requires dense riparian thickets (especially willow and salt-cedar) of slow-moving watercourses. This species will also utilize orchards (Hughes, 1999). 

June to Septem

Strix occidentalis caurina Northern spotted owl

FT Geographic range extends from 

British Colombia to northwestern California south to San Francisco. The breeding range includes the Cascade Range, North Coast Ranges, and the Sierra Nevada. Some breeding populations also occur in the Transverse Ranges and Peninsular Ranges (Gutierrez et al., 1995). 

Resides in mixed conifer, redwood, and Douglas-fir habitats, from sea level up to approximately 2300 meters. Appear to prefer old-growth forests, but use of managed (previously logged) lands is not uncommon. Owls do not appear to use logged habitat until approximately 60 years after logging unless some larger trees or snags remain after logging. Nesting habitat is a tree or snag cavity, or the broken top of a large tree. Requires a nearby, permanent source of water. Foraging habitat consists of any forest habitat with sufficient prey (Gutierrez et al., 1995). 

All Year 

FEDERAL STATUS CODES (USFWS, 2009): FE Listed as EndangeredFT Listed as Threatened CH Critical Habitat FC Listed as Candidate 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-28 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Calaveras, Colusa, El Dorado, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, Madera, Mariposa, Merced, Napa, Placer, Fresno, 

San Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tulare, Yolo, and Yuba counties (USFWS, 

1994a). 

There are four CNDDB records for VELB within five miles of the project site. The nearest record is from 

1986 (CNDDB occurrence number 147) and is mapped on the southeast side of the action area. Four old 

exit holes were observed within scattered elderberry shrubs surrounded by dense, wild grape. The project 

site does not contain critical habitat for VELB. The elderberry shrubs within the project site provide 

potential habitat VELB. Elderberry clusters were observed within the riparian habitat along the southeast 

side of the project site. The exact number of elderberry shrubs was not obtained as the majority of the 

riparian habitat was impenetrable. AES was unable to determine whether exit holes occur as the majority 

of the elderberry shrubs were covered by wild grape in areas that were inaccessible to survey. AES 

observed one potential exit hole on an elderberry stem greater that one inch diameter at ground level on 

the west of the irrigation ditch outside of the project site. One elderberry cluster was observed east of the 

irrigation ditch within the project site, however, there were no stems that were at least one inch in 

diameter at ground level. Two elderberry clusters were observed along the levee within the 

ruderal/developed areas. This species has the potential to occur in the project site. 

Green Sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris) 

Federal Status: Threatened 

The Southern Distinct Population Segment (DPS) green sturgeon is an anadromous fish that is mostly 

marine oriented. Spawning period occurs between March and July, with a peak from mid-April to midJune during temperatures between 8° and 14° Celsius. Green sturgeon occupy freshwater rivers from the 

Sacramento River up through British Columbia (Moyle, 2002). The Southern DPS includes all spawning 

populations south of the Eel River (exclusive), principally including the Sacramento River spawning 

population (50 CFR Part 17). The only recently documented spawning locations in California are in the 

Sacramento, Klamath, and Rogue rivers along the west coast (Moyle, 2002). 

The NMFS designated proposed critical habitat for the green sturgeon southern DPS on September 2008 

(50 CFR Part 226). The proposed critical habitat designation has not been finalized. No recovery plan 

has been completed. 

This species is not listed within the CNDDB and no documented occurrences have been reported (CDFG, 

2003). 

The Sacramento River, which abuts the northern and southeastern boundary of the project site, provides 

potential spawning habitat for this species. The riparian habitat on the southeast side of the project site 

provides potential refuge for the species during high flow velocities that result in flooding from the 

Sacramento River. This species has the potential to occur within the project site. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-29 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Central Valley Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) 

Federal Status: Threatened 

The Central Valley steelhead Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU) spawns and hatches in the freshwater 

streams where they were born. The juveniles remain in the freshwater environment for one to two years 

prior to migrating into the ocean. When sexual maturity is reached, they migrate back to their natal 

streams to spawn. The Central Valley steelhead ESU begins freshwater migrations between August and 

October. This ESU has an average lifespan of six to seven years; it does not usually die immediately after 

spawning, and is capable of spawning several times throughout its lifetime (Moyle, 2002). The range of 

this ESU includes all naturally spawned populations of steelhead in the Sacramento and San Joaquin 

Rivers and their tributaries, excluding steelhead from San Francisco and San Pablo Bays and their 

tributaries, and two artificial propagation programs. The range includes portions of Amador, Alameda, 

Butte, Calaveras Contra Costa, Colusa, Glenn, Mariposa, Merced, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, San 

Joaquin, Shasta, Solano, Stanislaus, Sutter, Tehama, Tuolumne, Yolo, and Yuba, counties (CDFG, 2003). 

The NMFS designated critical habitat for the Central Valley steelhead ESU on September 2, 2005 

(Federal Register 70:52488). A Recovery Outline was and signed by NMFS Regional Headquarters 

completed a Recovery Outline in May 2007, although no recovery plan has been completed for this ESU. 

A portion of the project site abuts designated critical habitat for the Central Valley steelhead ESU and 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU (USFWS, 2005). 

This species is listed within the CNDDB, although there have been no documented occurrences reported 

(CDFG, 2003). 

The Sacramento River, which abuts the eastern boundary of the action area, provides potential adult and 

juvenile migration and juvenile rearing habitat for this species. The riparian habitat and pond on the 

southeast side of the project site provides potential refuge for the species during high flow velocities that 

result in flooding from the Sacramento River. Suitable spawning habitat for this species does not occur 

within the project site. 

Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Federal Status: Threatened

Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon ESU are the largest and most abundant salmonids that occur in 

California. Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon are anadromous. Central Valley spring-run 

Chinook die after a single spawning event. Central Valley spring-run Chinook exhibit a stream-type and 

the ocean-type life history. The stream-type Central Valley spring-run Chinook typically migrate 

upstream before reaching sexual maturity during the spring and summer months. They achieve sexual 

maturity in the freshwater environment. Hatched juveniles reside in spawning streams for at least one 

year before returning to marine habitats. The ocean-type Central Valley spring-run Chinook are sexually 

mature before migration to the freshwater environment and they spawn shortly after arrival during the 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-30 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

summer and fall months. Hatched juveniles remain in the freshwater environment for a relatively short 

time period that ranges from three to twelve months, before entering the marine environment. All of the 

currently recognized Chinook ESUs within California demonstrate slight variations of these two life 

history themes. The Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU exhibits the typical stream-type life history 

cycle. It enters the freshwater environment as immature fish. Migration begins during the months of 

March through September, with peak migration occurring from May to June. Spawning typically occurs 

from August through October and juveniles tend to emerge from November through March. Juveniles 

reside in the freshwater environment for approximately three to fifteen months and eventually migrate out 

to the marine environment (Moyle, 2002). The range of this ESU includes all naturally spawned 

populations of spring-run Chinook salmon in the Sacramento River and its tributaries, including the 

Feather River, and the Feather River Hatchery spring-run Chinook program. The range includes portions 

of Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Napa, Nevada, Placer, Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, 

Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba counties. The range of this ESU is synonymous with the range of the 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU. 

The NMFS designated critical habitat for the Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU on September 2, 

2005 (Federal Register 70:52488). A Recovery Outline was and signed by NMFS Regional Headquarters 

completed a Recovery Outline in May 2007, although no recovery plan has been completed for this ESU. 

A portion of the project site abuts designated critical habitat for the Central Valley steelhead ESU and 

Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU (USFWS, 2005). 

There are no CNDDB records for this species within five miles of the project site. The nearest record is 

from 1995 (CNDDB Occurrence Number 5) and is approximately 25 miles northeast of the project site. 

The occurrence was recorded within the Feather River. 

The Sacramento River, which abuts the northern and southeastern boundary of the project site, provides 

potential adult and juvenile migration and juvenile rearing habitat for this species. The riparian habitat 

and pond on the southeast side of the project site provides potential refuge for the species during high 

flow velocities that result in flooding from the Sacramento River. Suitable spawning habitat for this 

species does not occur within the project site. 

Sacramento River Winter-Run Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) 

Federal Status: Endangered 

The Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU is unique because it is thought to be an intermediate 

species, displaying characteristics of both stream- and ocean-type Chinook life history cycles. Winter-run 

Chinook are a unique species to the Sacramento River. They typically migrate into freshwater in 

December through July and spawn in the early summer. This species is sexually immature during this 

migratory period and it resides in the freshwater environment for several months. During this freshwater 

residency, sexual maturity is attained. The life history strategy of this species is dependent upon the cool 

summer water temperatures of the upper Sacramento watershed. Hydro-modification has resulted in 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-31 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

reductions of the amount of traditional spawning grounds available for this species. Hatched juveniles 

remain in freshwater streams for approximately five to ten months. After this period, young Chinook 

remain in estuaries for an indeterminate amount of time and eventually migrate out to the ocean; which is 

why they are thought to exhibit characteristics of both generalized life history cycles (Moyle, 2002). The 

Sacramento River winter-run Chinook ESU currently includes all naturally spawned populations of 

winter-run Chinook in the Sacramento River and its tributaries, as well as two artificial propagation 

programs. The range includes portions of Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Napa, Nevada, Placer, 

Sacramento, Shasta, Solano, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba counties (and is synonymous with the range 

of the Central Valley spring-run Chinook ESU) (Moyle, 2002). 

The NMFS designated critical habitat for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU on June 

16, 1993. (Federal Register Volume 58: Volume 114). A portion of the project site abuts designated 

critical habitat for the Sacramento River winter-run Chinook salmon ESU (USFWS, 2005). 

There are no CNDDB records for this species within five miles of the project site. The nearest record is 

from 1995 (CNDDB occurrence Number 1) and is approximately 45 miles north of the project site 

(CDFG, 2003). Approximately 1,361 adults and grisle and 199 redds were observed in the Sacramento 

River from the Keswick Dam to the confluence with Deer Creek within Shasta and Tehama counties 

(CDFG, 2003). 

The Sacramento River, which abuts the northern and southeastern boundary of the project site, provides 

potential adult and juvenile migration and juvenile rearing habitat for this species. The riparian habitat 

and pond on the southeast side of the project site provides potential refuge for the species during high 

flow velocities that result in flooding from the Sacramento River. Suitable spawning habitat for this 

species does not occur within the project site. 

Giant Garter Snake (Thamnophis gigas; GGS) 

Federal Status: Threatened 

GGS is one of the largest garter snakes, and can reach lengths of up to five feet. It is also one of the most 

aquatic garter snakes in California. GGS mate between March and April. GGS inhabit agricultural 

wetlands and other waterways such as irrigation and drainage canals, sloughs, ponds, small lakes, low 

gradient streams, and adjacent uplands. GGS require adequate water during its active season (early spring 

through mid-fall) to provide food and cover; emergent, herbaceous wetland vegetation for foraging and 

cover; grassy banks and openings in waterside vegetation for basking; and higher elevation uplands for 

cover and refuge from flood waters during its dormant season (winter). GGS inhabit small mammal 

burrows and other soil crevices with sunny exposure along south and west facing slopes, above prevailing 

flood elevations when dormant. GGS rely on small fish, tadpoles and frogs as a primary diet and hunts 

primarily during morning and evening hours. Nighttime hours are spent in mammal burrows for cover 

and refuge (Stebbins, 2003). GGS is known from Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Fresno, Glenn, Kern, 

Madera, Merced, Fresno, San Joaquin, Solano, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties (Stebbins, 2003). 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-32 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

There are nine CNDDB records for this species within five miles of the project site. Two records are 

mapped in large polygons on the southwest side of the project site (CNDDB occurrence numbers 58 and 

215). The CDFG (2003) considers information on GGS occurrences to be sensitive, and therefore, 

provides no descriptions. The project site does not contain critical habitat for GGS. 

The riparian habitat and pond on the southeast side of the action area and the irrigation ditch and 

surrounding uplands on the east side of the project site provide potential habitat for the species. The 

mammal burrows within the agricultural habitat provide potential habitat during the dormant season. 

Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) 

Federal Status: Candidate 

The yellow-billed cuckoo is a medium-sized bird that breeds in large blocks of riparian habitats including 

woodlands with cottonwoods and willows and dense understory foliage (Ehrlich et al., 1988; Laymon et 

al., 1993). The dense understory foliage includes blackberry, nettles, and wild grape (CDFG, 2003). The 

yellow-billed cuckoo that occur in the western U.S. are considered a Distinct Population Segment (DPS). 

The area for this DPS is west of the crest of the Rocky Mountains (50 CFR Part 17). The species occurs 

at isolated sites in Sacramento Valley in northern California and along the Kern and Colorado River 

systems in southern California (Gaines and Laymon, 1984). 

There are five CNDDB records for this species within five miles of the project site. The nearest record 

(CNDDB occurrence number 26) is from 1987 and is approximately 0.27 miles north of the project site. 

Two birds were observed mating between June and August 1987 within Great Valley Mixed Riparian 

Forest (CDFG, 2003). 

The riparian habitat within the action area provides nesting habitat for this species. This species has the 

potential to occur within the project site. 

Other Birds 

Fish and Game Code 3503.5 protects all birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (collectively 

known as birds of prey). The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711) protects 

migratory birds by making it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird 

listed in 50 CFR 10 including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by 

implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). 

Potential to Occur in the Action Area: Migratory birds and birds of prey protected under the MBTA and 

Code 3503.5 have the potential to nest within the riparian habitat, on the walnut trees and infrastructure 

within the agricultural land, and on the ornamental trees, isolated native trees, and houses within the 

ruderal/developed areas. An osprey (Pandion haliaetus) nest was observed within the project site. 

Migratory birds and other birds of prey have the potential to nest within the project site. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-33 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

An archaeological survey of the entire project site was conducted by AES in July 2009. The cultural 

resources study is bound under separate cover as Confidential Appendix C to this EA. The cultural 

resources study included a literature search, field survey, and Native American consultation to identify 

and evaluate any prehistoric and historic-period resources within or adjacent to the project site that may 

be impacted by the proposed undertaking. Following is a summary of applicable sections of the cultural 

resources study. 

3.5.1 REGULATORY SETTING

National Historic Preservation Act 

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) as amended, and its implementing 

regulations found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 800, require federal agencies to identify 

cultural resources that may be affected by actions involving federal lands, funds, or permitting. The 

significance of the resources must be evaluated using established criteria outlined 36 CFR 60.4, as 

described below. 

If a resource is determined to be a historic property, Section 106 of the NHPA requires that effects of the 

undertaking on the resource be determined. A historic property is defined as: 

“...any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure or object included in, or 

eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, including artifacts, 

records, and material remains related to such a property.” (NHPA Sec. 301[5]). 

The criteria for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), defined in 36 CFR 60.4, are as 

follows: The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is 

present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess 

integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and 

A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad 

patterns of our history; 

B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; 

C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, 

or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that 

represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack 

individual distinction; or 

D. That have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to prehistory or 

history. 

Sites younger than 50 years, unless of exceptional importance, are not eligible for listing in the NRHP. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-34 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

NEPA requires that federal agencies take all practical measures to “preserve important historic, cultural, 

and natural aspects of our national heritage” (NHPA, Section 800.8(a)). NEPA’s mandate for considering 

the impacts of a federal project on important historic and cultural resources is similar to that of Section 

106 of the NHPA, and the two processes are generally coordinated when applicable. Section 800.8(a) of 

NHPA’s implementing regulations provides guidance on coordination with NEPA. 

Antiquities Act 

Passed in 1906, the Antiquities Act prohibits the collection, destruction, injury, or excavation of “any 

historic or prehistoric ruin or monument, or any object of antiquity” that is situated on federal land 

without permission of the appropriate land management agency. The Antiquities Act also provides for 

the criminal prosecution, including fines and imprisonment, for individuals who commit one or more of 

the acts described above. 

3.5.2 CULTURAL RESOURCES SETTING

The following discussion of the cultural setting of the project area is condensed from the information 

presented in the cultural resources study, Confidential Appendix C of this document. 

Prehistory 

The cultural prehistory of central California spans more than 12,000 years. The earliest evidence for 

occupation of the region comes from archaeological assemblages attributed to the regional expression of 

the Fluted Point Tradition (FPT) and Western Stemmed Tradition. Commonly referred to as the Clovis 

culture, the FPT is generally associated with hunting of large, now-extinct megafauna such as mammoth, 

mastodon, sloth, camel, etc. The Post Pattern is the regional manifestation of the widespread FPT. It is 

characterized by the use of Clovis-like fluted points and stone crescents. Based on landscape 

associations, the Post Pattern is presumed to represent a subsistence economy focused on lacustrine 

environments, such as those found on the margins of Clear Lake. 

FPT assemblages in California have not been firmly dated because most finds have been made on the 

surface, precluding the possibility of correlating the artifacts to datable features. On the Plains and in the 

Southwest, Clovis assemblages have been dated to between 11,500-10,900 years before present (B.P.), 

which corresponds to the terminal Pleistocene (Haynes 1991). Central California sites attributed to the 

middle Holocene (7,500 - 4,500 B.P.) are few in number. Sites dating to this period suggest greater use 

of nut crops such as acorns and pine nuts, although groundstone assemblages dating to this period are 

dominated by millingstones and handstones. Archaeological sites dated to the latter half of the Holocene 

have been documented in much greater numbers and detail in the Central Valley and North Coast Ranges 

compared to the preceding periods. The following discussion focuses on regional prehistory from 4,500 

B.P. to Spanish contact. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-35 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Early Period (ca. 4,500 – 2,500 B.P.) 

Artifact assemblages that typify Early Period components include Haliotis beads and ornaments, 

projectile points and blades, charmstones, Olivella beads, bone and antler implements, quartz crystals, and 

red ochre. These were funerary objects observed in the Early Period components at sites within 

Sacramento and San Joaquin Counties. Mortuary practices at these sites are characterized by extended 

interments oriented in a westerly direction. Burials dating from the Early Period exhibit a high incidence 

of associated artifacts of the types listed above. Other artifact types are found in defined Early Period 

components, however their occurrence is not a constant. Artifacts found sporadically include baked clay 

objects, artifacts of human bone, trident harpoon tips, and pipes. The near absence of plant-processing 

artifacts in the initial inventories of Early Period sites is noteworthy. 

Middle Period (ca. 2,500 – 940 B.P.) 

Artifact assemblages that characterize the Middle Period component include, most notably, a large and 

varied assemblage of bone and antler objects such as sweat scrapers or “ceremonial wands,” beaver 

mandibles, tubes, whistles, incised game pieces, perforated needles, atlatl spurs, barbless harpoon tips, 

ground sturgeon mouth plates and wedges. Other typical artifacts related to the Middle Period include 

Haliotis beads and ornaments, large obsidian and chert concave and stemmed-based projectile points, 

charmstones, Olivella beads, quartz crystals, millingstones and handstones, red ochre, asphaltum, 

chrysolite asbestos splinters, steatite tubes and earplugs, slate pendants and baked clay spools, net weights 

and occasional mortars and pestles. While many of these artifacts continued to be found as mortuary 

items, they were no longer exclusively so and were found in other contexts within Middle Period 

components at principle sites. Mortuary practices at these sites are characterized by flexed burials with 

variable orientation. The incidence of high numbers of interments with associated artifacts and the 

quantity of those offerings declines considerably during this time. The Middle Period components clearly 

mark a florescence of artifact types and the materials used in their manufacture. 

Late Period (ca. 940 – 150 B.P.) 

