Ana səhifə

U. S. 50 Stateline Core/Loop Road Project nes draft Natural Environment Study


Yüklə 298.96 Kb.
səhifə1/5
tarix09.06.2016
ölçüsü298.96 Kb.
  1   2   3   4   5


U.S. 50 Stateline Core/Loop Road Project NES

Draft Natural Environment Study

U.S. 50 Stateline Core/Loop Road Project

South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California

Stateline, Douglas County, Nevada

03-ED-50-PM 9.00-80.44

EA 03-1E3300



April 2012




Draft Natural Environment Study

U.S. 50 Stateline Core/Loop Road Project

South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California

Stateline, Douglas County, Nevada

03-ED-50-PM 9.00-80.44

EA 03-1E3300



April 2012

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Department of Transportation

City of South Lake Tahoe

City of Stateline, NV
Prepared By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

LSA Associates, Inc.

Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

Federal Highway Administration (California)

Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

Federal Highway Administration (Nevada)

Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

California Department of Transportation, District 3

Approved By: ___________________________________ Date: ____________

Nevada Department of Transportation

Summary

The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), in cooperation with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Nevada Department of Transportation (NDOT), City of South Lake Tahoe, California, Douglas County, Nevada, and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) proposes to realign U.S Highway 50 (U.S. 50) to diverts through traffic on U.S. Highway 50 (U.S. 50) around the tourist centers of the City of South Lake Tahoe, California and the community of Stateline, Nevada.



Project Description

Proposed Improvements

The proposed project would realign both directions of U.S 50 around the casino gaming center between Pioneer Trail in California and Lake Parkway in Nevada. Existing Highway 50 between Park Avenue in California and Lake Parkway would have one lane in each direction and would become a City of South Lake Tahoe local street in California and a Douglas County street in Nevada. Low impact development (LID) and streetscape type improvements would be constructed on the existing U.S 50 to develop a pedestrian friendly environment that could be utilized in the future for special community events. New storm water facilities would be constructed, and sidewalks, landscaping, and street furnishings would be furnished adjacent to Highway 50. Utilities would be installed or relocated as needed. Bike lanes would be provided on Highway 50, and the area would be enhanced for non-vehicular traffic to encourage using other modes of transportation.

Alternatives

Two build alternatives and one no build alternative have been selected for evaluation.

Build Alternative C

With this build alternative, Lake Parkway East, or the mountainside, would be expanded to accommodate traffic passing through the area and the U.S. 50 designation in both directions would be moved to this expanded alignment. The roadway would be extended west of Park Avenue, passing to the south and west of the Village Center shopping complex to a new traffic signal at an intersection formed by the existing U.S. 50 to the east and to the northwest and Pioneer Trail to the west. A signal would also be provided at the new U.S. 50/Harrah's driveway intersection. The new U.S. 50 would provide two travel lanes in each direction, with turn pockets at major intersections and driveways. In addition, this alternative would provide a traffic signal at Friday Avenue on the three-lane alignment to facilitate pedestrian crossings at this location. Streetscape and LID type improvements would be made to the existing U.S. 50 to promote multi-modal transportation, treat storm water runoff and to support economic growth through community revitalization of the area.

Build Alternative D

This build alternative is identical to Alternative C, except that double-lane roundabouts would be constructed at the U.S. 50/Pioneer Trail intersection and at the U.S. 50/Lake Parkway intersection. As it is not possible to provide driveway access within or immediately adjacent to the roundabout, a one-way eastbound drive would be provided along the north side of the western roundabout to provide access to the driveways along the north side of the existing U.S. 50.

No Build Alternative

The No-Build Alternative considers that no improvements will be made to U.S. 50. The current road alignment and lane configuration will remain the same. The No-Build Alternative does not meet the project purpose and need identified earlier in this report.

