Search

DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTFUERCO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES GALLUP, NEW MEXICO Prepared byU.S, Army Engineer District Los Angeles, California June, 1978October 1978 ADDENDUMDRAFT REVIEW REPORT FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,PUERCO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, GALLUP, NEW MEXICO This report vas completed in June 1978. On June 6, President Carter released his recommendations, commonly called the "President's Water Policy Initiatives," for modifying current national policy and law concerning water resources develop­ment. Recent directives to implement these initiatives require the modification of the cost-sharing requirements for the recommended and alternative plans presented in this report. Implementation of these initiatives would require the "State" of New Mexico to make a cash contribution equal to 5 percent of the Federal cost. The "State" is defined as any legally constituted agency or political subdivision of the State of New Mexico to which the responsibility for the commitment of the cash contribution is delegated by the State. A State contribution of $106,100 (based on October 1977 price levels) would be required for the recommended plan. This contribution would be over and above the non-Federal first cost of $7^,300 shown in the report. The following tabulation shows a comparison of cost-sharing responsibilities for the alternative plans presented in this report and based on current directives to implement the President's Water Policy Initiatives. Comparison of Cost-Sharing for Alternative Plana STRUCTURAL NONSTRUCTURAL PLAN A Double Levee Plan FLAN &Long Single Levee Plan PLAN C Short Single Levee Plan PLAN D “HEP Plan” Floodvall PLAN E "EG Plan" PLAN GFloodproofingPlan Yes ECOMOttlCALLY JUSTIFIED Yes Yes Yes Yes No FIRST COST Flood Control Federal Non-FederalSubtotal, Flood Control* $2,666,000320,000$3,186,000 $2,328,000311.000$2,639,000 $2,015,1*00179.000$2,196,600 $1,926,600129.000$2,035,600 $2,0lU,U00 305.000$2,319,600 $2,206,000730.000***2,936

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS SURFSIDE-SUNSET ANDNEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the Stage 7 Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, Orange County, California )beach nourishment project. I have also reviewed and evaluated the stated views of other interested agencies and concerned public relative to the various practicable alternatives in providing for beach nourishment of Surfside-Sunset Beach. I recommend the dredging of an offshore area to obtain 1.5 million cubic yards of beach nourishment material and ’depositing this material along 6,000 feet of Surfside-Sunset Beach shoreline. j ! ! j2. The primary planning objectives used in formulating the Stage 7 project were (a)provision of beach nourishment material to Surfside-Sunset Beach which is under a continuous state of erosion (b) provision of nourishment material on Surfside-Sunset Beach Which acts as a feeder beach supplying material to the downcoast sandy beach shoreline, and (c) to schedule project construction during a period having the least adverse effect on the'ronment r j ! 3. The possible consequences of the proposed project have been studied relative to environmental, social well-being, economic and engineering impacts. The following points "were considered: j * a. Environmental considerations. The recommended action will alter offshore open :oast subtidal sand-bottom habitat within the 190 acre area proposed to be dredged; it will bave adverse impact on the organisms within and adjoining the area of beach nourishment material deposition. There will be temporary turbidity primarily in the area of material deposition. The extent of turbidity will be reduced through employment of construction features to retain as much sediment material on Surfside-Sunset Beach as possible. The project could possibly have adverse effects on early season grunion spawning during late February and early March 1979. However, depend

DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT IMPERIAL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Amy Engineer District, Los Angeles, California February 1978SUMMARYIMPERIAL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT SAN DIBSO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICEi U.S, Any Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif,Corps of Engineers, P.0. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90012 213 - 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: A 5,000-foot-long submerged breakwater consisting of alternating high and low rubblemound segments will be constructed offshore along the minus-10-foot contour (MLLV). An existing rock groin will be extended by 100 feet to connect with the north end of the breakwater, and a new 600-foot-long rock groin will be constructed from the shoreline to the south end of the breakwater. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The recommended plan will protect a recently replenished public recreational beach, adjacent beachfront structures, and the U.S. Naval Radio Station from beach-erosion damage. Erosion controlwill permit increased public use of the beach and indirectly encourage land-use improvements and economic development of the western portion of the City of Imperial Beach. The recommended structures will provide new subtidal rocky habitat. 3 b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The localised, short-term increases in turbidity that may occur during construction could have a minor impact on biota. The new structures will eliminate 6,6 acres of subtidal sandy-bottom habitat and will be an additional safety hazard to beach users, surfers, and ; boaters. / h, ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives to the recommended plan include: (a) groinfields of various configurations; (b) shoreline revetment; (c) periodic beach nourishment; (d) offshore nonsubmerged breakwater; and (e) no project. 5. COMMENTS REQUESTED: .Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties from whom comments have be