Late Period artifact assemblages and characteristics include Haliotis beads, small chert and obsidian 

arrow points, with an emphasis on “Stockton Serrated” types. Other artifacts characteristic of this period 

include charmstones, Olivella beads, Saxidomus nuttalli beads and other species of clam, Haliotis 

ornaments, magnesite and steatite beads, ear spools and tubes, whole Haliotis shells, mammal bone tubes, 

incised bird bone whistles, barbed harpoon tips, antler arrow shaft straighteners, baked clay objects, 

wooden fishhooks, netting and basketry items, mortars and pestles. As observed in Middle Period 

components, many of the artifacts that typify this period were not found exclusively in association with 

burials. The primary sites that first allowed identification of components from this period were found in 

Sacramento and Contra Costa Counties. Mortuary practices at these sites were variable, with both flexed 

interments and cremations present. Also characteristic of this component is the number of burials found 

intermingled in the midden deposits within village sites and often in the floor of house structures. This 

highly variable practice was first observed in the Middle Period. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-36 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Ethnography 

Ethnographic literature indicates that at the time of historic contact, the project site was within the 

territory of the Patwin-speaking people (Johnson 1978:350). Patwin core territory included lands in the 

southern Sacramento Valley west of the Sacramento River from the town of Princeton, north of Colusa, 

south to San Pablo and Suisun bays. Distinction is made between the River Patwin, who resided in large 

villages near the Sacramento River, especially between Colusa and Knights Landing, and the Hill Patwin, 

whose villages were situated in the Long, Bear, Indian, Capay, Pope, and Cortina valleys. The term 

“Patwin” refers to the people belonging to the many small contiguous independent political entities in this 

area who shared linguistic and cultural similarities. The basic social unit of the Patwin was the village 

community, or “tribelet” (Kroeber 1925). Triblets were autonomous and differed from other such units in 

minor cultural variations. Villages were often located near major drainages, and inhabited mainly in the 

winter as it was necessary to go out into the hills and higher elevations to establish temporary camps 

during food gathering seasons (i.e. spring, summer, and fall). 

The Patwin economy was based on fishing, hunting, and gathering, with tribelet members moving to 

various places within their territory to take full advantage of different resources as they became available 

with the changing seasons. Game was hunted either by the individual or in community drives. Salmon 

runs and other food resources available along the Sacramento River and its tributaries also contributed 

significantly to Patwin economy. Acorns represented one of the most important staples of Patwin 

subsistence and were particularly abundant within oak woodlands along both sides of the Sacramento 

River. Some Patwin tribelets defended their territory against trespassers, but land was not considered 

privately owned (Johnson 1978). The closest documented ethnographic village to the study area was 

liwai, depicted as being located west of the project site closer to Winters (Barrett 1908). The Patwin 

culture was significantly disrupted through missionization and EuroAmerican settlement. 

As elsewhere in northern California, only fragmentary evidence of Patwin material cultural remains, due 

in part to a lack of preservation and impacts from historic-period land use. Based on the results of 

previous work in this portion of Sacramento Valley (Heizer and Fenega 1939), a range of prehistoric site 

types is known to be present, including middens with associated surface scatters, small surface features 

such as rock rings and circles, petroglyphs, food processing stations including bedrock mortars, and 

isolated lithic flakes and tools. 

History 

Recorded history in the project area begins with the attempts of Spanish colonists to explore parts of 

California beyond the coastal zone. Gabriel Moraga’s expedition was undertaken in 1806, with additional 

expeditions occurring through the 1840s. European Americans began arriving in the mid-1820s, most 

notably with the trapping party of Jedediah Smith. However, the EuroAmerican incursion with the 

greatest impact on Native American population and culture occurred immediately following the discovery 

of gold at Coloma in 1848, which initiated the Gold Rush of 1849. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-37 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

John Bidwell was the first recorded EuroAmerican explorer in the area and in July 1844 he mapped out a 

land grant that extended along the west bank of the Sacramento River north of what is now the town of 

Colusa and into present Glenn County. Known as the Larkin Grant, it was the first grant made in Colusa 

County (Hoover et al., 1990:47). The first settler in the area was John S. Williams who in 1847 was 

employed as caretaker of the Larkin Grant and built the first house in the county just below the present 

town of Princeton. 

American settlement in Colusa County began very slowly in the 1840s under Mexican rule. The hordes 

attracted by the discovery of gold bypassed this area for the diggings in the Sierra Nevada foothills. As 

the work of mining gold increased, disgruntled miners sought other means of support, with some coming 

to the Colusa area and taking up land along the Sacramento River or in the foothills of the Coast Range 

mountains. Small farms and ranches became common and settlements graduated into towns. The raising 

of cattle and sheep gave way to agriculture such as barley and wheat. Steamboats on the Sacramento 

River brought cargo and passengers to Colusa, and oxen- or mule-drawn wagons carried supplies and 

food from there to the mines of Shasta and Trinity counties. 

Colusa County was one of the original 27 California counties. First called Colusi, from the Native 

American Ko-ru-si tribelet, the present name was adopted in 1854. A portion of Tehama County and all 

of Glenn County were formed from Colusa County (Hoover et al., 1990:47). In 1875, the railroad began 

its slow advance from Woodland up the Central Valley, about halfway between the foothills of the Coast 

Range mountains and the Sacramento River, taking a half dozen years to reach Red Bluff. As it 

progressed, the railroad contributed to the development of towns such as Arbuckle, Williams, Maxwell, 

Willows and Orland (Hoover et al., 1990; Gudde, 1998:423). 

Early on, lands in the Sacramento Valley were considered sub-par agricultural soils, fit only for raising 

and grazing stock. The first crop experimented with was wheat, planted a mile west of Colusa, near 

Klew’s Slaughter House in 1852 (Archaeological Research Program, 2005). By the 1870s wheat was of 

central importance to the agricultural industry in the northern Sacramento Valley. Agriculture remained 

the primary land use in the Colusa area throughout the 20th century. 

3.5.3 RESULTS OF CULTURAL STUDIES

Documentation of cultural resources within the project site was achieved through review of pertinent 

anthropological literature, historic documents and maps, a records search at the Northwest Information 

Center (NWIC), Native American consultation, and a field examination of the project site by professional 

archaeologists. 

Records and Literature Search 

A records search for the project site, including a one-half-mile radius around the parcels, was conducted 

by staff at the Northwest Information Center (NWIC) of the California Historical Resources Information 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-38 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

System on June 25, 2009 (NWIC File 08-1349). The NWIC, housed at California State University, 

Sonoma, is an affiliate of the State of California Office of Historic Preservation as the official state 

repository of archaeological and historic records and reports for a 16-county area that includes Colusa 

County. 

The records search and literature review were done to: (1) determine whether known cultural resources 

had been recorded within or adjacent to the study area and to determine if the parcel was subject to 

surveys in the past; (2) assess the likelihood of unrecorded cultural resources based on archaeological, 

ethnographic, and historical documents and literature; and (3) to review the distribution of nearby 

archaeological sites in relation to their environmental setting. 

Included in the review was the California Inventory of Historical Resources (California Office of Historic 

Preservation, 1976), the California Office of Historic Preservation’s Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site 

Survey for California (1988), California Historical Landmarks (1990), California Points of Historical 

Interest (1992), and the Historic Properties Directory Listing for Colusa County (2009). The Historic 

Properties Directory includes the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of 

Historical Resources, and the most recent listings (through February, 2009) of the California Historical 

Landmarks and California Points of Historical Interest. 

The records search found that that though no cultural resources have been identified within the project 

parcels, two prehistoric archaeological resources have been recorded within a one-half-mile radius. The 

records search also indicated that though the project area has not been subject to any intensive cultural 

resources surveys in the past, the general area was included in Greg White’s dissertation (2003) of 

prehistoric population ecology in the Colusa County region. In addition, several studies have been 

conducted within a one-half-mile radius of the project parcels, including a 1978 study of six northern 

California Rancherias that included the current Colusa Rancheria, located adjacent to the southern 

boundary of the project area. 

Given the environmental setting, it was anticipated that prehistoric archaeological material, ranging from 

isolated artifacts and lithic scatters to intact midden deposits, might be encountered in areas left 

undisturbed within the APE. It was also considered possible that outlying historic-period deposits related 

to homesteads, agricultural, and ranching activity might be present. 

Native American Consultation 

In June 5, 2009 the State of California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) was asked to 

review the Sacred Lands file for information on Native American cultural resources located within the 

project area. The NAHC responded on June 10, 2009, indicating they have no knowledge of any sacred 

sites located within the subject property. At the same time, the NAHC provided a list of 17 interested 

individuals/ organizations for further consultation. Letters were sent in August of 2009. A response letter 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-39 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

from the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation endorsing and supporting the Colusa Indian Community’s fee to 

trust application was received on October 19, 2009 and is included in Confidential Appendix C.

Field Surveys 

On July 21 and 22, 2009, Damon Haydu, RPA, and Jennifer Bowden, B.A., conducted a pedestrian 

survey of the project site. The fieldwork included an intensive pedestrian inventory that examined each 

parcel within the project area, employing transects spaced 10-30 meters apart. Surface visibility varied 

between little visible ground surface due to dense vegetation (such as was present in the riparian corridor 

east of the levee) to complete surface visibility in areas that had been recently disced. The ground surface 

was examined for archaeological remains, while rodent burrow backdirt piles and road cuts were 

examined for indicators of buried archaeological deposits. The survey found that the majority of the CIC 

Property has been subject to significant historic and modern disturbances such as grading of roadways, 

the ripping/ leveling of agricultural fields, and the installation of underground irrigation infrastructure. 

The survey resulted in the identification of one historic-period resource, CR-1, which consists of an 

earthen levee on the west bank of the Sacramento River. This resource is described below. 

CR-1: This linear historic-period resource, identified as CR-1 in the present study, consists of a portion 

of an earthen levee on the west bank of the Sacramento River. The levee measures approximately 30 feet 

tall by 20 feet wide at its graded/ paved top surface. The levee has been improved upon over time 

including vegetation management, development of modern irrigation intakes and gates, and repaving 

Reese Avenue B, located on top of the levee. The levee is still in use both as flood control and a 

residential/ agricultural access road, and continues to provide vehicle access to the proposed trust parcels. 

The Proposed Project would not result in any change in use of the levee/ road. 

3.5.4 PALEONTOLOGICAL SETTING

Paleontological resources are defined as the traces or remains of prehistoric plants and animals. Such 

remains often appear as fossilized or petrified skeletal matter, imprints or endocasts, and reside in 

sedimentary rock layers. Fossils are important resources, due to their scientific and educational value. 

Fossil resources are non-renewable. 

This section presents documentation on reported paleontological deposits on the CIC Property and 

surrounding region, as well as an analysis on the potential for unreported paleontological resources to be 

present on the project site. 

Regulatory Background 

The Antiquities Act of 1906 (PL 59-209; 16 United States Code 431 et seq.; 34 Stat. 225) calls for the 

protection of historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or 

scientific interest on Federal land. While neither the Antiquities Act nor its implementing regulations 

(found at 43 CFR 3) explicitly mention fossils or paleontology, the inclusion of “object[s] of antiquity” in 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-40 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

the Act has been interpreted to extend to paleontological resources by many federal agencies. As such, 

projects involving federal lands require permits for paleontological resource evaluation and mitigation 

efforts that involve excavation, collection, etc. Additional provisions appear in the Archaeological and 

Historic Data Preservation Act of 1974, as amended, for the survey, recovery, and preservation of 

significant scientific, prehistoric, historic, archaeological, or paleontological data, in such cases wherein 

this type of data might be otherwise destroyed or irrecoverably lost as a result of Federal projects. 

Typologies and Formation Processes 

The processes involved in the preservation of paleontological resources result in several types of remains. 

It is noted that only a small percentage of ancient life forms and their traces have been exposed to 

conditions favorable to preservation. Factors affecting the persistence of paleontological resources vary 

between species, and broadly include geological formation processes, climate, soil and rock chemistry, 

and organism morphology. Paleontological resources are discussed here as fossil remains, although other 

types of remains occur elsewhere. 

Fossils are the remains of plants and animals embedded in layers of rock, which have retained some 

degree of their original characteristics over a long period of time. Remains are buried under layers of 

sediment, which under building pressure become sedimentary rock. Paleontological remains can be those 

of organism structure, such as skeletal parts, shells, tree trunks, pollen, endocasts or imprints, or they can 

be remnants of activity, such as footprints or tunnels of burrowing organisms. Soft tissues are less 

frequently fossilized, because they usually decay before fossilization processes take place. Since fossil 

remains occur in sedimentary rock formations, they tend to persist unless the rock has undergone 

significant changes. Fossils, therefore, do not occur in metamorphic rock formations. 

Fossils of considerable age may be subject to varying degrees of mineralization, at times resulting in the 

total replacement of original, organic matter by minerals. The agents of mineralization are most 

commonly comprised of calcium carbonates, such as calcite and aragonite, and silicates, such as quartz, 

opal and chalcedony. Less common materials are iron disulfides such as pyrite and marcasite; limonite; 

sulphates such as gypsum; phosphates such as calcium phosphate and vivianite; and glauconite. These 

minerals are typically transported in minute quantities by seeping water, with aggregation over time. 

Plant fossils, shell fossils, pollen and microfossils are generally less rare than fossils of vertebrates. Thus, 

vertebrate fossils are considered significant. Invertebrate fossils are considered significant if they are 

scarce or diagnostic of date range, or if they constitute a segment of a unique paleoenvironmental 

framework. Paleontologists may additionally determine significance on a case-by case basis. 

All surficial geologic deposits on the CIC Property are Pleistocene to recent in age, classified as 

Quaternary alluvium. A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) 

database indicates that 66 paleontological specimens have been reported in Colusa County (UCMP, 

2009). Six of these specimens are vertebrate fossils of the classes Mammalia and Osteicthyes, all dating 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-41 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

to the Plieocene Epoch of the Tertiary Period. These finds come from localities on Chamisal Creek, Salt 

Creek, Sand Creek, Cortina Creek, and a locality named “Colusa 2.” These areas are to the west of the 

project site, within the foothills on the western edge of the Sacramento Valley in older geological 

formations than those occurring on the CIC Property. 

Potential for Fossil Discovery 

The depositional environments of the sediments underlying the CIC Property were alluvial fans and 

marshes associated with the Sacramento River. Fossil occurrences are not usually common in alluvial fan 

deposits because of the high probability of reworking and damage of any skeletal and plant material as it 

is transported and deposited. 

In addition, indices of significant paleontological resources within the project site and immediate vicinity 

are absent in the sources consulted, and no such resources were observed in the course of surface 

reconnaissance surveys by AES in July, 2009. The geologic formation upon which the project site is 

located has not produced significant paleontological specimens of scientific consequence and is unlikely 

to do so in the future. 

3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

3.6.1 COLUSA COUNTY

Demographics 

Colusa County is located approximately 60 miles north of the City of Sacramento and lies in the 

Sacramento Valley of Central California. Additionally, Colusa County is adjacent to Glenn, Butte, Lake, 

Napa, Yolo, and Sutter Counties. Colusa County is home to two incorporated cities and to six 

unincorporated areas. The project site lies within an unincorporated portion of Colusa County. As shown 

in Table 3-7, the county had an estimated population of 21,997 people in 2009. The county’s two 

incorporated cities are Colusa and Williams. Colusa is the larger of the two in area as well as population, 

encompassing about 850 acres. The Colusa County General Plan assumes that 68 percent of the 

population growth experienced in the County through the year 2010 will be directed towards the 

communities of Williams, Maxwell, and Arbuckle, causing a westward shift in housing away from Colusa 

and toward the Interstate 5 corridor (Colusa County, 1989). 

City of Colusa 

Demographic data for the City of Colusa (zip code 95932) represents the population closest to the project 

site. As shown in Table 3-7, the estimated 2009 population of Colusa was approximately 5,900 persons. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-42 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

TABLE 3-7 

COLUSA COUNTY POPULATION 2000-2009 

Colusa 

County 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 

Colusa 5,402 5,451 5,533 5,607 5,686 5,593 5,648 5,692 5,727 5,900 

Williams 3,670 3,768 3,878 4,050 4,280 4,803 5,044 5,185 5,310 5,287 

Unincorporated 

County 

9,732 9,838 9,994 10,148 10,379 10,525 10,638 10,771 10,873 10,810 

Total 18,804 19,057 19,405 19,805 20,345 20,921 21,330 21,648 21,910 21,997 

Source: State of California, Department of Finance, E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties and the State, 

2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark, Sacramento, CA, January 2009 

The California Department of Finance reported that there were roughly 2,207 housing units in the city of 

Colusa with approximately 2,079 units occupied, with a 5.8 percent vacancy rate. Unincorporated Colusa 

County has an estimated 4,230 housing units in 2009, with a vacancy rate of 13.57. 

3.6.2 THE CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS

Statistical information for the Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians was obtained from the Bureau of 

Indian Affairs’ Population and Labor Force Report, 2005 (U.S. Department of the Interior, 2005). More 

recent Tribal demographic information for some categories was supplied by the CIC. As shown in Table 

3-8, the total Tribal enrollment for the Colusa Rancheria in 2009 was approximately 82 members. Of this 

total, approximately 31 enrolled adult members are recognized as having voting privileges on the CIC 

Tribal Council. 

TABLE 3-8 

CACHIL DEHE BAND OF WINTUN INDIANS POPULATION ESTIMATES 

Tribe Population Factor Members 

Enrollment 82 

Under age 25 50 

Age 25 and over 32 

Sources: US Department of the Interior, 2005; Colusa Indian Community, 2009 

3.6.3 ECONOMY

Colusa County had an estimated median household income of $44,256 in 2007, which was approximately 

36 percent lower than the state average of $59,948 that same year. The estimated 2007 median household 

income in the City of Colusa was $43,838 (Department of Finance, 2009a; City-data.com, 2009). 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-43 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

3.6.4 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE FOR MINORITY AND LOW INCOME 

POPULATIONS

The project site is located north of the City of Colusa within unincorporated Colusa County. Land uses 

surrounding the project site consist of agricultural land and undeveloped riparian habitat, and sparse rural 

residential development. Residential development is primarily located within the City of Colusa 

approximately three miles south of the project site. 

All projects involving a federal action (funding, permit, or land) must comply with Executive Order (EO) 

12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income 

Populations, as amended, which directs federal agencies to take the appropriate and necessary steps to 

identify and address disproportionately high and adverse effects of federal projects on the health or 

environment of minority, low-income, and Native American populations to the greatest extent practicable 

and permitted by law. “Low income” and “minority” are defined based on U.S. Census Bureau data and 

established poverty thresholds and are discussed further below. 

The following six principles are provided as guidance for the analysis of environmental justice impacts 

under NEPA (CEQ, 1997:9): 

 Agencies should consider the composition of the affected area, to determine whether minority 

populations, low-income populations, or Indian tribes are present in the area affected by the 

proposed action. 

 Agencies should consider relevant public health data and industry data concerning the potential 

for multiple or cumulative exposure to human health or environmental hazards in the affected 

population and historical patterns of exposure to environmental hazards. 

 Agencies should recognize the interrelated cultural, social, occupational, historical, or economic 

factors that may amplify the natural and physical environmental effects of the proposed agency 

action. 

 Agencies should, as appropriate, acknowledge and seek to overcome linguistic, cultural, 

institutional, geographic, and other barriers to meaningful participation, and should incorporate 

active outreach to affected groups. 

 Agencies should assure meaningful community representation in the process. 

 Agencies should seek tribal representation in the process. 

According to the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance Under the National Environmental Policy Act, 

communities may be considered “minority” under the executive order if one of the following 

characteristics apply: 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-44 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

 The cumulative percentage of minorities within the affected environment is greater than 50 

percent (primary method of analysis) or 

 The cumulative percentage of minorities within the affected environment is meaningfully greater 

than the minority population percentage in the general population or other appropriate unit of 

geographic analysis (secondary method of analysis). 

In 2009 the estimated population of the City of Colusa was approximately 5,900 persons, with the 

following racial/ ethnic breakdown of minority populations based on figures from the year 2000 as 

defined in the Executive Order Section 101 (1-101) (CA Department of Finance, 2009; City of Colusa, 

2000): 

 One race: 96.2 percent 

o White: 68.7 percent 

o Black or African American: 0.3 percent 

o Native American or Alaska Native: 1.8 percent 

o Asian: 1.5 percent 

o Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.8 percent 

o Other: 23.3 percent 

 Two or more races: 3.8 percent 

 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 41.7 percent 

In 2009, the estimated total population for Colusa County was 21,997 people, with the following racial/ 

ethnic breakdown (CA Department of Finance, 2009; U.S. Census Bureau, 2008): 

 One race: 96.4 percent 

o White: 63.5 percent 

o Black or African American: 1.4 percent 

o Native American or Alaska Native: 2.8 percent 

o Asian: 0.5 percent 

o Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.1 percent 

o Other: 28.1 percent 

 Two or more races: 3.6 percent 

 Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 51.1 percent 

Based on these characteristics, the city of Colusa would not qualify as a minority population; however, 

Colusa County would be considered a minority population. More locally, the Colusa Rancheria would 

likely qualify as a minority population under the CEQ’s secondary method of analysis; the Proposed 

Project is designed to provide a benefit to this population. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-45 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Communities may be considered “low-income” under the executive order if one of the following 

characteristics applies: 

 The median household income for a census tract is below the poverty line (primary method of 

analysis) or 

 Other indications are present that indicate a low-income community is present within the census 

tract (secondary method of analysis). 