Biological Study Area

The Biological Study Area (BSA) defined for the project comprises approximately 80.11 acres. The BSA is partially within California and partially within Nevada. The BSA is mostly developed by some natural communities are present including Jeffrey pine series (native and urban), montane meadow habitat, montane riparian habitat, and low sagebrush series. Ruderal vegetation and developed areas are also present.

The project will result in minor impacts to montane meadow and montane riparian habitat. Avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to these habitats, and compensatory mitigation will be required to offset permanent impacts.

Special status species potentially occurring in the BSA include broad-nerved hump moss, long-legged myotis, mule deer, and northern leopard frog. No federally or State listed species are expected to occur in the BSA. Avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to minimize impacts to these species. Compensatory mitigation is not required.

Nesting birds are also likely to be present in the BSA, and avoidance and minimization measures will be implemented to minimize disturbance to nesting birds.

The project will result in minor permanent impacts to wetlands and other waters under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection (NDEP), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Consequently, permits will be required from these agencies. The project will not impact streams or riparian vegetation in the California portion of the BSA; therefore, approvals are not required from the California Department of Fish and Game.

Table of Contents

Cover Sheet i



Summary i

Proposed Improvements i

Alternatives i

Build Alternative C i

Build Alternative D ii

No Build Alternative ii

Table of Contents iv

List of Figures vii

List of Tables vii

List of Abbreviated Terms viii

Chapter 1. Introduction 1

1.1. Project History 1

1.1.1. Purpose and Need 5

1.2. Project Description 6

1.2.1. Current Conditions 6

1.2.2. Proposed Improvements 6

1.2.3. Alternatives 7

1.2.3.1. Build Alternative C 7

1.2.3.2. Build Alternative D 7

1.2.3.3. No Build Alternative 10

Chapter 2. Study Methods 11

2.1. Regulatory Requirements 11

2.1.1. Special Status Species 11

2.1.1.1. Federal Endangered Species Act 11

2.1.1.2. California Endangered Species Act 11

2.1.1.3. Nevada Administrative Code and Revised Statutes (Wildlife and Plants) 11

2.1.1.4. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Special Interest and Sensitive Plant Species 12

2.1.2. Waters of the U.S. and Other Jurisdictional Waters 12

2.1.2.1. Army Corps of Engineers 12

2.1.2.2. Regional Water Quality Control Board 13

2.1.2.3. California Department of Fish and Game 13

2.1.2.4. Nevada Division of Environmental Protection 13

2.1.2.5. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 13

2.1.3. Migratory Bird Treaty Act 14

2.1.4. California Fish and Game Code (Breeding Birds) 14

2.1.5. Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands 14

2.1.6. Executive Order 13112- Invasive Species 14

2.2. Studies Required 14

2.2.1. Literature Review 15

2.2.2. Field Surveys 17

2.2.2.1. Plan Communities Mapping 17

2.2.2.2. Jurisdictional Waters Delineation 17

2.2.2.3. Focused Plant Survey 17

2.3. Survey Dates and Personnel 17

2.4. Agency Coordination and Professional Contacts 17

2.5. Limitations That May Influence Results 18

Chapter 3. Results: Environmental Setting 19

3.1. Description of the Existing Biological and Physical Conditions 19

3.1.1. Biological Study Area 19

3.1.2. Physical Conditions 19

3.1.3. Biological Conditions in the Biological Study Area 19

3.1.3.1. Natural Communities 19

3.1.3.2. Non-Natural Communities 23

3.1.3.3. Description of Common Animal Species 23

3.1.3.4. Migration Corridors 24

3.1.3.5. Aquatic Resources 24

3.1.3.6. Invasive Species 27

3.2. Regional Species and Habitats of Concern 27

Chapter 4. Results: Biological Resources, Discussion of Impacts and Mitigation 34