Draft Supplementto the Final Environmental Statqm^[jjsur FSIDE -SUI^EandNEWPORT BEAChlOFIANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA / ^ Y f C rJ f i| /i ^ 1 0 '1 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THEFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District,Los Angeles, CaliforniaDecember 1977SUMMARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (x) Draft Supplement ( ) Final Supplement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The proposed action is a unit of a beach nourishment project which is necessary to restore the eroding Surfside-Sunset Beach shoreline and help maintain the integrity of the sandy beach shoreline downcoast from Surfside-Sunset Beach. The nourishment area or feeder beach extends along approximately 6,000 feet of the Surfside-Sunset sandy beach shoreline. The nourishment material will be obtained from within a 190-acre subtidal borrow site located about 6,500 feet offshore from the feeder beach. In the past, the Corps of Engineers has conducted beach nourishment operations at Surfside-Sunset Beach; nourishment material for these operations hasbeen obtained from the bottom of Anaheim Bay Harbor.3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The most Important beneficial impacts are (a) creation of a wider protective sandy beach along the continually eroding Surfside-Sunset Beach shoreline, thereby reducing the threat of wave-induced damages to existing residential and commercial developments; and (b) provision of sandy beach material at Surfside-Sunset Beach, a feeder beach that provides sand to downcoast public recreational beaches such as Bolsa Chica State Beach, Huntington City Beach, Huntington State Beach, and Vest Newport Beach. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Adverse environmental effects include (a) the destruction of benthic organisms within the 190-a

^ SWEETWATER RIVER FLOODCONTROLCHANNEL,ST^E HIGHWAY^ ROUTE 54,INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5,RECREATION FACILITIESANDCONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' LOS ANGELES DISTRICT JULY 1977DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SWEETWATER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 51*, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5, RECREATION FACILITIES, AND CONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, California July 1977SUMMARY SWEETWATER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL,STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 51*, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5,RECREATION FACILITIES, AND CONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90053. Telephone (213) 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The recommended plan comprises 3.^ miles ofearth-bottom trapezoidal channel to provide design flood protection. To save construction costs and reduce rights-of-way requirements, the flood control channel will be combined with a State of California freeway project. About 1.9 miles of the channel will be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes of State Route 5^. Interstate Route 5 will be modified with the addition of one southbound lane, 1.5 miles in length, and a frecway-to-freeway interchange with State Route 51*. The project will include recreation facilities and acquisition of 168 acres of the Sweetwater-Paradise marsh complex for (a) mitigation of effects resulting from channel construction and (b) preservation of lands for endangered species. Acquisition for mitigation will be a combined Federal/local action, while acquisition for preservation vill be a Federal action. As a corollary element of the recommended plan, the San Diego Unified Port District will designate 50 acres of mudflats as buffer area, and the California Department of Transportation wi

SWEETWATER RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTRECREATION FACILITIESANDCONSERVATIONOFSWEETWATER-PARADISE MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIAE B fl If U U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT JULY 1977DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RECREATION FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION OF SWEETWATER-PARADISE MARSHLANDS Prepared "byU.S. Amy Engineer District Los Angeles, California July 1977SUMMARY RECREATION FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION OF SWEETWATER-PARADISE MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Arny Engineer District, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90053* Telephone (213) 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: () Administrative (X) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The recommended plan comprises recreationfacilities and acquisition of 188 acres of the Sweetwater-Paradise Marsh complex for (a) mitigation of effects resulting from construction of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, and (b) preservation of lands for endangered species. Acquisition for mitigation will be a combined Federal/local action, while acquisition for preservation will be a Federal action. As a corollary element of the recommended plan, the San Diego Unified Port District will lease 50 acres of mudflats as buffer area, and the California Department of Transportation will acquire 11 acres of degraded saltpan and marsh and reestablish them as high quality marsh habitat. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The major beneficial impact is the preservationof a majority of the Sveetvater-Paradlse Marsh complex as a permanent wildlife habitat and the enhancement of recreational opportunities for residents of the area. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: There are no known major adverseenvironmental impacts from the acquisition of marshland or the provision of recreational facilities. U. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives considered to marsh acquisition include: (a) no action, and (b) off-site mitigation. 5. COMMENTS REQUESTED: FEDERAL A