U.S. Census data for the year 2007 estimated the average household size in Colusa County as 3.06 

persons, which results in a federal poverty threshold of $17,165 (U.S. Census Bureau, 2009). As 

identified above, the 2007 median household income in Colusa County was $42,398. Since the median 

household income level is $25,233 above the poverty threshold, Colusa County is not defined as a lowincome population according to the CEQ methods of analysis. 

3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 

3.7.1 TRANSPORTATION NETWORKS

This section describes the existing roadways and intersections in the vicinity of the project site at the 

Colusa Rancheria near parcel 015-030-005. 

INTERSECTIONS

A 2004 Transportation Study of the Colusa Rancheria evaluated the following ten stop-controlled 

intersections: 

 State Route 45/Reese Avenue 

 State Route 45/North Casino Driveway 

 State Route 45/Primary Casino Driveway 

 State Route 45/Wintun Road 

 State Route 45/Wellness Building Driveway 

 State Route 45/Main Street 

 State Route 45/Lurline Avenue 

 State Route 45/13th Street 

 State Route 20/10th Street/State Route 45 

 State Route 20/Bridge Street 

All intersections were analyzed for the AM peak hour (7:30 – 8:30 AM), and the PM commute peak hour 

(5:00-6:00 PM). Updated traffic counts were conducted, and future conditions were extrapolated from 

Caltrans data in a 2007 study for an expansion of the Colusa Casino Resort (Stantec, 2007). 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-46 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

METHODOLOGY

Level of Service 

Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure reflecting the traffic operation of the intersection, with 

LOS A representing best performance, and LOS F the worst. LOS describes the traffic conditions in 

terms of such factors as speed, travel time, delays, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, comfort, 

convenience, and safety. Table 3-9 shows the corresponding average total delay per vehicle and a 

description of vehicular conditions at unsignalized intersections for each LOS category from A to F. 

TABLE 3-9 

LEVEL OF SERVICE FOR UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS 

Level of Service Average Total Delay 

(seconds/vehicle) Traffic Condition 

A <10 No Delay 

B >10 – 15 Short Delay 

C >15 – 25 Moderate Delay 

D >25 – 35 Long Delay 

E >35 – 50 Very Long Delay 

F >50 Volume > Capacity 

Source: Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), 2000

Existing Intersection Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service 

Table 3-10 summarizes the 2004 a.m. and p.m. peak-hour LOS at each study intersection. All ten study 

intersections operated at LOS D or better during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. Updated traffic 

counts and extrapolations from Caltrans data along SR 45 do not suggest that there has been a significant 

decrease in study intersection LOS since the 2004 Transportation Study. 

Existing Bicycle and Pedestrian System 

The Central Valley bicycle trail runs parallel to Interstate 5 in Colusa County, and is part of a statewide 

network for inter-regional travel. According to the Colusa County General Plan, there are no other formal 

bicycle trails in the county. Hiking, horseback, and off-road vehicle trails in the County are generally 

found on public lands such as the Mendocino National Forest. Pedestrians are accommodated by a paved 

shoulder on the east side of State Route 45, but are not provided with crosswalks. Pedestrian activities are 

generally low because of the rural location of the project site (Stantec, 2007). 

Transit Service 

Colusa County Transit provides bus services to Colusa County, and surrounding communities, including 

the City of Colusa, Williams, Arbuckle, and Grimes. The transit system operates on a “dial-a-ride” 

system and averaged about 4,500 passengers per month in 2007 (City of Colusa, 2007). The nearest 

Greyhound Bus terminal is located in Marysville, 25 miles from Colusa. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-47 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

TABLE 3-10 

EXISTING LEVEL OF SERVICE AND AVERAGE DELAY OF STUDY INTERSECTIONS 

Intersection Traffic Control 

AM Peak PM Peak 

LOS Average 

Delay LOS Average Delay 

#1. SR 45/Reese Avenue Two-Way Stop 

Control A 9.6 B 10.4 

#2. SR 45/North Casino 

Driveway 

Two-Way Stop 

Control A 9.8 B 10.1 

#3. SR 45/Primary Casino 

Driveway 

Two-Way Stop 

Control A 9.8 B 10.8 

#4. SR 45/Wintun Road Two-Way Stop 

Control B 10.7 B 11.9 

#5. SR 45/Wellness 

Building Driveway 

Two-Way Stop 

Control B 10.6 B 11.1 

#6. SR 45/Main Street Two-Way Stop 

Control B 10.7 B 13.2 

#7. SR 45/Lurline Avenue Two-Way Stop 

Control B 10.7 B 11.5 

#8. SR 45/13th Street Two-Way Stop 

Control B 10.9 B 14.1 

#9 SR 20/SR 45 Two-Way Stop 

Control C 16.0 D 34.9 

#10 SR 20/ Bridge Street Two-Way Stop 

Control B 12.5 C 16.8 

Source: Omni-Means, 2004 

3.8 LAND USE 

NEPA requires an assessment of a project’s effect on adopted land use plans as well as plans that have 

been formally proposed and are being actively pursued by officials of the jurisdiction. Accordingly, 

adopted and proposed land use regulations are discussed below. 

Land uses on the 225-acre project site include three single-family residences and their ancillary structures 

as well as agricultural land and undeveloped riparian habitat. The site is located in unincorporated Colusa 

County near the City of Colusa, California, which is located approximately three miles south of the 

project site. Land between the project site and the City of Colusa is comprised primarily of rural 

residences and agriculture. 

3.8.1 COLUSA COUNTY GENERAL PLAN 

According to the Colusa County Code, APNs 015-030-005, 015-030-46, 015-030-48, 015-030-50, 015-

030-79 through 015-030-083, and 015-030-089 have a land use designation of “Agriculture General” (AG) and are zoned as “Exclusive Agriculture” (E-A). Under this designation, all general agricultural uses 

are permitted, including animal husbandry, all appurtenant structures, and a main single-family dwelling 

for the landowner or the primary tenant of the property. Private farm airports, nurseries and greenhouses, 

and non-commercial guest houses are among the principal permitted uses of E-A zones. Additional 

housing for relatives or farm workers is allowed with a use permit, as are various other agriculture-related 

or compatible establishments and developments. The minimum parcel size for this zone is 10 acres. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-48 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

The remaining two parcels within the project site (APNs 015-030-049 and -051), in addition to part of 

APN 015-030-050, have a land use designation of “Designated Floodway” and are zoned as “Floodway” 

(F-W) (Figure 3-4). The primary permitted uses of F-W are general agriculture and recreational uses on 

open land. Land uses surrounding the project site include E-A zoning and A-G land use designations to 

the northwest, west, and southwest. Land to the immediate northeast and east is designated F-P zoning 

along the Sacramento River. 

3.8.3 AGRICULTURE 

REGULATORY SETTING

Williamson Act 

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, better known as the Williamson Act, enables local 

governments to enter contracts with private land owners to maintain agricultural or open space use on 

their properties in exchange for lower property tax assessments. These contracts have a term of no less 

than 10 years and are automatically renewed unless a notice of cancelation or nonrenewal is given (CDC, 

2008). The project site is not under an active Williamson Act Contract. 

Farmland Protection Policy Act 

The Agriculture and Food Act of 1981 (Public Law 97-98) contained the Farmland Protection Policy Act 

(FPPA) (Subtitle I of Title XV, Section 1539-1549). The purpose of the FPPA is to minimize the impact 

of Federal programs on the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses. 

The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP), within the California Department of 

Conservation (CDC), maps activity from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on a continuing 

basis. The FMMP produces maps and statistical data used for analyzing impacts on California’s 

agricultural resources (CDC, 2004). 

The FPPA created the farmland classification system which consists of five specific farmland categories, 

all of which are found in the County. These categories include: 

Prime Agriculture Land: Soils which have the best combinations of physical and chemical characteristics 

for the production of crops. The land must have been used for the production of irrigated crops at 

sometime during the two updated cycles prior to the mapping date (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(A)). 

Unique Farmland: Soils other than prime farmland that are used for the production of specific high value 

food and fiber crops. These soils have a special combination of physical and chemical characteristics for 

the production of high quality or high yields of specific crops when treated and managed according to 

acceptable farming methods (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(B)). 

 
APN

015-030-079

(51.03 Acres)

APN

015-030-005

(32 Acres)

APN

015-030-089

(26.76 Acres)

APN

015-030-050

(22 Acres)

APN

015-030-049

(9.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-046

(20.45 Acres)

APN

015-030-081

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-083

(11.98 Acres)

APN

015-030-080

(10.01 Acres)

APN

015-030-082

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-048

(4.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-051

(17 Acres)

S A C R A M E N T O

R I V

E

R

F

L

O

O

D

P

L

A

I

N

45

Reese Rd

Reese Ave

Figure 3-4

Colusa County Land Use and Zoning

SOURCE: Sedway Cooke Associates; Colusa County General Plan, 1989; AES, 2009

LEGEND

Colusa Fee-to-Trust Environmental Assessment / 209520

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels (Approximate)

COLUSA COUNTY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS

Agriculture General (A-G)

Designated Floodway

COLUSA COUNTY ZONING DESIGNATIONS

Exclusive Agriculture (E-A)

Floodway (F-W)

0 350 700

Feet
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-50 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Important Farmland: Soils other than prime or unique farmland that is of statewide or local importance for 

the production of crops. The appropriate State or local government determines the important farmland 

with concurrence from the State Conservationist. In some localities, farmlands of statewide and local 

importance may include tracts of land that have been designated for agriculture by state law or local 

ordinance (7 U.S.C. 4201(c)(1)(C)). 

Grazing Land: Defined in Government Code § 65570(b)(3) as: “...land on which the existing vegetation, 

whether grown naturally or through management, is suitable for grazing or browsing of livestock.” 

The project site consists of two FMMP land classifications, prime farmland and other land. The 

classification of other land is given to lands which are not included in any other mapping category. 

Examples of lands classified as other land include low density rural developments, brush, timber, wetland, 

and riparian areas not suitable for livestock (CDC, 2006). A map of the project site’s classifications is 

represented in Figure 3-5. The land to the east along the Sacramento River is classified as other land, and 

land west of Reese Avenue-B is classified as prime agricultural land. 

The National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), an agency of the Department of Agriculture 

(DOA), fulfills the directives of the Soil and Water Conservation Act (16 USC § 2001-2009) by 

identifying significant areas of concern for the protection of national resources. NRCS uses a land 

evaluation and site assessment (LESA) system to establish a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating (FCIR) 

score. The FCIR is completed on form AD-1006 (NRCS, 2008b). The FCIR form has two components: 

land evaluation, which rates soil quality up to 100 points, and the site assessment, which measures other 

factors that affect the property’s viability up to 160 points. 

The total FCIR score is used as an indicator for the project’s sponsor to consider alternative sites if the 

potential adverse impacts on the farmland exceed the allowable level; however, the FPPA does not 

require federal agencies to alter projects to avoid or minimize farmland conversion. Sites receiving a 

combined score of less than 160 (out of 260 possible points) do not require further evaluation. For sites 

with a combined score greater than 160 points, at least two other alternatives are required to be considered 

and the alternative with the lowest number of points selected unless there are other overriding 

considerations. The NRCS consultation completed for this project is summarized in Section 4.1.8. 

Colusa County Right to Farm Ordinance 

The Colusa County Right to Farm Ordinance was adopted in 1981 to support County policies regarding 

the conservation and enhancement of agricultural operations in unincorporated County lands. The stated 

purpose and intent of the Right to Farm Ordinance is to reduce impacts to County agricultural resources 

by “limit[ing], by means of communication, nuisance litigation regarding agriculture or affecting 

agriculture.” (Ord. No. 510). The ordinance promotes a good-neighbor policy by requiring that 

users of property adjacent to or near agricultural operations be notified of the inherent potential 

problems associated with being located near such operations, including noise, odors, dust, 
APN

015-030-079

(51.03 Acres)

APN

015-030-005

(32 Acres)

APN

015-030-089

(26.76 Acres)

APN

015-030-050

(22 Acres)

APN

015-030-049

(9.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-046

(20.45 Acres)

APN

015-030-081

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-083

(11.98 Acres)

APN

015-030-080

(10.01 Acres)

APN

015-030-082

(10 Acres)

APN

015-030-048

(4.3 Acres)

APN

015-030-051

(17 Acres)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave-B

Princeton Rd (SR-45)

Reese Rd

Reese Ave

Sacramento River

Existing

Trust Land

Wintun Rd

Traditional Way

45

Reese Rd

Wintun Rd

Reese Ave

Sedeo Cir

Colusa Fee-to-Trust Environmental Assessment / 209520

Figure 3-5

Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) Designations

SOURCE: CA Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2006; Morrow Surveying, Inc., July 2009; "Moulton Weir NE, CA" USGS Aerial Photograph, 6/29/2005; AES, 2009

LEGEND

Proposed Fee-To-Trust Parcels

Existing Trust Land

0 400 800

Feet

FMMP DESIGNATIONS

Other Land

Unique Farmland

Prime Farmland

Farmland of Local Importance

Urban and Built-Up Land
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-52 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

operation of machinery, application of fertilizers, soil amendments, seeds and pesticides and 

other potential effects. Through notification included with their annual tax bill, it is intended that 

property owners will better understand the potential consequences of being located near 

agricultural operations. The ordinance states that attendant conditions from properly conducted 

agricultural operations shall not be considered a nuisance to adjacent property owners and shall be 

accepted as being a normal and necessary aspect of being located in a rural area. The Colusa County 

Good Neighbor Committee mediates disputes between agricultural and non-agricultural land use interests 

in an attempt to limit nuisance suits (Colusa County Code). 

According to the Colusa County Farm Bureau the value of agricultural production in Colusa 

County was $484,525,000. The majority of that value was from rice, the dominant crop in 

Colusa County with a market value of $188,027,000 (CCFB, 2007). Other crops include 

tomatoes, wheat, beans, vine seed crops, and orchard crops grown in flood plains and alluvial 

fans (Colusa County, 1989). 

3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES 

3.9.1 WATER SUPPLY

All domestic systems in Colusa County are served with groundwater, while the majority of irrigation 

systems are supplied with surface water distributed from the Tehama-Colusa and Glenn-Colusa Canals, 

the Colusa Drain, or the Sacramento River. The Sacramento River groundwater basin underlies the 

eastern part of the valley floor. Subsurface reservoirs are small and often scarce in upland areas. The 

City of Colusa provides domestic water from four automatic wells and one diesel well for emergency use. 

Water is distributed through a grid system that serves the incorporated area and portions of the nearest 

surrounding rural neighborhoods adjoining the city. Private water systems serve many uses outside city 

limits. Other unincorporated areas around Colusa are served by individual wells (Colusa County, 1989). 

The principal aquifer in the region and vicinity of the project site is the Tehama Formation. As discussed 

in Section 3.2.2, the groundwater yields in the Tehama Formation fluctuate seasonally with supply and 

demand and are influenced by the flow of the Sacramento River. 

Domestic wells are located on two of the proposed trust parcels (APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089) 

and currently supply water to the existing homes on those parcels. Several agricultural wells located on 

the proposed trust parcels supply water for irrigation of the walnut orchards. In addition, the Tribe 

recently drilled three new 550 gallon per minute (gpm) wells on the south side of the Reservation as 

shown in Figure 2-1 and Figure 2-2. Construction of a new water treatment plant has also been 

completed. This plant includes two 220-gpm permeate reverse osmosis units with a downstream injection 

system for sodium hypochlorite. Reject water from the treatment plant is sent to a new subsurface 

irrigation and drainage system located underneath the stormwater detention basin. A 260,000-gallon 

water storage tank has been constructed near the new wells and an 8-10 inch diameter water main has 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-53 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

been installed to service the casino, commercial, community, and residential areas. This connection 

provides water for both potable demands and fire protection. 

3.9.2 WASTEWATER SERVICE

Wastewater in Colusa County is treated by on-site disposal and centralized disposal (Colusa County, 

1989). Approximately 65 percent of the population is served by centralized systems. Rural and 

agricultural areas are typically served by on-site systems. The City of Colusa Water & Sewer performs 

water pump operation, treatment and distribution, as well as sewage collection, treatment, and disposal for 

the City of Colusa. The Colusa Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located at 2820 Will S. Green, 

includes a tertiary activated-sludge process and ultraviolet light (UV) disinfection (SWRCB, 2008). The 

CWWTP has a NPDES permit to discharge a minor regulated flow of 0.7 million gallons per day of 

treated municipal wastewater to the Pough Slough, tributary to the Colusa Basin Drain. A WWTP that 

serves the Tribe’s casino is located on the Reservation south of the existing detention basin. The WWTP 

treats effluent to a tertiary level, then pumps it to a 9-acre subsurface effluent disposal system. 

3.9.3 SOLID WASTE

Management of non-hazardous solid waste in Colusa County is mandated by Assembly Bill (AB) 939, the 

California Integrated Waste Management Act. The purpose of AB 939 is to reduce, recycle, and reuse 

solid waste generated in the State to the maximum extent feasible; improve regulation of existing solid 

waste landfills; ensure that new solid waste landfills are environmentally sound; streamline permitting 

procedures for solid waste management facilities; and specify the responsibilities of local governments to 

develop and implement integrated waste management programs. 

AB 939 set forth policies and mandated requirements for the State and local governments. Among them 

is a hierarchy of preferred waste management practices. The highest priority is to reduce the amount of 

waste generated at its source (source reduction). Second in the hierarchy is to reuse, by extending the life 

of existing products and recycling those wastes that can be reused as components or feed stock for the 

manufacture of new products, and by composting organic materials. Source reduction, reuse, recycling 

and composting are jointly referred to as waste diversion methods because they divert waste from 

disposal. Third and lowest in the hierarchy is disposal by environmentally safe transformation in a 

landfill. AB 939 and California Public Resources Code 41780 enforce this prioritization by requiring that 

all local jurisdictions, cities, and counties divert 50 percent of the total waste stream from landfill disposal 

by the year 2000 and each year thereafter (using 1990 as the base year). Each local jurisdiction must 

demonstrate compliance by instituting source reduction programs. Colusa County’s waste diversion rate 

for 2006 was 58 percent. 

The Colusa County Regional Agency monitors waste disposal for the cities of Williams, Colusa, and 

unincorporated areas of the county. Norcal Waste Systems of Butte County, Inc. provides solid waste 

pick-up and recycling services to the city of Colusa and to the Colusa Reservation adjacent to the project 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-54 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

site. Residents are provided with curbside recyclable and green waste collection. Solid waste is 

transported to the Ostrom Road Landfill located in Yolo County, California. 

3.9.4 ELECTRICITY, NATURAL GAS, AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) provides electrical and natural gas services to the Colusa Reservation. A 

cogeneration power plant was constructed separately on the Colusa Reservation adjacent to the project 

site that supplies power to the Tribe’s casino. Some rural areas do not have access to natural gas service 

due to lack of infrastructure. The three existing homes on the project site use individual propane tanks for 

a gas source. Propane providers in the area include North Valley Propane and Coast Gas. Natural gas for 

the private residences on APNs 015-030-089 and 015-030-050 is provided by PG&E. Frontier 

Communications provides telephone services to the project area, while ColusaNet provides internet 

service. 

3.9.5 LAW ENFORCEMENT

California is a Public Law 280 state that allows for state criminal law enforcement jurisdiction on Tribal 

trust lands; however, this jurisdiction does not include regulatory civil law authority. Depending on the 

crime (pursuant to Public Law 280 and the Major Crimes Act), the U.S. Marshals may provide support in 

specified situations. Law enforcement services for the unincorporated portions of Colusa County are 

provided by the Colusa County Sheriff’s Department headquartered in the City of Colusa. The 

Department serves as the Coroner’s Office and the County Emergency Services Center, and provides law 

enforcement services to the incorporated city of Williams as well. The Sheriff’s department also operates 

the Colusa County Jail, capable of housing up to 92 inmates located in the City of Colusa. 

The Sheriff’s department works very closely with the municipal police departments in the cities of Colusa 

and Williams. The Colusa Police Department at Market Street is the closest Sheriff’s station and is 

located approximately three miles south of the project site. The Colusa County District Attorney’s office 

is also located in the City of Colusa, and has received funding for staff salaries through the Indian 

Gaming Special Distribution Fund. 