4.1. Natural Communities of Special Concern 34

4.1.1. Montane Meadow 34

4.1.1.1. Survey Results 34

4.1.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 34

4.1.1.3. Project Impacts 35

4.1.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation 35

4.1.1.5. Cumulative Impacts 35

4.1.2. Montane Riparian 35

4.1.2.1. Survey Results 35

4.1.2.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 36

4.1.2.3. Project Impacts 36

4.1.2.4. Compensatory Mitigation 36

4.1.2.5. Cumulative Impacts 36

4.2. Special Status Plant Species 36

4.2.1. Broad-Nerved Hump Moss 36

4.2.1.1. Survey Results 36

4.2.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 37

4.2.1.3. Project Impacts 37

4.2.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation 37

4.2.1.5. Cumulative Impacts 37

4.3. Special Status Animal Species 37

4.3.1. Long-legged Myotis 38

4.3.1.1. Survey Results 38

4.3.1.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 38

4.3.1.3. Project Impacts 38

4.3.1.4. Compensatory Mitigation 38

4.3.1.5. Cumulative Impacts 38

4.3.2. Mule Deer 39

4.3.2.1. Survey Results 39

4.3.2.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 39

4.3.2.3 Project Impacts 39

4.3.2.3. Compensatory Mitigation 39

4.3.2.4. Cumulative Impacts 39

4.3.3. Northern Leopard Frog 40

4.3.3.1. Survey Results 40

4.3.3.2. Avoidance and Minimization Efforts 40

4.3.3.3. Project Impacts 40

4.3.3.4. Compensatory Mitigation 41

4.3.3.5. Cumulative Impacts 41

Results: Permits and Technical Studies for Special Laws or Conditions 42

4.4. Federal Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary 42

4.5. California Endangered Species Act Consultation Summary 42

4.6. Wetlands and Other Waters Coordination Summary 42

4.6.1. Army Corps of Engineers 42

4.6.2. Regional Water Quality Control Board 43

4.6.3. California Department of Fish and Game 43

4.6.4. Nevada Department of Environmental Protection 43

4.6.5. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 43

4.7. Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands 43

4.8. Invasive Species 44

4.9. Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code (Breeding Birds) 44

Chapter 5. References 45

Appendix A Species Lists 46

Appendix B Wetland Data Sheets 47


List of Figures

Figure 1: Project Location Map 2

Figure 2a: Project Vicinity on Aerial 3

Figure 3a: Project Design – Alternative C 8

Figure 4: Biological Study Area 16

Figure 5: Plant Communities and Land Uses 20

Figure 6: Jurisdictional Waters 26



List of Tables

Table 1: Survey Dates and Personnel 17

Table 1: Survey Dates and Personnel 17

Table 2: Natural Communities, Non-Natural Communities, and Develop Areas in the BSA (acres) 22

Table 3: Potential Jurisdictional Waters in the BSA (acres) 25

Table 4: Special Status Species Potentially Occurring within the BSA and Vicinity 28

Table 5: Impacts to Potential Jurisdictional Waters in the BSA (acres) 42



List of Abbreviated Terms

ac

Acre(s)

ACOE

Army Corps of Engineers

BSA

Biological Study Area

Caltrans

California Department of Transportation

CDFG

California Department of Fish and Game

CESA

California Endangered Species Act

CEQA

California Environmental Quality Act

CNDDB

California Natural Diversity Database

CNPS

California Native Plant Society

CWA

Clean Water Act

ESA

Environmentally Sensitive Area

FESA

Federal Endangered Species Act

EO

Executive Order

FHWA

Federal Highway Administration

FT

federally threatened

ft

Foot/feet

in

Inch(es)

mi

Mile(s)

mph

Miles per hour

MNBMC

Migratory Non-game Bird of Management Concern

MBTA

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

NEPA

National Environmental Policy Act

NMFS

National Marine Fisheries Service

NWP

Nation wide Permit

OHWM

Ordinary High Water Mark

PCWQCA

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act

RWQCB

Regional Water Quality Control Board

ST

State threatened

USFWS

United States Fish and Wildlife Service
  1   2   3   4   5


Verilənlər bazası müəlliflik hüququ ilə müdafiə olunur ©kagiz.org 2016
rəhbərliyinə müraciət