review report for Hood control PUERCO RIVER and AND TRIBUTARIES recreational development GALLUP,NEW MEXICO ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT FINAL Jt£,e4'1E..,(_, ·, 1/ \ --' f~ ', i July, i:979 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT • FIN/\l.. ENVIR01111ENT/lJ.. IMPACT STAIDENT PUERCO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES GALLUP, NEW MEXICO • Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, California July, 1979 SUMMARY PUERCO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES GALLUP, NEW MEXICO ( ) Draft {X) Final Environmental Statement • RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: District Engineer Department of the Army Los Angeles District, Corp~ of Engineers P.O. Box 2711 Los Angeles, CA 90053 Telephone: (213) 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: ( ) Administrative ( X) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The recommended plan for flood control along the Puerco River at Gallup will consist of (a) raising and revetting the existing south levee between Gamerco spur and Munoz Drive; (b) relocating the existing north levee between Gamerco spur and Munoz Drive; (c) constructing a 3,280-foot-long single levee on the south bank from Munoz Drive downstream to the common property line between the city and the State maintenance yards; (d) removing a portion of the rock knoll north of the river and across from the airport; (e) constructing a 2,400-foot-long embankment to prevent overflow onto Interstate 40; (f) providing a bicycle trail and rest area along the south levee; and (g) purchasing 30 acres of flood plain north of the river between Munoz Drive and Allison Road. The 30-acre area will be planted with native vegetation and designated and managed as a natural wildlife area to compensate for wildlife habitat losses associated with project construction, operation and maintenance. • 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By providing IO0-year flood* protectiu.· to about 552 acres of flood plain and developed lands south of the Puerco River, the project will reduce property damage and protect against possible loss oflife during lO0-year or smaller fl

' .•. ,' US Army Corps of Engineers Los Angeles District 0 \ •. '.,, /i Lower Colorado River Proposed General Permit Main Report and Draft Environmental Impact Statement September 1981 • • LOWER COLORADO RIVER PROPOSED GENERAL PERMIT MAIN REPORT AND DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATJ!MENT COUNTIES OP Coconino, Mohave, Yum~ Arizona San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, California Clark, Nevada U.5. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT LOS ANGELl!S, CALIFORNIA SEPTEMBER, 1981 • • LOWER COLORADO RIVER P ROPOSED GENERAL PERMIT TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN REPORT I. INTRODUCTIO N i. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Corps of Engineers Permitting Process Legislative Authority Juris dictional Boundaries EKisting Permit Proced\8'es end Problems Coordination with Other Governmental Agencies Problems with Current Permit Procedures 3. O8JECTJV £S OF THE P ROPOSED ACTION 4. FORMULATION OF THE GENERAL PERMIT Sensitivity Mapping Resource Criter ia and Cumulative [mpect Assessment 5. PROPOSED GENERAL PERMIT Structur-es Cove red by General Permit Continuous Bulkhead Wall with Backfill Contiguous Rip-Rap Slope Send Beach Indi vidual Boat Dock Community Boat Docks 6. Al 'ERNATJVES TO T HE PROPOSED ACTION N

April 1982 • • LOlfER COLORAOO RIVER PROPOSED GRNERAL PERMIT MAI.NlRE~RT AND FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT COU~IES OF Co~onino, Mohave, 'l'.Ullla, Ar1zona San Bernardino, Riverside, Imperial, CaUfornia Cla:rk. Nevada U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DlSTRICT LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA MARCH 1982 • • LOWER COLORADO RIVER PROPOSED GENERAL PERMIT TABLE OF CONTENTS MAIN REPORT Page INTRODUCTION .. , .... .,, ..,, ...., .... , .... , ...................... ,,, .. I, PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION, .........., .., •• , ...........,.,., ., ., .,, ., , , ,' 2, Corps of Engineers Permitting Process••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Legislative Authority••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• Jurisdictional Boundaries •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• , •••.••••.• Existing Permit Procedures and Problems••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Coordination with Other Governmental Entities ••••••••.•••••••••••• Problems with Current Permit Procedures••••• , ••••••••••••••••••••• IO OBJECTIVES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION .................,.....,.... ., .. .,, 3. II FORMULATION OF THE GENERAL PERMIT...................................4, Analysis of Generic Impacts of Permitted Structures................. 11 Developing Cumulative Sensitivities by Comparing Impact 11 Effects with Resource Sensitivities at Impact Locations,,•• •••• ••• 12 Formulation of Permit Criteria and Matrix........................... 13 PROPOSED GENERAL PERMIT ............................................, 5. Structures Covered by General Permit •••••••••••••••••••• ,........... 13 13 Contiguous Bulkhead Wall with Backfill............................ 14Contiguous Rip-Rap Slope.......................................... 14 Sand Beach........................................................ 14 Individual Boat Dock ••• , •••••••••• ,, •••• , ••••••••• , •••••••••••• ,.. 14Community Boat Dock............................................... 20 6, ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION ........., .. .,.,.. .,.,.........., 20 No-Action Alternative.............