3.9.6 FIRE PROTECTION AND EMERGENCY MEDICAL

Colusa County’s fire protection services are provided by eight rural districts, two city fire departments, 

the California Department of Forestry, and the U.S. Forest Service. Volunteer fire fighters staff the 

majority of the districts. Although the incidence of fire on the project site is low, greater fire threats exist 

in the Coast Range and foothill regions of the County. Response times range from one minute in the 

cities to upwards of 20 minutes for rural mountain areas. The project area is located within the 

Sacramento River Fire Protection District (SRFPD), with a fire station located on Market Street in 

Colusa. This station houses two type-1 pumper engines, one type-3 engine (grass and brush truck), one 

3,250-gallon water tender, one medium rescue truck, and one portable air compressor truck. In addition 

to the equipment located in Colusa, there is another station in Grimes, which can provide additional 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-55 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

equipment as needed. The station has a response time of four to six minutes to the Colusa Casino Resort; 

response times to the CIC Property would likely be one to two minutes longer. The district is staffed by 

30 volunteers and one paid fire chief. The Tribe has made charitable contributions to the SRFPD, both 

directly and through the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund. 

Enloe hospital, based out of Chico, provides ambulance service to Colusa County. Two ambulances are 

stationed in Colusa County, one of which is located in the City of Colusa. Patients requiring ambulance 

transportation are typically taken to Colusa Regional medical center in the City of Colusa, the nearest 

hospital emergency room to the project site. The patient will be transported to the next nearest hospital 

with necessary services in the event that the Colusa Regional medical center is unable to provide them. 

Air transportation for Enloe Hospital is provided by Emergency Life Flight. The response time for air 

transportation services averages approximately 20 minutes from when the call is received. Life Flight 

patients are taken to either Enloe Hospital in Chico or the UC Davis Medical Center in Sacramento. 

3.9.7 PUBLIC SCHOOLS

The project site is located within the Colusa Unified School District. Out of the six school districts within 

Colusa County, Colusa Unified has the largest student enrollment. Schools belonging to the Colusa 

Unified School District are Burchfield Elementary School, Egling Middle School, and Colusa Senior 

High School. Table 3-11 shows the location, grade range, and 2007-2008 enrollment for each of the 

schools. 

TABLE 3-11 

COLUSA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT PUBLIC SCHOOLS 

School Location Grade Range 2007-2008 Enrollment 

Burchfield Elementary 100 Fremont St. K-3 443 

Egling Middle 813 Webster St. 4-8 482 

Colusa High 901 Colusa Ave. 9-12 336 

Source: Colusa Unified School District, 2008 

3.9.8 PARKS AND RECREATION

The Mendocino National Forest is the largest designated recreation area in Colusa County. The 884,000-

acre forest is divided into 37 designated management areas by the U.S. Forest Service. 72,000 acres of 

the forest and six management areas lie within the limits of Colusa County. The Mendocino National 

Forest offers campsites specific to bikers and hikers, campers, and families. It also boasts numerous trails 

for hiking, horseback riding, and off-road vehicle use. The Colusa-Sacramento River State Recreation 

Area at the north end of the City of Colusa provides an additional 60 acres of recreation in the county and 

the only public boat launch and landing facility in the County. The area supports a wide variety of water 

activities due to its location at a wide part of the Sacramento River, including boating, fishing, and water 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-56 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

skiing. Wilbur Hot Springs Health Sanctuary, in the southwest portion of Colusa County, offers four 

natural mineral baths with temperatures varying from 98° to 120° Fahrenheit. The City of Colusa, 

approximately three miles south of the project site, also contains many local park facilities for community 

recreation (Colusa County, 1989). 

3.10 NOISE 

3.10.1 NOISE EXPOSURE AND COMMUNITY NOISE

Noise is generally defined as unwanted sound. Sound, traveling in the form of waves from a source, 

exerts a sound pressure level (referred to as sound level) which is measured in decibels (dB), with zero dB 

corresponding roughly to the threshold of human hearing and 120 to 140 dB corresponding to the 

threshold of pain. 

Environmental noise is typically measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA). A dBA is a dB corrected for 

the variation in frequency response of the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. In 

general, A-weighting of environmental sound consists of evaluating all of the frequencies of a sound, 

taking into account the fact that human hearing is less sensitive at low frequencies and extremely high 

frequencies than in the frequency mid-range. 

An individual’s noise exposure is a measure of noise over a period of time. A noise level is a measure of 

noise at a given instant in time. However, community noise varies continuously over a period of time 

with respect to the contributing sound sources in the community noise environment. What makes 

community noise constantly variable throughout a day is the addition of short duration single event noise 

sources such as aircraft flyovers, vehicle pass-bys, sirens, etc., which are readily identifiable to the 

individual. These successive additions of sound to the community noise environment varies the 

community noise level from instant to instant, requiring the measurement of noise exposure over a period 

of time to legitimately characterize a community noise environment and evaluate cumulative noise 

impacts. This time-varying characteristic of environmental noise is described using statistical noise 

descriptors such as equivalent noise level (Leq), day/night noise level (Ldn), and Community Noise 

Equivalent Level (CNEL), which averages noise over a specified number of hours, generally 24-hours. 

Part of community noise level is construction noise. Construction noise is dominated by heavy 

equipment. In general, noise emitted from construction projects is intermittent and short-term in nature 

and will generally occur during the daytime hours. 

3.10.2 REGULATORY SETTING

The Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), 

Federal agencies, consider outdoor day-night noise exposure up to 65 dBA, Ldn as acceptable under most 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-57 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

circumstances. The FHWA considers 75 dBA as acceptable during construction, if construction is 

conducted between the hours of 7 am and 6 pm (FHWA, 2006). 

Colusa County General Plan 

The Colusa County General Plan, 1989 (General Plan) policies are listed for the purpose of analyzing offreservation impact from traffic noise. Policies contained within the Safety Element of the General Plan 

and provide standards for ambient noise levels. The following policies are con are applicable: 

SAFE-14 New projects should be conditional, improved, or denied according to the standards of Table 

SAFE-3 (shown below as Table 3-12). When necessary, environmental impacts reports 

should be used to gauge the existing and projected noise environments of the proposed 

projects. All projects in areas above the “conditionally acceptable” noise level should provide 

the county with proof from a professional acoustical consultant the occupants of the project 

will be protected from excessive noise. 

TABLE 3-12 

RECOMMENDED NOISE LEVELS FOR LAND USES 

Land Use Category 

Recommended Noise Levels, Ldn (dBA) 

50 55 60 65 70 75 80 

Interior Max. 

Residential: 

 Low Density 45 

 Medium to High Density 45 

 

Commercial: 

 Hotel 50 

 Office 55 

 Restaurant, Retail 60 

 Other 65 

 

Industrial: 

 Light Industraial 55 

 Manufacturing 50 

 Other 70 

 

Public/Quasi‐Public: 

School, Library, Church, 

Hospital, Theater 45 

 Other 55 

 

Open Space: 

 All Categories ‐‐‐
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-58 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

 

Normally Acceptable: Specified land use is acceptable, 

assuming standard building construction. 

 

Conditionally Acceptable: Standard building construction is not 

adequate for specified land use; however, mitigation measures 

may be easily employed to reduce noise to acceptable levels. An 

analysis of the measures by a qualified acoustical professional 

(QAP) is required, to be approved by the County. 

 

Normally Unacceptable: The specified land use should be 

discouraged unless the County finds the project to be in the public 

interest and a detailed analysis by QAP shows that specific 

measures which are to be included in the project would reduce 

indoor and outdoor noise to acceptable levels. The analysis and 

attenuation measures must be approved by the County. 

Source: Colusa County General Plan, 1989. 

SAFE-18 Housing, hospitals, schools and other noise-sensitive uses should be designed with careful 

consideration given to projected noise from surrounding roadways, railroads, and 

development. 

SAFE-20 New development should be encouraged to follow site planning practices which create quieter 

environments. 

SAFE-22 Activities which would unnecessarily disturb the peace and quality of the neighborhoods or 

cause unusual discomfort or annoyance should be prohibited. Regulation of non-vehicular 

noise (construction, air compressors, manufacturing, loud music) should be encouraged to 

avoid disturbing adjacent uses. . 

3.10.3 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others due to the amount of noise exposure (in 

terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities typically involved. 

Residences, motels and hotels, schools, libraries, churches, hospitals, nursing homes, auditoriums, and 

parks and other outdoor recreation areas generally are more sensitive to noise than are commercial and 

industrial land uses. A sensitive receptor is defined as any living entity or aggregate of entities whose 

comfort, health, or well-being could be impaired or endangered by the existence of the criteria pollutant, 

whether it is emissions or noise, in the atmosphere. 

Sensitive noise receptors in the vicinity of the project site include one off-site single-family residence is 

located approximately 800 feet northwest of a proposed house location on APN 015-030-081. Existing 

on-site houses are located within approximately 300 feet of proposed residential construction on APN 

015-030-089, and approximately 1,000 feet from a proposed homesite on APN 015-030-050. Tribal 

members’ houses on the existing Rancheria, as well as a preschool/child care facility, fitness center and 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-59 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

medical offices in the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village complex, are located more than 0.5 miles from any 

proposed development on the project site. 

3.10.4 EXISTING NOISE SOURCES

The area is characterized as rural and largely undeveloped and is assumed to have an average daily 

ambient noise level of 50 dBA along country roads and 40 dBA in upland valleys (Colusa County, 1989). 

3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

A Phase I Environmental Site Assessments (ESA) was conducted for the 225-acre project site to 

determine if any Recognized Environmental Conditions (RECs) exist (Appendix E). RECs refer to the 

presence or likely presence of conditions on a property that indicate an existing release, a past release, or 

a material threat of release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on the property or into the 

ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property. This includes hazardous substances and petroleum 

products. All Phase I ESAs were prepared in accordance with the BIA Guidelines (602 DM Chapter 2) 

and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Standard Practice E 1527-05. The ESAs 

included site reconnaissance, review of federal and state regulatory agency records and databases, 

interviews with local officials and property owners and review of historical aerial photographs of the 225-

acre project site. Following is a summary of the site reconnaissance conducted on July 22, 2009 for each 

parcel. 

APN 015-030-005 is comprised of walnut orchard. 

APN 015-030-046 consists mainly of walnut orchard. It also includes a well and associated pump as well 

as several pole mounted transformers. 

APN 015-030-048 is comprised of graded land. 

APN 015-030-049 and 015-030-051 are comprised of mixed riparian vegetative communities. 

APN 015-030-050 includes a single-family home with associated sheds, a well and associated pump, and 

walnut orchard. The single-family home is supplied with water from an on-site well and is equipped with 

a septic sewer system. In addition, several pole mounted transformers are located on the parcel. 

APN 015-030-079 is comprised mainly of walnut orchard and includes a graded dirt area, on which a 

residential structure was formally located. 

APNs 015-030-080 and 015-030-081 are comprised of walnut orchards. 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-60 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

APN 015-030-082 includes a shed, well and associated pump. Approximately fourteen 2.5 gallon 

containers of herbicide, eight 5-gallon propane tanks, one 30-gallon drum of weed control, thirteen 25-

pound containers of rodent bait, and one 30-gallon container of Roundup were observed inside the shed. 

None of the chemicals were observed in bulk quantity. The chemicals were stored within approved 

commercial containers and no surface staining or odor was observed in or outside the shed. 

APN 015-030-083 is comprised of walnut orchard. 

APN 015-030-089 includes two single-family homes with a shed, two 500-gallon propane tanks, a well 

and associated pump. 

Database searches were conducted for records of known storage tank sites and known sites of hazardous 

materials generation, storage, or contamination. Databases were searched for sites and listings up to 2.0 

miles from a point roughly equivalent to the center of the 225-acre property. Environmental Data 

Resources, Inc (EDR) indicated one site. The Stegall Bros Inc. is located approximately one-mile west of 

the project site at Highway 45 and Reese Road. The site is listed on the RCRA-SQG and FINDS 

database due to the generation of small quantities of hazardous waste. Based on the current regulatory 

status and lack of violations reported, this site is not considered to represent a likely past, present, or 

material threat of release on the property (AES, 2009). 

Based on the site reconnaissance of the parcels, review of federal and state regulatory agency records and 

databases, interviews with local officials and property owners and review of historical aerial photographs, 

the Phase I ESA did not identify any Recognized Environmental Conditions on the parcels. 

3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 

The visual characteristics of the project site and surrounding areas are typical of rural Colusa County. 

Scattered farmhouses and agricultural support buildings are located along SR 45 and County-maintained 

roads. Orchards of varying ages occupy the project area and surrounding parcels. Riparian vegetation is 

present within the Sacramento River floodplain and along various small drainages and sloughs in the 

project vicinity. The Colusa Casino Resort and Cachil Dehe Wintun Village community developments 

are located south of the subject property along SR 45, with Tribal housing on the existing Colusa 

Rancheria clustered along Wintun Road and Traditional Way. 

The Colusa County General Plan designation for the portions of the CIC Property proposed for Tribal 

agricultural production and housing is Agriculture General (A-G), which allows all agricultural uses as 

well as low-density residential housing related to owner- or tenant-operated agricultural uses. These 

parcels, located west of the Sacramento River levee, are zoned Exclusive Agriculture (E-A) (Colusa 

County, 1989). Specific objectives related to scenic highways in the Circulation Element of the Colusa 

County General Plan call for the retention of the rural, agricultural character of eligible and recommended 
3.0 Affected Environment

Analytical Environmental Services 3-61 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

scenic highways by restricting adjacent land uses and roadside advertising, following guidelines for 

setbacks, landscaping, and building materials, and undergrounding of utilities where possible. SR 45 is 

recommended for scenic highway status from the Yolo County line to the Glenn County line (Colusa 

County, 1989). Portions of the project area not within the viewshed of SR 45 would fall under the more 

general stipulations of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, which specifies that “the development 

pattern should protect the scenic values of Colusa County,” and “areas designated for future residential 

development should be selected so that potential conflicts with agricultural operations are minimized.” 

Following the transfer of the CIC Property into federal trust, local General Plan designations and zoning 

regulations would no longer apply to the parcels; however, the Tribe’s plans for the land would generally 

be in keeping with the intent of these policies. 

The project site is sparsely developed with three single-family houses (two occupied, one vacant) on 

APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089, and three barns/sheds located on APN 015-030-082 as well as on 

the two parcels with residences. The site is generally flat, except for the Sacramento River levee that 

forms the eastern boundary of much of the project area. SR 45 is adjacent to APN 015-030-005, but the 

remaining parcels are not visible from this main road. Local access roads are both County-maintained 

and private, and are used primarily by local residents and farm workers. Regular street lamps are not 

provided along SR 45 or County/private roads, and most local residences use limited outdoor lighting. 

Photographs of the surrounding visual setting and some of the nearest sensitive visual receptors are 

provided in Figure 3-6. 

Visual resources surrounding the project site include distant views of the Sutter Buttes and mountains on 

the western edge of the Sacramento Valley, as well as closer expanses of agricultural land (primarily 

orchards) and riparian forest and river in the Sacramento River floodplain. Traffic is low within the 

project site with the exception of the SR 45 corridor, and visual receptors are limited to the existing 

occupied houses on APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089 and along SR 45. One other nearby residence is 

located approximately 800 feet northwest of a proposed house location on APN 015-030-081. Tribal 

members’ houses on the existing Rancheria, as well as a preschool/child care facility, fitness center and 

medical offices in the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village complex, are located more than 0.5 miles from any 

proposed development on the project site. 

 
Colusa Fee-to-Trust 225-acre Fee-To-Trust EA / 209520

Figure 3-6

Site Photographs

SOURCE: AES, 2009

PHOTO 1: View to north along SR 45 just before turnoff to Reese 

Road. APN 015-030-005 on right.

PHOTO 3: View to southwest across APN 015-030-005; Colusa 

Casino Resort and support buildings on Colusa Rancheria.

PHOTO 5: View to east-southeast across APN 015-030-050. 

Occupied single-family residence; riparian forest in background.

PHOTO 2: View to west across APN 015-030-046; young walnut 

trees. Typical of local views.

PHOTO 4: View to south across APN 015-030-089 from Sacramento River levee. Occupied single-family residence with barn.

PHOTO 6: View to east from Reese Avenue B along Sacramento 

River levee. Roof of occupied house on APN 015-030-089 visible 

in right-center of photo.
SECTION 4.0 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
Analytical Environmental Services 4-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 4.0 

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 

In this section, environmental consequences are described for Alternative A (Proposed Project), 

Alternative B (Reduced Intensity), and Alternative C (No-Action). Areas that are analyzed include direct 

and indirect impacts to land resources, water resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural 

resources, socioeconomic conditions and environmental justice, transportation and circulation, land use, 

public services, noise, hazardous materials, and visual resources. The Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) regulations state that direct impacts are those that are caused by the action and occur at the same 

time and place, while indirect impacts are caused by the action and occur later in time or further in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable (CEQ 1508.8). Cumulative and growth-inducing effects of 

the Proposed Action are also assessed for each of these issue areas. 

4.1 ALTERNATIVE A - PROPOSED PROJECT 

4.1.1 LAND RESOURCES

Topography 

No major changes to topography would result from construction of the proposed homes or related 

infrastructure. The Proposed Project would result in construction of up to 20 houses, each with an 

estimated maximum footprint of approximately 3,000 square feet. The sum total of grading that would be 

required for construction of this Alternative would be approximately 5.0 acres (a quarter-acre per house). 

Drainage patterns would be maintained as discussed in Section 4.1.2, and levee slopes would be avoided 

with a minimum 20-foot setback for all houses. Best Management Practices (BMPs) related to land 

resources are included in Section 2.1.7 and mitigation measures are included in Section 5.1. With 

implementation of these measures, impacts would be less than significant. 

Seismic Conditions 

The projected earthquake magnitudes for the region indicate that the project site could potentially be 

exposed to future seismic shaking (USGS, 2009). Construction of Alternative A would adhere to the 

standards of the California Building Code (CBC), as described in Section 2.1.7. Use of the CBC design 

and construction standards would allow ground shaking-related hazards to be managed from a geologic, 

geotechnical, and structural standpoint such that risks to the health or safety of workers or members of the 

public would be reduced to a less than significant level. 

 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-2 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Soil Types and Characteristics 

The soil types located on the site are characterized by minimal slopes and slight erosion hazards. During 

construction the exposure of soil increases the risk of erosion. Protective measures for reducing the 

potential for erosion are listed under Section 5.1 and 5.2. 

The primary soils on the project site are characterized as moderately corrosive to uncoated steel, with low 

to moderate shrink-swell potential (NRCS, 2009). The protective measure listed under Section 2.1.7 

would be implemented if any steel is used in the construction of Alternative A. Additional mitigation 

measures related to potential for expansive soils are listed in Section 5.1. 

Mineral Resources 

As stated in Section 3.1.5, there are no known mineral resources within the project area, and the project 

site is located outside regions where significant mineral resources are likely to occur. Construction of the 

Proposed Project would not result in the loss of mineral resources. No mitigation is warranted. 

With the implementation of the protective measures listed in Section 2.1.7 and the mitigation measures 

listed in Section 5.1, all potential impacts to land resources would be less than significant. 

4.1.2 WATER RESOURCES

Surface Water, Drainage, and Flooding 

Alternative A (Figure 2-1) has been designed to avoid impacts to water resources located on and adjacent 

to the CIC Property. No construction would occur within the two parcels located on the east side of the 

levee (APNs 015-030-049 and 015-030-051) adjacent to the Sacramento River. 

Alternative A would increase impervious surfaces on the site through the construction of up to 20 houses. 

It is estimated that the full buildout of the project would increase impervious surfaces by approximately 

1.5 acres. Increased impervious surfaces would result in increased peak flows and increased total 

discharge from the project site during wet weather events. If not properly managed, this could add 

increased stormwater flow to the area’s drainage systems and result in localized flooding. To reduce this 

impact, drainage would continue to be directed to the existing detention basin on the Reservation, as 

discussed in Section 2.1.7. The detention basin has been designed to slow the velocity of peak 

stormwater flows and allow increased infiltration of groundwater, reducing stormwater discharge to offReservation lands. 

