Loading...
EIR: Section 08 Coordination and Compliance • SECTION 8 - COORDINATION AND COMPLIANCE Notice of Intent (NOI) publisher March 27, 1995 in Federal Register(60 FR 15750) Public Scoping Meeting/Information Workshop held April 26, 1995 at City of Rancho Palos Verdes Numerous Interagency meetings with California Department of Fish &Game (CDF&G), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) from April 1995 - present. Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act This statue requires Federal agencies to coordinate with the U.S. Fish& Wildlife Service (USFWS), applicable state agencies, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), as appropriate, when a stream or body of water is proposed to be modified. The intent is to give fish and wildlife conservation equal consideration with other purposes of water resources development projects. Coordination with the USFWS,the NMFS, and the California Department of Fish and Game has been ongoing throughout the planning process. Numerous coordination meetings have been held with these resource agencies throughout the planning process. These agencies participated in the planning decisions that included the scope of marine biological surveys performed, the scope of the nearshore • sediment surveys conducted,the scope and location of nearshore contaminate sediment surveys, and all aspects of the habitat valuation performed for this project. USFWS prepared a Planning Aid Report in December 1996 and a Draft Coordination Act Report (CAR)in April 1999. The Draft CAR appears as Appendix D of the EIR/EIS. The Corps' comments on the Draft CAR and the recommendations in the Draft CAR appear in Appendix D. Since preparation of the Draft CAR, a meeting was held with the resource agencies to resolve an outstanding issue that USFWS had with the Habitat Valuation performed for the study. Specifically, the USFWS contended that the habitat valuation model which was used was not appropriate and cited concerns that the Midcontinent Ecological Science Center (MESC) had with the model (see Recommendation #8, page 72 of Appendix D). The results of that meeting are summarized and documented in a memo (Trip Report) prepared by Dr. Adrian Farmer of MESC (see Appendix D). The Corps is continuing coordination with the USFWS, NMFS, and CDF&G as part of the public review of the Draft EIR/EIS and will continue coordination through the finalization of the CAR. (Also see discussion in Chapter 7 of the Main Report.) • 8-1 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Management and Conservation Act, as amended This Draft EIS/EIR includes an Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) Assessment as required by the Magnuson-Stevens Act. Although construction will occur within Essential Fish Habitat, the Corps has determined that this project would result in a significant net increase in beneficial impacts. In compliance with the coordination and consultation requirements of the Magnuson Stevens Act, the Draft EIS/EIR was sent to NMFS for their review. Endangered Species Act The District received a list of threatened and endangered species that potentially could occur in the study area on 19 June 1998; the list was updated in a letter from USFWS dated May 22, 2000. Section 7 (c) of the Endangered Species Act requires consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS)to determine if a Federal action may affect threatened or endangered species, and to ensure that any action does not jeopardize the continued existence or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat of any threatened or endangered species. A Biological Assessment was prepared to comply with the regulations on interagency cooperation regarding compliance with the Endangered Species Act(as per 50 CFR 402) (see Appendix J.) These regulations require that a Biological Assessment be prepared to assess the potential impacts of • Federal projects which are "major construction activities" on listed or proposed threatened and endangered species `_'v Ci'i' `t v2.dh). The Biological Assessment concludes that the proposed project may have a beneficial affect on the Californiavbrowzm pelican and the California least tern. Nn effects are expected to any other threatened or endangered species known or expected to occur in the project area. The Corps is pursuing written concurrence of the USFWS of the assessment as provided under informal consultation (50 CFR 402.13). Clean Air Act The potential air quality impacts of the proposed project have been examined and have been quality impacts proposed compared to the significant levels identified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD),which is the agency with jurisdiction to enforce the Clean Air Act regulations and other relevant local air quality regulations (see Appendix G). The SCAQMD sets the threshold limits which, if exceeded, trigger New Source Review Rules, as defined by the Clean Air Act. The air quality analysis in Appendix G demonstiates that the activities associated with this project are below de minimis levels prescribed in 40 CFR 93.153(b), and is, therefore, exempt from demonstrating conformity to State or Federal Implementation Plans. The project, as proposed, will .. 8-2 • not exceed the threshold limits, and is in compliance with the Clean Air Act, as amended. Clean Water Act In compliance with the guidelines in 40 CFR 230.10(c) (promulgated by EPA under Section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act), no discharge of dredged or fill material due to this project will be permitted which will cause or contribute to significant degradation of the waters of the U.S. The Corps will coordinate this project with the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board. A Section 404(b)(1) evaluation was prepared for this project. The evaluation determines that this project will not adversely impact water quality. National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended Coordination with the California State Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO)will occur in accordance with 36 CFR 800.4 once the required archeological identification studies are completed. Identification studies in the form of archival research, and if necessary, underwater archeological surveys may be required. Any necessary marine archeological surveys will be conducted during the PED phase to ensure compliance with the Act. National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) • evaluations will need to be conducted for any sites that will be impacted as a result of the project. This may require subsurface test excavations. The results of these studies will need to be coordinated with the California State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with Section 106 of the Act. If any archeological or historic sites are determined to be eligible for the NRHP, mitigation measures will be developed and agreed to in a Memorandum of Agreement(MOA). The signatories to the MOA will be the Corps, SHPO, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Execution of the MOA is required prior to the obligation of project funds and the awarding of construction. Any mitigation that is required will be completed prior to construction. Coastal Zone Management Act Section 307c(1) and (2) of the Coastal Zone Management Act require that federal agencies conducting, supporting, or undertaking development activities that are in, or directly affect the coastal zone of a state will insure that the project is, to the maximum extent practicable, consistent with approved state coastal management plans. The California Coastal Act is the state of California's approved coastal management program applicable to the proposed project. To document the degree of consistency with the state's program, the Act and Federal Regulations (15 CFR 930.37) require the preparation of a Consistency Determination whenever a project could directly affect the coastal zone. A Consistency Determination(CD)was prepared and appears in Appendix H. The CD provides a description of the • 8-3 Proposed Action,identifies each relevant policy of the California Coastal Act, discusses the proposed 410. action's consistency with each of the policies, and where applicable, describes measures, which when implemented,will result in project consistency with state policies to the maximum extent practicable. The proposed project activities have been determined to be consistent with the California Coastal Act to the maximum extent practicable, as required by the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. The California Coastal Commission(CCC) has been asked to concur with this determination. Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations -Executive Order 12898 EO 12898 directs federal agencies to assess the effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations within their region of influence. Agencies are encouraged to include demographic information related to race and income in their analysis of environmental and economic effects associated with their actions. The proposed action has no adverse affects on human or socioeconomic resources, and does not affect any minority or low-income populations. No disproportionately high or adverse human adverse human health or environmental effects would be born by minority or low-income populations through either a direct result of the proposed action or cumulative and/or indirect affects. The proposed action is, therefore, consistent with EO 12898 on Environmental Justice. S 411) 8-4