As shown on Figure 3-3, all parcels on which buildings and associated infrastructure would be 

constructed are located outside the FEMA-designated 100-year flood zone. No significant impacts related 

to flooding would occur. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-3 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Water Supply and Groundwater 

Two options are available for domestic water supply for Alternative A. Under the first option, water 

would be supplied through pipelines placed within roadways from the existing water treatment facility on 

the Colusa Rancheria. This facility, which treats water from three domestic wells on the south side of the 

Rancheria, supplies the existing homes, the Colusa Casino Resort, and community facilities and Tribal 

offices on the Rancheria. The existing wells have an output of 550 gallons per minute (gpm) each, while 

the treatment facility includes two reverse osmosis processing units with an output of 220 gpm each 

(PSOMAS, 2003a). Under the second supply option, water would be drawn from domestic wells that 

currently supply the existing homes on APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089. Because much of the water 

demand of the Proposed Project would replace existing demand from houses on the Rancheria, it is 

anticipated that the existing wells and treatment system would be able to accommodate the water 

demands of the project, including fire flows. If the second option for water supply is chosen, 

improvements would be made to the existing wells if necessary. These improvements could include 

deepening, replacement of existing pumps, installation of new well screens and casings, or expanded 

treatment facilities to ensure compliance with safe drinking water standards. In addition, the protective 

measures listed in Section 2.1.7 would be implemented to reduce water demand. Development of the 

project under Alternative A would have a less than significant impact on water supply and groundwater. 

 

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 

Wastewater from Alternative A would be treated using individual septic systems, which would be 

installed and maintained according to County guidelines. Disposal of treated effluent would be through 

individual drainfields associated with each house or small cluster of houses. The potential impacts to 

water quality are discussed below. 

Water Quality 

Protective measures listed in Section 2.1.7 would be included with Alternative A to reduce the potential 

for increased sediment erosion or discharge of other pollutants from the project site. The Tribe is required 

to adhere to the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA). To comply with these regulations and further 

reduce the effects of stormwater-associated pollutants, the Tribe will comply with the terms of the 

General Construction NPDES permit. This would include preparation and implementation of a 

Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and proper use of appropriate BMPs, as described in 

Section 5.2. With implementation of the protective measures described in Section 2.1.7, along with the 

recommended mitigation measures described in Section 5.2, potential impacts to water quality would be 

less than significant. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-4 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.1.3 AIR QUALITY

Significance Criteria 

A significant impact would occur if the project emits criteria air pollutants (CAPs) in a nonattainment or 

maintenance area, exceeds general conformity de minimus thresholds and is not exempt from the Clean 

Air Act (CAA). 

 

General Conformity Review 

During construction and operation, the Proposed Project would emit CAPs from the use of heavy 

equipment and vehicles, and fugitive dust (which includes particulate matter 10 and 2.5 microns in size) 

from grading and homes being accessed via dirt roads in the dry season. The Proposed Project is not 

exempt from the CAA; however, Colusa County is in attainment for all federal CAPs (refer to Table 3-4). 

Since the Proposed Project is located in area of attainment for all CAPs, then a general conformity 

determination is not warranted; therefore, the project is considered to conform to all applicable air quality 

plans and the CAA. The Proposed Project is in conformance with the CAA and therefore, is considered 

to have a less than significant impact on local and regional air quality. 

Climate Change 

The Proposed Project would emit greenhouse gases during construction and operation. Carbon dioxide 

(CO2) is the most prevalent greenhouse gas and is used as a measurement standard (CO2 equivalent) for 

other greenhouses gases such as methane. Project significance will be determined by compliance with 

applicable mitigation measures set forth by the California Attorney General. 

GHG emissions were estimated using URBEMIS 9.2.4 air modeling program and the Climate Action 

Registry 2009 reporting protocols. URBEMIS 9.2.4 air quality model estimated CO2 equivalent 

emissions at 1,020 tons per year (tpy) for construction and mobile and area operational emission at 485 

tpy. URBEMIS output files are provided in Appendix A. N2O and CH4 emissions from mobile sources 

were estimated at 15 tpy of CO2 equivalent, using emission factors from the Climate Action Registry 

(CAR). Indirect source emissions for operation were estimated using CAR emission factors; indirect 

operational emissions were estimated at 13 tpy of CO2 equivalent. Total estimated project GHG CO2

equivalent emission would be 513 tpy of CO2 equivalent. Project-related emissions would be reduced by 

implementing the California Attorney General’s GHG mitigation measures provided in Section 5.3. With 

implementation of the measures provided in Section 5.3, there would be a less than significant impact 

related to climate change. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-5 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.1.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Significance Criteria 

Significant impacts to biological resources would occur if implementation of the Proposed Project would 

result in direct or indirect take of any federally protected species, including the destruction or degradation 

of any identified sensitive habitat. 

Methodology 

The analysis of potential impacts is based on the existing biological setting, which is discussed in Section 

3.4. The evaluation of biological resources impacts is based on a comprehensive examination of the 

existing project site and the anticipated extent of habitats, wetland features, native trees, and the 

presence/absence or potential occurrence of special-status species that would be impacted by each of the 

proposed alternatives. 

Anticipated Impacts to Biological Resources 

Habitats 

The Proposed Project is likely to result in direct and/or indirect impacts (i.e., development) to the existing 

ruderal/developed areas onsite. The Proposed Project has been designed to avoid impacts to the 

agricultural, riparian, irrigation ditch, and pond by adjusting the locations of lots and structures to areas 

that have already been disturbed. The ruderal/developed areas are of little biological value because they 

provide minimal resources for native plant and wildlife species, given that they are already notably altered 

and/or developed. Thus impacts to the ruderal/developed areas within the project site are considered 

insignificant. No mitigation is required. 

Wetland Features 

The Proposed Project would not result in direct and/or indirect impacts to wetland features. The Proposed 

Project has been designed to eliminate direct impacts to waters of the U.S. by situating housing lots and 

structures more than 150 feet away from wetland features, including the irrigation ditch and the riparian 

habitat surrounding the pond. The Proposed Project has been designed to eliminate indirect impacts 

including sedimentation and/or modification of existing water quality because the levee provides a buffer 

between the housing envelopes and the riparian habitat that surrounds the Sacramento River. Thus, no 

potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be impacted. No mitigation is required. 

Native Trees 

The Proposed Project has the potential to result in direct impacts (i.e., removal or damage) to the few 

scattered isolated native trees within the ruderal/developed areas onsite. These native trees could also be 

indirectly impacted by construction activities because development practices often result in stress factors 

that leave native trees susceptible to further damage, limb and/or trunk failure, disease, decay, and 

increased susceptibility to insect infestations. Examples of indirect impacts to native trees caused by 

development practices include root death caused by oxygen deficiency in compacted or waterlogged soils, 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-6 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

root death caused by soil changes associated with implementation of new structures or pavement, 

weakened resistance to disease, insect infestation from associated stress factors, and introduction of 

pathogens and insects to the habitat. Upon implementation of the protective measures in Section 2.1.7, 

potential impacts to native trees would be reduced to less than significant levels. 

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants

As previously discussed in Section 3.4, the project site does not provide habitat for any federally listed 

plants. The Proposed Project would have no effect on federally listed plants. No mitigation is required. 

Special-Status Wildlife

The project site provides potential habitat for the federally listed Valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus dimorphus californicus; VELB). The housing envelopes have been designed to avoid direct 

impacts to VELB. The Proposed Project could result in indirect impacts to VELB should construction 

activities occur within a 100-foot buffer of the elderberry shrubs. The Proposed Project is not likely to 

affect VELB with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.4. 

Development of the Proposed Project would not result in direct or indirect effects to Southern DPS green 

sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ESU, Central Valley 

spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), or Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) because construction activities would not occur within 150 feet of 

the riparian habitat. In addition, the levee provides a buffer between the construction activities associated 

with the Proposed Project and the Sacramento River. The Proposed Project would not affect the 

navigable waters outside the southeast and the north boundaries of the project site. As such fisheries 

resources including effects to their DPS or EFH or their proposed or critical habitat would not occur. The 

Proposed Project would result in no effect to federally listed fish. No mitigation is required. 

The riparian habitat and pond on the southeast side of the project site and the irrigation ditch and 

surrounding uplands on the east side of the project site provide potential habitat for the giant garter snake 

(Thamophis gigas; GGS). Construction activities have the potential to directly impact GGS should 

grading occur during the dormant season between November and February. The Proposed Project is not 

likely to affect GGS with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Section 5.4. 

The Proposed Project has the potential to impact the federal candidate yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus) if construction activities occur during the nesting season (June 1 through September 1). 

Disturbance that occurs within 250 feet of an active nest could cause nest abandonment or premature 

fledging of the young. This would be a potentially significant impact. The Proposed Project would have 

no effect to yellow-billed cuckoo with the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in 

Section 5.4. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-7 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

The Proposed Project has the potential to impact migratory nesting birds and other birds of prey, if 

construction activities occur during the nesting season (March through September). Activities associated 

with the Proposed Project, such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal, could impact nesting birds 

if their nests are located within the proposed development areas. Increased human activity and traffic, 

elevated noise levels, and operation of machinery could also impact nesting birds during construction 

activities. Disturbance of this nature that occurs within 250 feet of an active nest could cause nest 

abandonment or premature fledging of the young. The Proposed Project would not adversely affect 

migratory nesting birds and other birds of prey with the implementation of the mitigation measures 

identified in Section 5.4. 

4.1.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section identifies direct and indirect impacts to cultural and paleontological resources that would 

result from implementation of the Proposed Project. 

Archaeological Resources 

For historic properties, a significant adverse impact would result if implementation of the undertaking 

resulted in one of the following effects to cultural resources that are listed, or eligible for listing, on the 

National Register of Historic Places (NRHP): 

 Physical destruction of or damage to all or part of the resource. 

 Alteration of a resource. 

 Removal of the resource from its historic location. 

 Change of the character of the resource’s use or of physical features within the resource’s 

setting that contribute to its historic significance. 

 Introduction of visual, atmospheric, or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the 

resource’s significant historic features; 

 Neglect of a resource that causes its deterioration. 

 Transfer, lease, or sale of the property. 

As part of the cultural resources study, a literature review, records search, Native American consultation, 

and pedestrian surveys for the presence of cultural resources were conducted within the project site. No 

potentially significant cultural resources were identified as a result of that effort. While the Sacramento 

River levee meets the minimum age requirement for the NRHP, it does not rise to the level of significance 

necessary for consideration as a historic property. Therefore, no impacts to known historic properties 

would occur as a result of the undertaking. 

There is always a possibility, however remote, that significant subsurface cultural resources may exist in 

the project site, as archaeological sites may be buried with no surface manifestation. In addition, there is 

a remote possibility that an unanticipated discovery of human remains could occur. Development 

proposed as a part of this undertaking may adversely affect previously unknown subsurface prehistoric or 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-8 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

historic archaeological resources, including human remains. This would be a potentially significant 

impact. 

Mitigation measures are presented in Section 5.5 for the protection and treatment of unanticipated 

discoveries of archaeological resources and/or human remains. Implementation of these mitigation 

measures would reduce impacts to cultural resources to a less than significant level. 

Paleontological Resources 

With respect to paleontological resources, an impact would be considered significant if it would directly 

or indirectly destroy such resources. As described in Section 3.5.4, indicators of paleontological 

resources within the project site are absent, and no such resources were observed in the course of site 

reconnaissance visits in 2009 by AES staff. Geologic formations that underlie the project site have a low 

probability of containing paleontological resources. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated. 

There is always the possibility, however slight, that previously unknown paleontological resources could 

be encountered during construction activities. Mitigation measures are presented in Section 5.5 for the 

protection and preservation of unanticipated discoveries of paleontological resources. Implementation of 

these mitigation measures would reduce impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant 

level. 

4.1.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Alternative A would remove the twelve project parcels totaling 225 acres from the County’s property tax 

rolls, which would result in a loss of tax revenues. For the 2008-2009 tax year, the property taxes for the 

twelve proposed trust parcels totaled $54,926.92. Property taxes for individual parcels for the 2008-2009 

tax year are listed in Table 4-1 below: 

 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-9 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

TABLE 4-1 

Property Taxes (2008-2009) for Proposed Trust Parcels 

APN Acreage Property Tax 

Collected 

015-030-005 32.00 $2,654.74 

015-030-046 20.45 $4,925.66 

015-030-048 4.30 $908.66 

015-030-049 9.30 $1,412.16 

015-030-050 22.00 $12,825.44 

015-030-051 17.00 $634.48 

015-030-079 51.03 $12,045.86 

015-030-080 10.01 $2,443.78 

015-030-081 10.00 $2,441.44 

015-030-082 10.00 $2,590.78 

015-030-083 11.98 $2,901.16 

015-030-089 26.76 $9,142.76 

Totals: 224.83 $54,926.92 

Source: Colusa County Assessor’s Office, 2009 

The Colusa County Tax Collector collected approximately $29.3 million in property taxes for the 2008-

2009 year. The tax on the project parcels was less than 0.002 percent of the County’s total tax revenue. 

The 0.002 percent loss to the County’s tax base is negligible and would not lead to any adverse effects. 

No mitigation measures are warranted. 

Because the Proposed Project would include the development of 20 housing units at most, and because 

most of the children expected to live in these homes already live within Colusa County, there would be no 

significant net increase in enrollment in local schools. Therefore, no adverse impacts to local school 

districts would occur, and no mitigation measures are warranted. 

Environmental Justice 

This environmental justice analysis was prepared using guidance from the CEQ for compliance with 

Executive Order 12898. The intent of this evaluation is to determine whether the Proposed Project or 

alternatives would impose disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of 

(BIA’s) programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations. 

The project site is located in a rural area with no low-income populations identified adjacent to or near the 

project site. As a whole, Colusa County would be considered a minority population. However, the 

majority of potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project, such as those to land, water resources, 

air quality, and traffic, among others, can be characterized as local in nature. As such, environmental 

justice communities with potential to be impacted by the project are considered to be those located within 

the immediate vicinity of the project site rather than dispersed throughout the County. Due to the rural 

nature of the project site, no adverse environmental justice impacts are anticipated for the County. More 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-10 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

locally, the Colusa Indian Community likely qualifies as a minority population; however, the Proposed 

Project would provide beneficial effects to members of the Tribe. Other than the Colusa Indian 

Community, no minority populations have been identified in the immediate vicinity of the project site. 

Therefore, no minority populations would be subjected to disproportionately high or adverse human 

health or environmental impacts. The Proposed Project is not anticipated to create any adverse impacts 

with regard to environmental justice, and no mitigation measures are warranted. 

4.1.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Vehicle Transportation Networks 

Previous transportation analyses (Omni-Means, 2004; Stantec, 2007) conclude that existing intersection 

and roadway operations in the project vicinity are well within acceptable levels of service (LOS), as 

determined according to Colusa County and Caltrans methodologies. Trips generated by the Proposed 

Project were estimated based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ 2003 Trip Generation Manual, 

which assumes 9.57 vehicle trips per day per single-family residence with four occupants. Because many 

of the occupants of the proposed houses associated with Alternative A are anticipated to move there from 

the existing Colusa Rancheria, this is a very conservative estimate. 

The Proposed Project is estimated to generate a gross total of approximately 192 daily vehicle trips, 

distributed between AM and PM peak hours and other times of the day and night. 

Based on the standards in the Caltrans’ Guide to the Preparation of Traffic Impact Studies, additional 

analysis of roadway segments and freeway facilities is not required. Caltrans requirements state that an 

environmental review should include any State Highway facility where more than 100 peak hour trips 

would be added or any State Highway facility operating at LOS C or LOS D where more than 50 peak 

hour trips would be added. The only State Highway facilities within the project vicinity are SR 45 and 

SR 20, both of which operate at LOS B in the project vicinity (Omni-Means, 2004). Based on the trip 

generation for the Proposed Project, Alternative A would add fewer than 100 peak hour trips to SR 45. 

Previous intersection LOS analyses indicate that sufficient intersection operating capacity remains and 

that the Proposed Project would not cause a significant decrease in the LOS at any of the local area 

intersections. 

Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Networks 

The project would not generate a large number of new pedestrian trips, bicycling activity, or transit riders 

along SR 45 or the other public roads in the area. Thus, no significant impacts are projected to these 

networks as a result of the Proposed Project. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-11 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.1.8 LAND USE

The Proposed Project would result in the construction of 20 residential units and associated facilities. The 

development would be compatible with surrounding agricultural land uses. Once the 225-acre site is 

brought into federal trust, the Colusa County General Plan (1989) land use policies and standards would 

no longer apply to the project site. Since approximately 97 percent of the site would continue to be used 

for agricultural purposes, the impact to land use is less than significant. 

Coastal Zone 

The project site is located outside of the Coastal Zone. There are no activities that would directly affect 

coastal resources. Measures proposed in Section 2.1.7 and Section 5.2 for management of stormwater 

runoff would reduce potential water quality impacts to the Sacramento River to a less than significant 

level. 

Agriculture 

The area proposed for the development of the residential units is currently used for agricultural 

operations. Proximity to agricultural operations could result in potential impacts associated with noise 

from farm equipment, dust, irrigation overspray, and other effects. However, the Colusa County Rightto-Farm Ordinance would continue to protect neighboring farmers from potential nuisance suits. 

In accordance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA), a Farmland Conversion Impact Rating 

(FCIR) form was completed during the environmental analysis of the project. The first form was 

submitted to the National Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) on August 4, 2009 (Appendix D) and 

evaluated two alternatives initially considered for the project site. The first alternative, represented on the 

August 2009 FCIR form under “Site A”, consisted of the construction of 20 residential units and 

associated facilities in an arrangement that would have converted approximately 5.0 acres of farmland. 

The second alternative, represented on the August 2009 FCIR form under “Site B”, consisted of the 

construction of 10 residential units and associated facilities in an arrangement that would have converted 

approximately 2.5 acres of farmland. Both of these alternatives received a combined land evaluation and 

site assessment score of 188, indicating the potential for adverse effects to farmland resources. In 

accordance with the FPPA and direction provided by the NRCS in its letter of September 22, 2009 

(Appendix D), the site plan for both alternatives was reconfigured to consolidate the proposed location of 

residential housing within the ruderal development areas of the project site (see Figure 6 of Appendix B); 

therefore, reducing the amount of agricultural land that would be converted by the project, and 

minimizing the potential for adverse effects. A subsequent FCIR form was submitted for the revised 

project alternatives on December 16, 2009. The revised project alternatives (described in detail in 

Section 2.0) received a combined land evaluation and site assessment score of 181 (Appendix D). 

Due to its reconfiguration, Alternative A would result in the conversion of approximately 2.75 acres (1.5 

percent) of farmland on the site. Because the area of conversion is relatively small, approximately 0.001 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-12 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

percent of the farmland in the County, and the combined FCIR score is less than other alternatives 

considered for this site; the potential for adverse effects is minimal. 

4.1.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

Water Supply 

Under Alternative A, the project site would obtain water through groundwater wells, either on the existing 

Colusa Rancheria or existing wells on the CIC Property, which would be improved as needed to meet 

domestic water demands. Either of these options would have no impact on municipal water supplies. 

The potential effects to groundwater are discussed in Section 4.1.2. 

Wastewater Service 

Under this alternative, wastewater from the proposed Tribal houses would be treated through installation 

of individual septic systems for each house. The Proposed Project would not impact existing municipal 

wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. 

Solid Waste 

Potential solid waste streams from construction would include paper, wood, glass, aluminum and plastics 

from packing materials; waste lumber; insulation; empty non-hazardous chemical containers; concrete; 

metal, including steel from welding/cutting operations; and electrical wiring. Solid waste from the 

residences would be typical of any residential development and would be collected by NorCal Waste 

Systems. 

Assuming a disposal rate of 2.50 lbs/person/day (USEPA, 2008), and 20 residences with an average 

household size of 3.06 persons (US Census Bureau, 2005-2007), approximately 153 lbs of solid waste per 

day would be generated. Because most Tribal members that would be project residents already live 

within the County, a less than significant impact would occur. 

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications 

Electrical and telephone infrastructure facilities are currently located on and near the project site. The 

Tribe will coordinate with Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Frontier Communications and ColusaNet 

regarding the extension of services to the project site. The project would use propane rather than natural 

gas, which it would contract directly from local supply companies in the area. No adverse utility service 

impacts would occur. 

Law Enforcement 

Under Public Law 280, 18 U.S.C. §1162, the State of California and other local law enforcement agencies 

have criminal enforcement authority on Tribal lands. The Colusa County Sheriff’s Department would 

continue to provide services to the CIC Property. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-13 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 

Construction-related impacts include the potential fire threat associated with equipment and vehicles 

coming into contact with wildland areas. Construction vehicles and equipment such as welders, torches, 

and grinders may accidentally spark and ignite vegetation or building materials. The increased risks of 

fire during the construction of the proposed facilities would be similar to that found at other construction 

sites and construction related impacts are considered potentially significant. With the implementation of 

the protective measures and mitigation measures described in Section 2.1.7 and Section 5.9, respectively, 

impacts would be less than significant. 

Use of the site for residential purposes would create additional demand for fire protection, and could 

require more frequent responses from local fire-fighting agencies. The Sacramento River Fire Protection 

District (SRFPD) would continue to provide services to the CIC Property, and would continue to receive 

Special Distribution Funds and other periodic donations from the Tribe. Therefore, impacts would be less 

than significant. 

Increased emergency calls to 911 as a result of the Proposed Project may result in slight delays in 

response times or result in the need for ambulances to be dispatched from more distant locations. 

Because new demands would be minimal, the increased demand for emergency medical services would 

not create a significant impact.

Public Schools 

Impacts to Colusa Unified School District as a result of the Proposed Project would be negligible because 

most potential residents of the project site currently live on the Rancheria or in nearby areas of Colusa 

County. 

Parks and Recreation 

The inhabitants of the 20 proposed residences, most of who would move from nearby areas, would not 

impact local parks or recreational facilities. 

4.1.10 NOISE

Significance Criteria 

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides a construction noise threshold of 75 dBA and an 

operational threshold of 65 dBA. 

Construction Noise 

Grading and construction activities associated with the Proposed Project would be intermittent and 

temporary in nature. The closest sensitive receptor that would be exposed to noise during project 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-14 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

construction is a residence located approximately 300 feet east and west of where proposed construction 

activities would occur on APN 015-030-089. 

Construction noise levels at and near the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, 

number, and duration of uses of various pieces of construction equipment. Construction-related material 

haul trips would raise ambient noise levels along haul routes, depending on the number of haul trips made 

and types of vehicles used. Table 4-2 shows typical noise levels 50 feet from the sources during different 

construction stages. 

TABLE 4-2 

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS 

Construction Phase Noise Level (dBA, Leq)

*

Ground Clearing 84 

Excavation 89 

Foundations 78 

Erection 85 

Finishing 89 

Notes: * Average noise levels correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest 

piece of equipment associated with a given phase of construction and 200 

feet from the rest of the equipment associated with that phase. 

Leq: the equivalent sound level is used to describe noise over a specified 

period of time, typically one hour, in terms of a single numerical value. The 

Leq is the constant sound level which would contain the same acoustic energy 

as the varying sound level, during the same time period (i.e., the average 

noise exposure level for the given time period). 

Source: Federal Transit Administration, Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment, April 

1995.

Stationary point sources of construction noise attenuate (lessen) at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA per doubling of 

distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e., atmospheric conditions, 

topography and type of ground surfaces, noise barriers, etc.). The maximum construction noise would be 

89 dBA at 50 feet and 71.25 dBA at 300 feet. Construction noise impacts would be temporary, 

intermittent, and would occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. According to the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) guidelines, a 75 dBA noise level is acceptable during construction; therefore, 

noise from construction activities would be less than significant. It is important to note that the Proposed 

Project site encompasses a large area and construction activities would not occur throughout the entire 

project site or all at once. 

Operation Noise 

The primary source of noise in the area is generated by traffic. As discussed in Section 3.10, an increase 

of 200 vehicle trips per hour on a roadway would be necessary to cause a noticeable increase in the 

ambient noise level (FHWA, 2006). The Proposed Project would result in an increase of a maximum of 

192 vehicles per day on area roadways. Therefore, no audible increase in the ambient noise level would 

occur. The Proposed Project would not increase the existing ambient noise level (50 dBA) beyond the 

FHWA guideline of 65 dBA. There would be a less than significant impact resulting from noise during 

operation of the Proposed Project. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-15 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.1.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

No hazardous materials have been identified on site or within a distance that would affect the Proposed 

Project. During grading and construction it is possible that hazardous substances such as gasoline, diesel 

fuel, and hydraulic fluid, would be transported to the site. Temporary bulk aboveground storage tanks as 

well as storage sheds/trailers would likely be used by various contractors for fueling and maintenance 

purposes. As with any liquid and solid, the potential for an accidental release exists during handling and 

transfer from one container to another. Depending on the relative hazard of the material, the accidental 

release could pose both a hazard to construction employees as well as the environment. Although typical 

construction management practices limit and often eliminate the impact of such accidental releases, the 

potential exists with the temporary onsite storage of hazardous materials that a significant release could 

occur. This impact would be potentially significant. Mitigation measures are listed in Section 5.11 that 

would reduce the impact to a less than significant level. 

4.1.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

Impacts related to visual resources would be considered significant if the Proposed Project were to 

substantially alter or interrupt locally important scenic vistas, introduce visual elements that would 

conflict with the County’s General Plan goals regarding scenic resources, or create sources of 

inappropriate or excessive glare or nighttime illumination. 

The Proposed Project would result in the construction of up to 20 single-family homes, as well as 

continued agricultural uses. Development of the project site would complement existing rural 

agricultural/residential development in the project vicinity. No houses are planned on APN 015-030-005, 

the only parcel of the proposed trust property that is visible to travelers on SR 45. The project would also 

leave APNs 015-030-049 and 015-030-051 undeveloped, and would preserve any existing oak trees 

within the proposed trust parcels. No additional roadways, street lighting, signage, or other highly visible 

types of infrastructure would be included with the Proposed Project. None of the proposed homes would 

be visible to travelers on SR 45. 

Single-family homes would be one to two stories, and would be located to take advantage of the natural 

setting and to minimize impacts to existing walnut groves. The higher-density areas of housing would be 

clustered to take advantage of existing access roads and infrastructure, and to re-use areas previously 

graded for use as building pads. 

The Proposed Project would not interrupt or substantially alter local views, or create any sources of glare 

or excessive nighttime illumination. Development would generally conform to the visual resources goals 

outlined in the Colusa County General Plan, although once the property is taken into federal trust, County 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-16 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

regulations and zoning would no longer apply. Visual impacts would be less than significant and no 

mitigation measures would be warranted. 

4.2 ALTERNATIVE B – REDUCED INTENSITY 

4.2.1 LAND RESOURCES

Impacts related to soils under Alternative B would be similar to those described for Alternative A, 

although proportionately less due to the reduced number of proposed houses. With the implementation of 

the protective measures listed in Section 2.1.7 and the mitigation measures listed in Section 5.1, impacts 

to land resources would be less than significant. 

4.2.2 WATER RESOURCES

Surface Water, Drainage, and Flooding 

Alternative B (Figure 2-2) has been designed to avoid water resources located on and adjacent to the site. 

As in the Proposed Project, no development would occur on APNs 015-030-049 or 015-030-051. 

Alternative B would create an estimated 0.7 acres of impervious services. As in the Proposed Project, 

increased impervious surfaces would result in increased peak flows and increased total discharge from the 

project site during wet weather events has the potential to add increased stormwater flow to the area’s 

drainage systems and result in localized flooding. With implementation of the protective measures 

described in Section 2.1.7, along with the recommended mitigation measures described in Section 5.2, 

potential impacts would be less than significant. 

All of the proposed houses and associated facilities would be located outside of the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain; therefore, no significant impacts due to flooding 

would occur. 

Water Supply and Groundwater 

Two options are available for domestic water supply for Alternative B. Under the first option, water 

would be supplied through pipelines placed within existing roadways from the existing water treatment 

facility on the Colusa Rancheria. Because the number of residences would be 50 percent less than 

Alternative A, the projected domestic water demands would be reduced by approximately half. Since 

much of the water demand of Alternative B would replace existing demand from houses on the 

Rancheria, it is anticipated that the existing wells and treatment system would be able to accommodate 

the water demands of the Reduced-Intensity Alternative, including fire flows. 

Under the second supply option, domestic water would be drawn from domestic wells that currently 

supply the existing homes on APNs 015-030-050 and 015-030-089. If required, improvements would be 

made to these wells including deepening, replacement of existing pumps, or installation of new well 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-17 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

screens and casings. No significant impacts to water supply and groundwater would occur from 

implementation of Alternative B. 

Wastewater Treatment and Disposal 

As with the Proposed Project, wastewater from Alternative B would be treated using individual septic 

systems, which would be installed and maintained according to County guidelines. Disposal of treated 

effluent would be through individual drainfields associated with each house or small cluster of houses. 

The amount of wastewater generated by Alternative B would be approximately half of that associated 

with the Proposed Project. No significant impacts to water resources would occur from implementation 

of Alternative B. 

Water Quality 

Protective measures listed in Section 2.1.7 would be included with Alternative B to reduce the potential 

for increased sediment erosion or discharge of other pollutants from the project site. Similar to the 

Proposed Project, Alternative B would require development and implementation of a SWPPP in 

compliance with the USEPA’s Construction General Permit, as described in Section 5.2. With 

implementation of these measures, potential impacts to water quality would be less than significant. 

4.2.3 AIR QUALITY

Under Alternative B, the significance criteria used to analyze impacts to air quality are the same as those 

used for Alternative A. Project components of Alternative B would result in emissions of CAPs within 

Colusa County. Since the County is in attainment for all CAPs, the project is considered to be in 

conformance with the CAA. Greenhouse gases emissions from Alternative B would be proportionately 

less than Alternative A. With the implementation of mitigation measures provided in Section 5.3, a less 

than significant impact would occur with regard to climate change. 

4.2.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Under Alternative B, the significance criteria and methodology used to analyze impacts to biological 

resources are the same as those utilized for Alternative A. 

Anticipated Impacts to Biological Resources 

Habitats 

Alternative B would result in a reduced amount of direct and/or indirect impacts (i.e., development) to the 

existing ruderal/developed areas onsite, as compared to the Proposed Project. Alternative B has been 

designed to avoid impacts to the agricultural, riparian, irrigation ditch, and pond by adjusting the locations 

of homes to areas that have already been disturbed. The ruderal/developed areas are of little biological 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-18 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

value because they provide minimal resources for native plant and wildlife species, given that they are 

already notably altered and/or developed. Thus impacts to the ruderal/developed areas within the project 

site are considered insignificant. No mitigation is required. 

Wetland Features 

Like the Proposed Project, Alternative B would not result in direct and/or indirect impacts to wetland 

features. Housing lots and structures would be sited more than 150 feet from wetland features including 

the irrigation ditch and the riparian habitat surrounding the pond. Alternative B would also avoid indirect 

impacts including sedimentation and/or modification of existing water quality because the levee provides 

a buffer between the housing envelopes and the riparian habitat that surrounds the Sacramento River. 

Thus, no potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. would be impacted. No mitigation is required. 

Native Trees 

Alternative B has the potential to result in direct impacts (i.e., removal or damage) to the few scattered 

isolated native trees within the ruderal/developed areas onsite; however, the chances of this impact are 

lessened proportionally to the reduced amount of housing construction proposed. Native trees could also 

be indirectly impacted by construction activities because development practices often result in stress 

factors that leave native trees susceptible to further damage, limb and/or trunk failure, disease, decay, and 

increased susceptibility to insect infestations. Examples of indirect impacts to native trees caused by 

development practices include root death caused by oxygen deficiency in compacted or waterlogged soils, 

root death caused by soil changes associated with implementation of new structures or pavement, 

weakened resistance to disease, insect infestation from associated stress factors, and introduction of 

pathogens and insects to the habitat. The protective measures in Section 2.1.7 and mitigation measures in 

Section 5.4 would also apply to Alternative B, to reduce potential impacts to native trees to less than 

significant levels. 

Special-Status Species 

Special-Status Plants

As previously discussed in Section 3.4, the project site does not provide habitat for any federally listed 

plants. Alternative B would not result in direct or indirect impacts to federally listed plants. No 

mitigation is required. 

Special-Status Wildlife

The project site provides potential habitat for the federally listed Valley elderberry longhorn beetle 

(Desmocerus dimorphus californicus; VELB). The housing envelopes have been designed to avoid direct 

impacts to VELB. Alternative B could result in indirect impacts to VELB should construction activities 

occur within a 100-foot buffer of the elderberry shrubs. Upon implementation of the mitigation measures 

in Section 5.4, potential impacts to VELB would be reduced to less than significant levels. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-19 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Development of Alternative B would not result in direct or indirect impacts to Southern DPS green 

sturgeon (Acipenser medirostris), Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) ESU, Central Valley 

spring-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), or Sacramento River winter-run Chinook 

salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) because construction activities would not occur within 150 feet of 

the riparian habitat. In addition, the levee provides a buffer between the construction activities associated 

with Alternative B and the Sacramento River. Alternative B would have no impacts to the navigable 

waters outside the southeast and the northern boundaries of the project site. As such fisheries resources 

including impacts to their DPS or EFH or their proposed or critical habitat would not occur. Alternative 

B would not result in direct or indirect impacts to federally listed fish. No mitigation would be required. 

The riparian habitat and pond on the southeast side of the project site and the irrigation ditch and 

surrounding uplands on the east side of the project site provide potential habitat for the giant garter snake 

(Thamophis gigas; GGS). The mammal burrows within the agricultural habitat provide potential habitat 

during the dormant season. Construction activities have the potential to directly impact GGS should 

grading occur during the dormant season between November and February. The Proposed Project would 

not result in indirect impacts to GGS because the ruderal/developed areas anticipated for development do 

not provide important foraging habitat for GGS. Mitigation measures in Section 5.4 would also apply to 

Alternative B, to reduce potential impacts to GGS to less than significant levels. 

Alternative B has the potential to impact the federal candidate yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus 

americanus) if construction activities occur during the nesting season (June 1 through September 1). 

Disturbance that occurs within 250 feet of an active nest could cause nest abandonment or premature 

fledging of the young. This would be a potentially significant impact. Upon implementation of the 

mitigation measures in Section 5.4, potential impacts from Alternative B would be reduced to a less than 

significant level. 

Alternative B has the potential to impact migratory nesting birds and other birds of prey, if construction 

activities occur during the nesting season (March through September). Activities associated with the 

construction of Alternative B, such as ground disturbance and vegetation removal, could impact nesting 

birds if their nests are located within the proposed development areas. Increased human activity and 

traffic, elevated noise levels, and operation of machinery could also impact nesting birds during 

construction activities. Disturbance of this nature that occurs within 250 feet of an active nest could cause 

nest abandonment or premature fledging of the young. This would be a potentially significant impact. 

The Tribe has committed to avoiding any such impact through implementation of the mitigation described 

in Section 5.4. 

4.2.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Alternative B would be similar to the Proposed Project, but with only half the maximum number of Tribal 

houses. Because there are no known historic properties on the project site, the only potential impacts 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-20 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

would be to unknown archaeological and paleontological resources which may be unearthed during the 

construction process. Mitigation recommended in Section 5.5 would also apply to Alternative B, to 

reduce these potential impacts to a less than significant level. 

4.2.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS/ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Alternative B is similar to the Proposed Project, but includes fewer houses. Under this alternative the 

socio-economic benefits to the Tribe would be somewhat lessened when compared with the Proposed 

Project. Overall the Tribe would benefit from the construction of up to 10 residences and continued 

agricultural uses. Colusa County would lose minor revenue from property taxes after the site is taken into 

trust. This loss of revenue would be a small fraction of total County tax revenues, would not lead to any 

adverse effects, and therefore would not be significant. 

Environmental Justice 

The impacts to low-income and minority populations for Alternative B would be essentially the same as 

for the Proposed Project. No adverse health or environmental impacts to low-income and minority 

populations would occur as a result of Alternative B; however, the beneficial effect to the CIC population 

would be somewhat lessened by the reduction in available Tribal housing. Alternative B would not create 

any adverse impacts with regard to environmental justice. 

4.2.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Vehicle Transportation Networks 

As described in Section 4.1.7, existing intersection and roadway operations in the project vicinity are well 

within acceptable levels of service (LOS), as determined according to Colusa County and Caltrans 

methodologies. Trips generated by Alternative B were estimated using the same ITE trip generation rates 

as were used for Alternative A, resulting in a conservative estimate of 96 daily trips. Under the 

significance criteria established by Caltrans, no significant impacts would occur at local roadway 

segments or intersections. 

Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Networks 

Alternative B would not generate substantial increases in bicycling activity, pedestrian activity, or transit 

riders. Impacts in these areas would be less than significant. Alternative B would not affect any planned 

pedestrian or bicycling networks. 

4.2.8 LAND USE

Development of Alternative B would construct 10 residences while keeping the remaining land for 

agricultural use. The development would be compatible with surrounding land uses in that there are 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-21 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

residential and agricultural near the project site. As similar uses occur in the vicinity, effects to land use 

would be less than significant. 

Coastal Zone 

The project site is located outside of the Coastal Zone. Similar to the Proposed Project, there are no 

activities that would affect coastal resources. 

Agriculture 

As with Alternative A the Colusa County Right-to-Farm Ordinance would continue to protect 

neighboring farmers from potential nuisance suits. 

As described in Section 4.1.8, initial consultation with NRCS resulted in a reconfiguration of the 

alternatives considered for this site. Implementation of Alternative B, as described in Section 2.0, would 

result in the conversion of approximately one acre (0.6 percent) of farmland on the site. Because the area 

of conversion is relatively small, approximately 0.0004 percent of the farmland in the County, and the 

combined FCIR score is less than other alternatives considered for this site; the potential for adverse 

effects is minimal. 

4.2.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

Water Supply 

Under Alternative B, the project site would obtain domestic water through existing groundwater sources 

on the Rancheria or the proposed trust property, with improvements to pumping, treatment, storage, and 

distribution facilities as needed. Alternative B would have no impact on municipal water supplies. The 

water demands and potential impacts to groundwater resources are discussed in Section 4.2.2. 

Wastewater Service 

Under Alternative B, wastewater from the proposed Tribal houses would be treated through installation of 

individual septic systems for each house. The Proposed Project would not impact existing municipal 

wastewater treatment and disposal facilities. 

Solid Waste 

Construction waste would be generated and would consist of the same materials described previously 

under the Proposed Project. This impact would be temporary and less than significant. Solid waste from 

the residences on the project site would be collected by Norcal Waste Systems. 

Assuming a disposal rate of 2.50 lbs/person/day (USEPA, 2008), and 10 residences with an average 

household size of 3.06 persons (US Census Bureau, 2005-2007), approximately 76.5 lbs of solid waste 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-22 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

per day would be generated. Because most Tribal members that would be project residents already live 

within the County, a less than significant impact would occur in regard to solid waste. 

Electricity, Natural Gas, and Telecommunications 

Electrical, natural gas, and telephone services are the same as those described for the Proposed Project. 

The Tribe will coordinate with PG&E, Frontier Communications, and ColusaNet regarding the extension 

of services to the project site. As with the Proposed Project, Alternative B would use propane rather than 

natural gas, which would be contracted directly from local supply companies in the area. No adverse 

utility service impacts would occur under Alternative B. 

Law Enforcement 

Under Public Law 280, the State of California and other local law enforcement agencies have criminal 

enforcement authority on Tribal lands. The Colusa County Sheriff’s Department would provide law 

enforcement services to the project site. Calls for service would not be disproportionate to other 

residential or commercial development in the County. No significant impacts to law enforcement 

services would occur from implementation of Alternative B. 

Fire Protection and Emergency Medical Services 

The increased risk of fire during the construction of the proposed facilities would be similar to that found 

at other construction sites. With the implementation of the protective measures listed in Section 2.1.7 and 

the mitigation measures listed in Section 5.9, impacts to fire protection and emergency medical services 

would be less than significant. 

Current building and fire codes will be adhered to in relation to fire safety. The additional demand for 

fire protection and emergency medical services under Alternative B would be similar to that of the 

Proposed Project. As with Alternative A, the SRFPD would continue to receive donations from the Tribe 

and from the Indian Gaming Special Distribution Fund. Due to the existing availability of emergency 

medical services, the impact to emergency services would be less than significant. 

Public Schools 

As described in Section 4.1.9, the majority of potential residents for the ten houses proposed under 

Alternative B already reside on the Rancheria or in nearby rural Colusa County. No significant impacts to 

public schools would occur. 

Parks and Recreation 

As discussed above for Alternative A, no adverse impacts would occur to local parks or recreational 

facilities due to the fact that the majority of potential residents for the ten houses already reside on the 

Rancheria or in nearby rural Colusa County. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-23 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.2.10 NOISE

With the implementation of Alternative B, construction activity noise (which is considered intermittent 

and temporary in nature) would be less than Alternative A. Because construction noise impacts from 

Alternative A would be less than significant, then it is assumed that noise impacts from Alternative B 

would also be less than significant. 

Operational traffic for Alternative B would be less than that of Alternative A; therefore, producing less 

traffic noise, which is the main noise source during operation. Therefore, a less than significant impact 

would occur during operation of Alternative B. 

4.2.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

As discussed in Section 4.1.11, no hazardous materials have been identified on site or within the 

surrounding area that would affect Alternative B. During construction of any development it is possible 

that hazardous materials such as gasoline, diesel fuel, and hydraulic fluid would be brought on site in 

temporary aboveground storage tanks. The use and storage of hazardous materials is considered 

potentially significant. Mitigation measures are listed in Section 5.11; implementation of these measures 

would ensure a less than significant impact under Alternative B. 

4.2.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

Alternative B would result in the construction of low-density residential development and continued 

agricultural uses on the majority of the CIC Property. The number of houses under this alternative would 

not exceed ten, half the maximum number proposed under Alternative A. Development of Tribal housing 

would be consistent with existing rural residential development in the project area. As described in 

Section 4.1.12, the project would exclude housing on APN 015-030-005, the only parcel of the CIC 

Property that is visible to travelers on SR 45. The project also excludes development on APNs 015-030-

049 and 015-030-051, which adjoin the Sacramento River. Native oak trees would be preserved on the 

property, and all proposed infrastructure and service facilities would be consistent with that of 

surrounding areas. As with Alternative A, visual impacts would be less than significant. 

4.3 ALTERNATIVE C - NO-ACTION 

4.3.1 LAND RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, the land would not be taken into trust and the proposed Tribal housing 

would not be built. The site would remain primarily as walnut orchards with two occupied rural 

residences and scattered agricultural outbuildings. No development would occur on APNs 015-0330-049 

and 015-030-051. Land resources would not be adversely impacted. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-24 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.3.2 WATER RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, the proposed residential uses would not be developed; therefore, no 

improvements to domestic water supply facilities on the CIC Property or on the existing Colusa 

Rancheria would be necessary. No additional impervious surfaces would be created on the project site. 

No adverse impacts to water resources would occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.3.3 AIR QUALITY

Under the No-Action Alternative the site would continue to be used for agriculture and none of the 

construction or operational air quality impacts identified for Alternatives A or B would occur. The 

property could ultimately be developed, which would introduce a source of both direct (stationary source) 

and indirect (mobile source) emissions of CAPs; however, because any development would be required to 

comply with the Colusa County General Plan and would incorporate protective measures and BMPs for 

air quality, these impacts would likely be less than significant. 

4.3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative C, no development would occur within the project site. As such, there 

would be no significant direct or indirect impacts to the biological resources within or in the vicinity of 

the project site. 

4.3.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative the CIC Property would not be placed in trust for the benefit of the 

Tribe and housing would not be constructed. Therefore, there would be no adverse impacts to any 

unknown archaeological or paleontological resources on the site. 

4.3.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS/ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the Tribe would not receive any of the benefits associated with the 

Proposed Project. The twelve parcels comprising the project site would not be brought into trust and 

would remain on Colusa County’s property tax rolls. 

4.3.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Under the No-Action Alternative, there would be no Tribal housing constructed on the CIC Property, and 

consequently no increase in vehicular traffic on project area roadways. There would be no change in 

pedestrian, bicycle, or transit circumstances. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-25 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.3.8 LAND USE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project site would remain under the jurisdiction of Colusa County. 

No land use consistency or compatibility impacts would occur under this alternative. 

The project site would remain in agricultural production under this alternative and no land use conflicts 

would occur. 

4.3.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

The No-Action Alternative would not increase demands on public services. The two occupied residences 

on the project site would continue to utilize the existing groundwater wells and septic systems. No new 

utility extensions would be required. 

4.3.10 NOISE

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project site would remain in agricultural production with the 

exception of the existing houses. Any future development of the project site would be required to meet 

County zoning and General Plan guidelines. With regard to noise, the project site would not be a source 

of construction or operational noise. No noise impacts would occur under the No-Action Alternative. 

4.3.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

No new hazardous material impacts would occur under the No-Action Alternative; however, maintenance 

of existing walnut orchards would result in continued use of various hazardous materials, including 

fertilizers, pesticides, and fuels and lubricants for farming equipment and vehicles. 

4.3.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

Under the No-Action Alternative, the project site would remain in agricultural production with the 

exception of the existing residences. Any future development of the project site would be required to 

meet County design standards. 

4.4 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS 

Potential cumulative impacts for each environmental issue area are discussed below. Cumulative impacts 

are defined in 40 CFR §1508.7 as the impacts: 

... on the environment which result from the incremental impact of the action when added to 

other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless what agency (federal or 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-26 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from 

individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time. 

Apart from the Proposed Project, there are no current or reasonably foreseeable future development 

projects in the vicinity of the CIC Property which could be considered for the cumulative impact analysis. 

Past projects include Tribal development and expansion of the Colusa Casino Resort, and construction of 

the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village medical and office complex. 

4.4.1 LAND RESOURCES

The Proposed Project would incorporate measures to ensure proper design for site conditions to eliminate 

impacts to land resources (topography, soils, seismicity, and mineral resources). No potential cumulative 

impacts would be relevant to this issue area. 

4.4.2 WATER RESOURCES

The Proposed Project would be required to comply with the CWA as it relates to stormwater runoff. 

Compliance with USEPA stormwater pollution prevention requirements will prevent the Proposed 

Project, in combination with other Tribal developments, from causing cumulatively significant surface 

water quality related impacts. 

Impacts to the groundwater basin would not be cumulatively significant, as the Proposed Project, in 

combination with other Tribal developments in the area, would use a relatively small increment of the 

available groundwater. Therefore, no cumulatively significant impact would occur. 

As a part of the project design, any improvements to Tribal domestic wells would include 50-foot sanitary 

seals for protection of water quality. By complying with County standards regarding installation and use 

of septic systems, impacts to groundwater from the Proposed Project or Alternative B would be less than 

significant. Considered cumulatively, the Tribe’s development activities would have a less than 

significant impact on groundwater quality. 

4.4.3 AIR QUALITY

Cumulative impacts to the air basin are addressed within the requirements of the CAA and the General 

Conformity Rule. Because Colusa County is in attainment for all CAPs, the Proposed Project is 

considered to comply with the CAA and the General Conformity Rule. Therefore, a less than significant 

impact would occur. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-27 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

Potential impacts to biological resources on the project site, including potentially jurisdictional waters of 

the U.S., native trees, special-status species, and migratory birds, will be reduced to a less than significant 

level through measures incorporated into project construction and design (Section 2.1.7) and mitigation 

(Section 5.4). Other Tribal developments in the vicinity have included similar measures to reduce 

potential impacts to biological resources. Cumulative impacts to biological resources would be less than 

significant. 

4.4.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES

Cumulative effects to cultural resources typically occur when sites that contain cultural features or 

artifacts are disturbed by development. As these resources are destroyed or displaced, important 

information is lost and connections to past events, people and culture is diminished. No significant 

cultural resources were identified within or adjacent to the project site. However, the records search and 

archival research indicate that the study area is in a region sensitive for both prehistoric/pre-contact 

resources and historic-period resources. Based on this sensitivity, the Proposed Project may impact 

previously unknown archaeological resources, as these sites may be buried with no surface manifestation. 

Significant cumulative impacts to unknown cultural resources could occur if sites continued to be lost, 

damaged, or destroyed without appropriate recordation or data recovery. Mitigation for potential 

cumulative impacts to unknown cultural resources has been specified in Section 5.5 and similar measures 

have been implemented for all local Tribal development. Continued implementation of these measures 

would ensure that cumulative impacts remain less than significant. 

4.4.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS / ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

The Proposed Project or Alternative B, when considered in combination with other past projects, would 

not lead to a significant adverse cumulative impact to socioeconomic conditions or environmental justice. 

Each of the Tribe’s development projects has resulted in a beneficial effect for the recognized minority 

population of the Colusa Indian Community. 

4.4.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION

Vehicle Transportation Networks 

Because no other current or reasonably foreseeable future projects are known, cumulative traffic volumes 

would be those estimated for the Proposed Project in conjunction with existing local traffic, including 

traffic oriented toward the Colusa Casino Resort and the Cachil DeHe Wintun Village. Recent traffic 

studies have shown that local intersections and segments of SR 45 operate at acceptable levels of service, 

with sufficient remaining roadway capacity to ensure a less than significant impact from the addition of 

Proposed Project traffic. Cumulative impacts to vehicle transportation networks would be less than 

significant. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-28 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Transit Networks 

The Proposed Project would not result in an increase in bicycling or transit rider activity. Additionally, 

the project would not adversely affect pedestrian or bicycle networks in conjunction with other Tribal 

developments in the project vicinity. No significant cumulative impacts would occur. 

4.4.8 LAND USE

If taken into Federal trust, the project site would not be subject to City or County jurisdiction regarding 

land uses. Any surrounding cumulative projects on fee land, however, would be subject to local land use 

regulations. Since the project alternatives are generally consistent with the existing and proposed land 

uses in the vicinity, no cumulative land use impacts would occur. 

Agriculture 

The retention or development of agricultural land is largely a policy consideration for governmental 

entities. Prime and unique agricultural lands are considered a limited and valuable resource. Impacts to 

these lands must therefore be analyzed according to NEPA and the FPPA. All land uses in the region are 

subject to approval by local government entities. The developers of any nearby projects on fee land 

would be required to comply with local jurisdictional approval. Considering that the Proposed Project 

site would continue to be used for agriculture, cumulatively significant impacts to agricultural land would 

not occur. 

4.4.9 PUBLIC SERVICES

Public services for the Proposed Project would be accommodated by existing and planned public services, 

or would be provided by the Tribe’s own facilities. As development of other areas continues, the 

combined need for public services may create a cumulative impact. However, all future projects on fee 

land in the region would be subject to approval by local governments, and would include provisions for 

public services. As a result, the Proposed Project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to 

public services. 

4.4.10 NOISE

Traffic noise would dominate the noise environment in the area surrounding the project site during 

cumulative conditions. The Proposed Project, in combination with the proposed cumulative projects in 

the area, would cause a less than significant impact with regard to noise. 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-29 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

4.4.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

There is the potential for impacts related to hazardous materials during construction of the Proposed 

Project as well as the other cumulative projects. All Tribal developments have implemented mitigation 

measures similar to those listed in Section 5.11 regarding hazardous materials storage and use. Any new 

developments would be required to adhere to State and municipal regulations regarding the delivery, 

handling, and storage of hazardous materials, thereby reducing the risk to the public’s health and welfare 

due to accidental exposure. Therefore, there are no significant cumulative hazardous materials impacts 

associated with the Proposed Project. 

4.4.12 VISUAL RESOURCES

Development of the project site under the Proposed Project or Alternative B would be generally 

consistent with nearby rural agricultural development, with no significant impacts to scenic views or 

features. All Tribal development has been designed to complement the rural agricultural scenic resources 

of Colusa County. Any future development in the vicinity would be subject to County review and 

approval, and potentially significant impacts to visual resources would require mitigation. Therefore, the 

Proposed Project or Alternative B, when considered in combination with other past and unknown future 

actions, would not lead to a significant cumulative impact to visual resources. 

4.5 INDIRECT AND GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS 

Under NEPA, indirect and growth-inducing effects of a Proposed Project must be analyzed (40 CFR 

§1508.8[b]). The CEQ Regulations define indirect effects as effects that are caused by the action and are 

later in time or further removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable. 

Growth-inducing effects are defined as effects that foster economic or population growth, either directly 

or indirectly. Direct growth inducement could result, for example, if a project included the construction 

of a new residential development. Indirect growth inducement could result if a project established 

substantial new permanent employment opportunities (e.g., new commercial, industrial, or governmental 

enterprises) or if it removed obstacles to population growth (e.g., expansion of a wastewater treatment 

plant to increase the service availability). Section 4.5.1 assesses the potential for direct and indirect 

growth-inducing effects caused by the alternatives. Other indirect effects are analyzed in previous 

sections by issue area. 

4.5.1 GROWTH-INDUCING EFFECTS

Growth inducement may constitute an adverse impact if the increased growth is not consistent with or 

accommodated by the land use and growth management plans and policies for the area affected. Local 

land use plans provide for development patterns and growth policies that allow for orderly development 

supported by adequate public services and utilities such as water supply, roadway infrastructure, sewer 
4.0 Environmental Consequences 

Analytical Environmental Services 4-30 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

services, and solid waste disposal services. A project that would induce “disorderly” growth (i.e., would 

conflict with local land use plans) could indirectly cause adverse environmental or public service impacts. 

The Proposed Project would include new housing for CIC Tribal members. Many Tribal members are 

currently residents of Colusa County, notably the existing Colusa Rancheria and surrounding rural areas, 

and these families and individuals would constitute the majority of the expected residents of the new 

housing. Few, if any, long-term or permanent employment opportunities would be created beyond those 

that already exist for the ongoing cultivation and maintenance of walnut orchards. Therefore, it is 

anticipated that the net direct local population growth resulting from the project would be minimal. 

Analyses of the adequacy of local infrastructure and services are included in the discussion of 

environmental consequences for each proposed Alternative. No significant, unmitigatible impacts have 

been identified that would result from the Proposed Project. Utility infrastructure would not be 

significantly improved or expanded to increase service availability to any areas surrounding the project 

site. Domestic water supply and wastewater service would only serve Tribal development on the existing 

Rancheria and/or on the proposed trust property. Growth-inducing impacts would be less than significant 

for both of the proposed development alternatives. 
SECTION 5.0 

MITIGATION MEASURES
Analytical Environmental Services 5-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust 

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 5.0 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

5.1 LAND RESOURCES 

Implementation of the protective measures described in Section 2.1.7, along with the mitigation measures 

below shall minimize potential impacts related to land resources. These measures are recommended for 

Alternatives A and B. 

 All site preparation and earthwork construction in the field shall be performed by licensed 

contractors. 

 Suitability of earth and construction materials shall be determined by a licensed professional 

employing geotechnical/soils laboratory testing standards according to standard engineering 

practice. 

 All grading plans, subsurface investigations, and slope stability and seismic design calculations as 

well as all foundation and building design parameters shall be produced under the supervision of 

appropriate licensed professionals. 

 Construction on expansive soils shall be mitigated by using specialized grading techniques or 

designing structural foundations to withstand expansion pressures. 

 The effects of soil movement shall be mitigated by strengthening the soils during grading and/or 

designing and constructing satisfactory foundation support. 

 Prior to finalization of the grading and development plans for the property, design-level 

geotechnical specifications addressing the specific grading and development plans shall be 

developed. The specifications should include, but not be limited to, the following: 

• Site, building, and facility-specific grading recommendations regarding site preparation, 

clearing and grubbing. 

• Select grading procedures, remedial grading procedures, material suitability and compaction 

criteria. 

• Evaluation of soil expansion and corrosion potential. 

• Building-specific foundation design parameters. 

• Site-specific seismic design parameters. 

5.2 WATER RESOURCES 

Implementation of the protective measures described in Section 2.1.7, along with the recommended 

mitigation measures below, would minimize potential impacts to water resources related to the 

construction of Alternatives A and B. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-2 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

 The Tribe shall obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES 

General Permit) from the USEPA for construction site runoff during the construction phase in 

compliance with the Clean Water Act (CWA). A Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan 

(SWPPP) shall be prepared, implemented, and maintained throughout the construction phase of 

the development, consistent with General Permit requirements. The SWPPP would detail the 

BMPs to be implemented during construction and post-construction operation of the Proposed 

Project. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following: 

• Straw wattle placement on cut and fill slopes. 

• Straw wattle check dam installation within drainage swales. 

• Covering disturbed areas with plastic, hydro-seed applications, or straw. 

• Construction entrance installation to reduce off-site sediment transport. 

• Revegetation following construction activities. 

5.3 AIR QUALITY 

The Tribe shall implement the following mitigation measure for Alternatives A and B. 

 Set a five-minute idling time for construction and commercial delivery vehicles. 

 Require energy efficient designed building. 

 Consider LEED certification. 

 Incorporate “Green Building” methodologies. 

 Require the use of energy-efficient appliances in new residences. 

 To the extent possible, require energy efficient lighting. 

 Construct residences in a manner that would take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, and 

landscaping to reduce energy use. 

 Preserve open spaces were possible. 

 Require construction to reuse and recycle construction waste. 

5.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 

Implementation of the protective measures and BMPs described in Section 2.1.7, along with the 

mitigation measures below, would ensure that impacts to biological resources associated with 

Alternatives A and B are less than significant. 

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented for VELB: 

• The applicant shall comply with all avoidance measures including protective measures identified 

in the Conservation Guidelines for the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (USFWS, 1999), to the 

extent feasible. Complete avoidance measures include: 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-3 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

o No construction activities shall occur within 100 feet of elderberry shrubs containing 

stems measuring 1.0 inches or greater in diameter. 

o Firebreaks may not be included in the buffer zone. 

o The USFWS must be consulted before any disturbances within the buffer area are 

considered. 

o In buffer areas construction-related disturbance should be minimized, and any damaged 

area should be promptly restored following construction. 

• All areas to be avoided shall be fenced and flagged during construction activities. In areas where 

encroachment on the 100-foot buffer has been approved by the USFWS, a minimum setback of at 

least 20 feet from the dripline of each elderberry shall be implemented. 

• Signs shall be erected every 50 feet along the edge of avoidance areas with the following 

information: “This area is habitat of the valley elderberry longhorn beetle, a threatened species, 

and must not be disturbed. This species is protected by the FESA, as amended. Violators are 

subject to prosecution, fines, and imprisonment.” The signs should be clearly readable from a 

distance of 20 feet, and must be maintained for the duration of construction. 

• Sensitivity training shall be provided to instruct all construction personnel crews about the status 

of the VELB and the need to protect its elderberry host plant. The training shall include 

identification of special-status species, required practices before the start of construction, general 

measures that are being implemented to conserve these species as they relate to the Proposed 

Action, penalties for noncompliance, and boundaries of the action area and of the permitted 

disturbance zones. Supporting materials containing training information will be prepared and 

distributed. Upon completion of training, all construction personnel will sign a form stating that 

they have attended the training and understand all the conservation measures. Training shall be 

conducted in languages other than English, as appropriate. Proof of this instruction will be kept 

on file with the applicant. The applicant will provide the USFWS with a copy of the training 

materials and copies of the signed forms by project staff indicating that training has been 

completed within 30 days of the completion of the first training session. Copies of signed forms 

will be submitted monthly as additional training occurs for new employees. 

• Staging areas shall be located at least 100 feet from elderberry (Sambucus sp.) shrubs with stems 

at least one inch in diameter at ground level. Temporary stockpiling of excavated or imported 

material shall occur only in approved construction staging areas. Excess excavated soil shall be 

used onsite or disposed of at a regional landfill or other appropriate facility. 

• Equipment operators shall access the action area via existing roads. The operators shall minimize 

access on existing roads in the vicinity of the elderberry shrubs to the maximum extent feasible. 

• Standard precautions shall be employed by the construction contractor to prevent the accidental 

release of fuel, oil, lubricant, or other hazardous materials. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-4 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

The following measures shall be implemented to minimize adverse affects to the federally listed GGS: 

• No construction activities will occur within 100 feet from the toe of slope of the levee that occurs 

east of riparian habitat and pond. No construction activities will occur within 100 feet from the 

riparian habitat that surrounds the irrigation ditch on the west side of the action area. 

• A qualified biologist shall conduct habitat sensitivity training related to GGS for all project 

contractors and personnel, as identified under the VELB mitigation measures. 

• Construction activities shall occur during the active season for GGS (May 1 through October 1), 

because snakes are expected to actively move and avoid danger. 

• A biologist shall be present during land clearing activities to ensure that no take of this species 

occurs. 

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to avoid adverse affects to the federally listed 

candidate yellow-billed cuckoo: 

• Trees anticipated for removal should be removed at least one month prior to and one month 

following the yellow-billed cuckoo nesting season (May 1 through October 1). If trees are 

anticipated to be removed during the nesting season, a preconstruction survey shall be conducted 

by a qualified biologist conducted within 14 days prior to commencement of construction 

activities. If the survey shows that there is no evidence of active nests, then the tree shall be 

removed within ten days following the survey. 

• If any active yellow-billed cuckoo nests are located within the action area, a buffer zone will be 

established around the nests. A qualified biologist will monitor nests weekly during construction 

to evaluate potential nesting disturbance by construction activities. The biologist will delineate 

the buffer zone with construction tape or pin flags within 250 feet of the active nest and maintain 

the buffer zone until the end of breeding season or the young have fledged. Guidance from the 

USFWS will be requested if establishing a 250-foot buffer zone is impractical.

The following mitigation measures shall be implemented to avoid and/or reduce impacts to any 

potentially occurring migratory bird species within the project site: 

• Construction will not occur within 250 feet of identified migratory bird/raptor nests during the 

breeding/nesting season. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-5 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

5.5 CULTURAL RESOURCES 

The following mitigation measures are recommended for Alternatives A and B to reduce the potential for 

significant construction-related impacts to previously unknown cultural resources, including 

archaeological sites, human remains, and/or paleontological resources: 

 In the event that any prehistoric or historic cultural resources are discovered during grounddisturbing activities, all work within 50 feet of the resources shall be halted and a Colusa Indian 

Community tribal representative and BIA archaeologist shall be consulted to assess the 

significance of the find. If any find is determined to be significant by the qualified 

professionals, then appropriate agency and tribal representatives shall meet to determine the 

appropriate course of action. 

 If human remains are encountered, work shall halt in the vicinity of the find and the Colusa 

County Coroner shall be notified immediately. Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.13 of NHPA: 

Post-Review Discoveries, and 43 C.F.R. § 10.4 (2006) of the Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA): Inadvertent Discoveries, the Colusa Indian 

Community Tribal representative and BIA archaeologist will also be contacted immediately. 

No further ground disturbance shall occur in the vicinity of the find until the County Coroner, 

Tribal Official, and BIA archaeologist have examined the find and agreed on an appropriate 

course of action. If the remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the BIA 

representative shall notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The MLD is responsible for 

recommending the appropriate disposition of the remains and any grave goods. 

5.6 SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS/ ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE 

No mitigation is warranted for Alternatives A, B, or C. 

5.7 TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION 

No mitigation is warranted for Alternatives A, B, or C. 

5.8 LAND USE 

No mitigation would be necessary for Alternatives A, B, or C. 

5.9 PUBLIC SERVICES 

Implementation of the protective measures and BMPs described in Section 2.1.7, along with the 

mitigation measures below, would ensure that the construction and operation of Alternatives A or B 

would have a less than significant impact on fire and emergency services. 
5.0 Mitigation Measures 

Analytical Environmental Services 5-6 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

 To minimize the risk of fire and the need for fire protection services during construction, any 

construction equipment that normally includes a spark arrester shall be equipped with a spark 

arrester in good working order. This includes, but is not limited to, vehicles, heavy equipment, 

and chainsaws. 

 During construction, staging areas, welding areas, or areas slated for development using sparkproducing equipment would be cleared of dried vegetation or other materials that could serve as 

fire fuel. To the extent feasible, the contractor would keep these areas clear of combustible 

materials in order to maintain a firebreak. 

 Fire extinguishers shall be maintained onsite and inspected on a regular basis. 

 An evacuation plan shall be developed for the proposed development in the event of a fire 

emergency. 

5.10 NOISE 

No mitigation is warranted for Alternatives A, B, or C. 

5.11 HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 

The mitigation measures listed below are recommended to reduce potential impacts associated with 

construction and operation of Alternatives A and B. 

 Potentially hazardous materials, including fuels, shall be stored away from drainages and 

secondary containment shall be provided for all hazardous materials during construction. 

 Vehicles and equipment used during construction shall be provided proper and timely 

maintenance to reduce potential for mechanical breakdowns leading to a spill of materials into 

water bodies. Maintenance and fueling shall be conducted in an area that meets the criteria set 

forth in the spill prevention plan. 

5.12 VISUAL RESOURCES 

No mitigation is necessary for Alternatives A, B, or C. 
SECTION 6.0 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF PREPARERS
Analytical Environmental Services 6-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 6.0 

CONSULTATION, COORDINATION, AND LIST OF 

PREPARERS 

6.1 FEDERAL AGENCIES CONSULTED 

United States Department of Interior – Bureau of Indian Affairs 

John Rydzik, Chief, Division of Environmental, Cultural Resource Management 

and Safety, Pacific Regional Office 

Patrick O’Mallan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Pacific Regional Office 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

Informal consultation, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office 

Natural Resource Conservation Service 

Andrea Casey, District Conservationist 

6.2 STATE AGENCIES CONSULTED 

California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation 

Wayne Donaldson, State Historic Preservation Officer 

Native American Heritage Commission 

Katy Sanchez 

6.3 TRIBES CONSULTED 

Colusa Indian Community 

Wayne R. Mitchum Sr., Chairperson 

Tammy Fullerton, Tribal Planner 

Shannon Morganson, Administrative Operations Director 

EDC Board 

Colusa Reservation Cachil Dehe Rancheria Housing Corporation 

Colusa Indian Community Economic Development Corporation Board of Directors 
6.0 Consultation and Coordination

Analytical Environmental Services 6-2 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Grindstone Rancheria 

Ronald Kirk, Chairperson 

Regina Dock 

Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians 

Everett Freeman, Chairperson 

Rumsey Rancheria 

Marshall McKay, Chairperson 

Leland Kinter, Native Cultural Renewal Committee 

Cynthia Clarke, Native Cultural Renewal Committee 

Craig Marcus, Tribal Administrator 

Cortina Band of Indians 

Elaine Patterson, Chairperson 

Karen Flores, Vice Chairperson 

Thelma Brafford, Tribal Administrator 

Kesner Flores 

Wintun Environmental Protection Agency 

6.4 LOCAL AGENCIES CONSULTED 

Colusa County Environmental Health Department 

Colusa County Planning Department 

6.5 PREPARERS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 

Analytical Environmental Services (AES) 

Project Director, David Zweig 

Project Manager, Shelley McGinnis 

Deputy Project Manager, Jennifer Bowden 

AES Technical Staff: 

Mike Taggart 

Damon Haydu 

Melissa Oberti 
6.0 Consultation and Coordination

Analytical Environmental Services 6-3 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Kelly Buja 

Peter Bontadelli 

Bibiana Alvarez 

Erin Quinn 

Eva Tang 

Dana Hirschberg 

Glenn Mayfield 
SECTION 7.0 

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Analytical Environmental Services 7-1 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

SECTION 7.0 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

Abrams, L., 1951. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon and California. 

Volume 3. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Abrams, L., 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States: Washington, Oregon and California. 

Volume 4. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. 

Analytical Environmental Services (AES), 2004. Colusa Casino Expansion Project 

Environmental Evaluation. April 2004. Sacramento, California. 

AES, 2007. Colusa Casino Expansion Supplemental Environmental Evaluation. April 2007. 

Sacramento, California. 

Archaeological Research Program, 2005. Cultural Resources Investigation: Colusa Subreach 

Planning Final Report. Report on file, Northeast Information Center, Chico State 

University, Chico.

Barbour, M. G. and Major J., 1988. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. California Native Plant 

Society Sacramento, California. 

Barrett. Samuel A., 1908. The Ethnogeography of Pomo and Neighboring Indians. University of 

California Publications in American Archaeology and Ethnology 6(1):1-332. Berkeley, 

California. 

California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2009. Attainment status. Available at: 

http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: June 2009. 

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), 2003. RareFind 3 Version 3.1.0, California 

Natural Diversity Data Base. Fresno, California. Accessed on August 12, 2009. 

CDFG, 2005. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships-Version 8.1. California Department of 

Fish and Game. California Interagency Wildlife Task Group. Sacramento, California. 

CDFG, 2007. California’s Plants and Animals: Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Fresno, 

California. Accessed from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/about/wildlife.html. Accessed on 

August 12, 2009. 

Calfish, 2009. Fish Data Maps. Available at: 

http://www.calfish.org/FishDataandMaps/tabid/87/Default.aspx. Accessed on August 13, 

2009. 

CaliforniaHerps.com. 2008. Information About California Frogs, Snakes, Lizards, Turtles and 

Salamanders. www.californiaherps.com. Accessed on March 18, 2009. 
7.0 Bibliography 

Analytical Environmental Services 7-2 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

California Native Plant Society (CNPS), 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular 

Plants of California. Fresno, California. 

CNPS, 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Online edition, v6-05c. California 

Native Plant Society. Fresno, California. Accessed from: 

http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Accessed on August 12, 2009. 

California Office of the Attorney General (AG), 2008. CEQA Addressing Global Warming 

Impacts at the Local Agency Level. Available at: 

http://www.ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/ceqa.php Accessed August 4, 2009. 

California Office of Historic Preservation (COHP), 1976. California Inventory of Historical 

Resources. State of California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 

COHP, 1988. Five Views: An Ethnic Historic Site Survey for California. State of California 

Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento. 

COHP, 1990. California Historical Landmarks. State of California Department of Parks and 

Recreation, Sacramento. 

COHP, 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. State of California Department of Parks 

and Recreation, Sacramento. 

COHP, 2009. Historic Properties Directory, Listing by City through February 2009. State of 

California Office of Historic Preservation, Sacramento. 

Central Valley Flood Protection Board (CVFPB). 2009. Available at: 

http://www.cvfpb.ca.gov/index.cfm. Accessed: June 2009. 

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). Basin Plan. 2007. 

Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/. 

Accessed: June 2009. 

City of Colusa. 2000. Available at: www.cityofcolusa.com. Accessed: March 2010. 

Colusa County Code. Available at: http://www.codepublishing.com/ca/colusacounty/. Accessed: 

June 2009. 

Colusa County Farm Bureau. 2007. Available at: http://www.cfbf.com/counties/index.cfm?id=6. 

Accessed: August 5, 2009. 

Colusa County General Plan, 1989. General Plan. Published January 1989. 

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 2005. The Birds of North America. Accessed from: 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/BNA. Accessed on August 12, 2009. 

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997a. Draft memorandum, Guidance Regarding 

Considering of Global Climatic Changes in Environmental Documents Prepared 

Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act, 1997. 
7.0 Bibliography 

Analytical Environmental Services 7-3 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997b. Considering Cumulative Effects Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Documents Prepared by the Council on 

Environmental Quality, 1997. 

County of Colusa. Colusa County General Plan. 1989. 

Department of Water Resources. Sacramento River and Tributaries. Available at: 

http://www.nd.water.ca.gov/PPAs/WaterQuality/RiversStreams/SacramentoRiver/CBD/. 

Accessed: June 2009. 

Ehrlich, P., D. Dobkin, and D. Wheye, 1988. The Birder’s Handbook. Simon and Schuster, New 

York, New York.Environmental Laboratory, 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands 

delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways 

Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Mississippi. 

Eriksen, C. and D. Belk, 1999. Fairy Shrimps of California’s Puddles, Pools, and Playas. Mad 

River Press, Inc. Eureka, California. 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2009. Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 

Map Number 06011C0375F. Effective Date 5/15/2003. Available at: 

http://msc.fema.gov/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/MapSearchResult?storeId=10001&catalo

gId=10001&langId=-1. Accessed: June 2009. 

Federal Transit Administration, 1995. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. Available at: 

http://www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf. Accessed: 

June 2009. 

Gaines, D. and S. A. Laymon, 1984. Decline, Status, and Preservation of the Yellow-billed 

Cuckoo in California. West. Birds 15:49-80. 

Greenway, Gregory, 1978. An Archaeological Survey and Cultural Resource Evaluation of Six 

Northern California Rancherias (Susanville, Cortina, Colusa, Rumsey, Laytonville, and 

Sherwood Valley Rancherias). Report on file, Northwest Information Center, Sonoma 

State University, Rohnert Park, CA. 

Gudde, Erwin G., 1998. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current 

Geographical Names. Fourth edition. University of California Press, Berkeley. 

Gutiérrez, R. J., A. B. Franklin, and W. S. Lahaye, 1995. Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology. 

Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/179. doi:10.2173/bna.179. 

Accessed on August 1, 2009. 

Haynes, Gary, 1991. Mammoths, Mastodons, and Elephants : Biology, Behavior, and the Fossil 

Record. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA. 
7.0 Bibliography 

Analytical Environmental Services 7-4 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Heizer, Robert F. and Franklin Fenega, 1939. Archaeological Horizons in Central California. 

American Anthropologist 41(3):378-399. 

Helm, B.P. 1998. Biogeography of Eight Large Branchiopods Endemic to California. Pages 124-

139 in C.W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren, Jr. and R. Ornduff (eds.) 

Ecology, Conservation, and Management of Vernal Pool Ecosystems- Proceedings from 

a 1996 Conference. California Native Plant society, Sacramento, California. 

Hickman, J.C., ed., 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of California. University of 

California Press, Berkeley, California. 1,400 pp. 

Hoover, M.B., H.E. Rensch, E.G. Rensch, and W.N. Abeloe, 1990. Historic Spots in California. 

Fourth edition, revised by Douglas E. Kyle. Stanford University Press, Stanford, 

California. 

Hughes, J. M. 1999. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 418 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, PA. Available at: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/. Accessed on August 1, 

2009.

Jennings, M. R. and M. P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in 

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Rancho Cordova, California. 

Johnson, Patti, 1978. Patwin. In California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 350-359. Handbook 

of North American Indians, vol. 8, William C. Sturtevart, general editor. Smithsonian 

Institution, Washington, D.C. 

Kroeber, Alfred L., 1925. Handbook of the Indians of California. Bureau of American 

Ethnology Bulletin 78. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Reprinted by Dover, 

New York. 

Mason, 1957. Flora of the Marshes of California. University of California Press, Berkeley and 

Los Angeles, California. 

Moyle, P.B., 2002. Inland Fishes of California. Revised and Expanded Edition. University of 

California Press, Berkley, California. 

Munz, P., 1959. A California Flora. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. 

National Atlas, 2009. Mapmaker. National Atlas of the United States of America, United States 

Department of the Interior. Available at: http://nationalatlas.gov/natlas/Natlasstart.asp. 

Accessed June 2009. 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), 2008. Proposed Designation of Critical Habitat for 

the Southern Distinct Population Segment of North American Green Sturgeon: Draft 

Biological Report. September 2008. National Marine Fisheries Service, Southwest 
7.0 Bibliography 

Analytical Environmental Services 7-5 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

Region Protected Resources Division, Long Beach, California. Available at: 

http://swr.nmfs.noaa.gov/gs/Final_Draft_GS_BioRpt.pdf. Accessed on August 14, 2009. 

National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Soil Survey of Colusa County, 

California. United States Department of Agriculture. 

NRCS. 2009a. National Soil Survey Handbook. Available at: http://soils.usda.gov/ 

technical/handbook/contents/part618.html#39. Accessed: June 2009. 

NRCS. 2009b. Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/ 

app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx 

NRCS. 2010. Web Soil Survey Suitabilities and Limitations for Use: Septic Tank Absorption 

Fields. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm 

NatureServe, 2009. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life [Web Application]. 

(Last updated: October 10, 2008) Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. 

Available at: http://www.natureserve.org/explorer. Accessed on March 11, 2009. 

Peterson, R. T., 1990. A Field Guide to Western Birds. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 

Massachusetts. 

PSOMAS, 2003a. Hydrogeologic Summary for the Colusa Rancheria. Prepared July 2003. 

PSOMAS, 2003b. Water, Wastewater, and Storm Drainage Infrastructure Report for Colusa 

Indian Community & Colusa Casino and Bingo. Prepared September 2003. 

Sawyer, J. O., and T. Keeler-Wolf, 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native 

Plant Society. Fresno, California. 

Sibley, D.A. 2003. National Audubon Society: The Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North 

America. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. 

Stantec Consulting Inc. 2007. Colusa Casino Resort Phases II-IV Expansion Traffic Impact 

Report. 

State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). 2008. City of Colusa Wastewater Treatment 

Plant- Colusa County. Available at: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb5/ 

board_decisions/tentative_orders/0807/colusa_wwtp/colusa_buff.pdf. Accessed: July 

2009. 

State of California, Department of Finance, 2009. E-5 Population and Housing Estimates for 

Cities, Counties and the State, 2001-2009, with 2000 Benchmark. Sacramento, 

California, May 2009. Available online at: 

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-5/2009/ 

Stebbins, R.C. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, 3rd ed. Houghton 

Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts. 
7.0 Bibliography 

Analytical Environmental Services 7-6 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

U.S. Census Bureau, 2008. 2006-2008 American Community Survey. Available online at: 

http://factfinder.census.gov. Accessed: March 2010. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009. Preliminary Estimates of Weighted Average Poverty Thresholds for 

2008. Available online at: http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/ 

threshld/08prelim.html. Accessed: June 2009. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), 2009. Natural Resources Conservation Service 

(NRCS) Web Soil Survey. National Cooperative Soil Survey. Soil Survey Area: Colusa 

County, California. Survey Area Data: Version 6, December 6, 2007. Available at: 

http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/. Accessed on August 11, 2009. 

USDA, 1997. Ecological Subregions of California. Section and Subsection Descriptions. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Region, San Francisco, 

California. Prepared in cooperation with U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural 

Resources Conservation Service and U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management. September 1997. Book number: R5-EM-TP-005. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/projects/ecoregions/ title_page.htm. Accessed on August 11, 

2009. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2005. American Indian Population and Labor Force Report. 

Available online at: http://www.doi.gov/bia/docs/laborforce/2005Labor 

ForceReportFinal.pdf. Accessed: June 2009. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2008. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, 

Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2006. Available at: 

http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/nonhaz/municipal/pubs/msw07-fs.pdf. Accessed: August 

2009. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 1994a. Conservation Guidelines for the Valley 

Elderberry Longhorn Beetle. July 9, 1999. United States Department of the Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California. 

USFWS, 1994b. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Animal Candidate Review for 

Listing as Endangered or Threatened Species. Proposed Rule. Federal Register, 59(219): 

58982-59028. 

USFWS, 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 

1, Portland, Oregon. September 30, 1998. 

USFWS, 2005c. Critical Habitat for the Central Population of California Tiger Salamander on 

August 23, 2005 (50 CFR 17) (USFWS, 2005c). 

USFWS, 2009a. List of federally listed special-status species with the potential to occur on or be 

affected by projects on the Moulton Weir and adjacent Meridian, Colusa, and Sanborn 

Slough quads. Dated January 29, 2009 
7.0 Bibliography 

Analytical Environmental Services 7-7 Colusa Fee-to-Trust

209520 Environmental Assessment

USFWS, 2009b. National Wetlands Inventory Online Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Division of Habitat and Resource Conservation. Last updated on June 27, 2009. 

Available at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html. Accessed on August 12, 

2009. 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1989. The Severity of an Earthquake. Available online at: 

http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/earthq4/severitygip.html. Accessed: June 2009. 

USGS, 2005. Moulton Weir NE, California. U.S. Geological Survey Aerial Photograph. June 

29, 2005. 

USGS, 2009a. USGS Surface Water Statistics for the Sacramento River. Available at: 

http://nwis.waterdata.usgs.gov/ca/nwis/dv/?site_no=11389500&agency_cd=USGS&refer

red_module=sw. Accessed: June 2009. 

USGS, 2009b. Lakeport, California, U.S. Geological Survey 1000k Topographic Quadrangle, 

Mount Diablo Baseline and Meridian. 

University of California Museum of Paleontology, 2009. Online collections database search of 

fossil localities for Colusa County. Available at: http://ucmpdb.berkeley.edu/. Accessed: 

August 2009. 

Western Regional Climate Center (WRCC). 2009. Historical Climate Information. Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca1948. Accessed: June 2009. 

White, Gregory G., 2003. Population Ecology of the Prehistoric Colusa Reach. Unpublished 

PhD Dissertation of file, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Davis. 

Also on file, Northeast Information Center, Chico State University, Chico.