Sweetwater River Flood Control ChannelState Highway Route 54, Interstate Highway Route 5,Recreation Facilities & Conservation of MarshlandsSan Diego County, California Sweetwater RiverFinal Environmental Impact Statement March 1982FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTSWEETWATER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 54, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5, RECREATION FACILITIES, AND CONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, California March 1982Note on content and format of FEIS: The July 1977 draft environmental statement for the proposed combined project was prepared prior to receipt of current Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) requirements for preparation of environmental impact statements. The CEQ final regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act require that certain information must be included in this statement. These sections are summary, need for and objectives of the action, alternatives, affected environment, environmental effects, public involvement, list of recipients of the draft and final statements, and list of preparers. The statement must also include a discussion of the relationship of the project to environmental protection statutes and other environmental requirements. A new chapter (No. 10) has been added to the FEIS to summarize project planning since publication of the DEIS. The need for and objectives of the action are discussed in chapter 1 (study authority) and in chapters 9 and 10. Compliance with applicable statutes is discussed in chapter 10. Alternatives are dicussed in chapter 6, affected environment in chapter 2, environmental effects in chapter 4, and public involvement in chapter 9.In addition, chapter 10 contains a discussion of the coordination and consultation process that has occurred since publication of the draft statement, the project modifications made in response to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendations, the phasing of mitigation measures, and any unresol

DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTFUERCO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES GALLUP, NEW MEXICO Prepared byU.S, Army Engineer District Los Angeles, California June, 1978October 1978 ADDENDUMDRAFT REVIEW REPORT FOR FLOOD CONTROL AND RECREATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,PUERCO RIVER AND TRIBUTARIES, GALLUP, NEW MEXICO This report vas completed in June 1978. On June 6, President Carter released his recommendations, commonly called the "President's Water Policy Initiatives," for modifying current national policy and law concerning water resources develop­ment. Recent directives to implement these initiatives require the modification of the cost-sharing requirements for the recommended and alternative plans presented in this report. Implementation of these initiatives would require the "State" of New Mexico to make a cash contribution equal to 5 percent of the Federal cost. The "State" is defined as any legally constituted agency or political subdivision of the State of New Mexico to which the responsibility for the commitment of the cash contribution is delegated by the State. A State contribution of $106,100 (based on October 1977 price levels) would be required for the recommended plan. This contribution would be over and above the non-Federal first cost of $7^,300 shown in the report. The following tabulation shows a comparison of cost-sharing responsibilities for the alternative plans presented in this report and based on current directives to implement the President's Water Policy Initiatives. Comparison of Cost-Sharing for Alternative Plana STRUCTURAL NONSTRUCTURAL PLAN A Double Levee Plan FLAN &Long Single Levee Plan PLAN C Short Single Levee Plan PLAN D “HEP Plan” Floodvall PLAN E "EG Plan" PLAN GFloodproofingPlan Yes ECOMOttlCALLY JUSTIFIED Yes Yes Yes Yes No FIRST COST Flood Control Federal Non-FederalSubtotal, Flood Control* $2,666,000320,000$3,186,000 $2,328,000311.000$2,639,000 $2,015,1*00179.000$2,196,600 $1,926,600129.000$2,035,600 $2,0lU,U00 305.000$2,319,600 $2,206,000730.000***2,936

STATEMENT OF FINDINGS SURFSIDE-SUNSET ANDNEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1. I have reviewed and evaluated, in light of the overall public interest, the documents concerning the Stage 7 Surfside-Sunset and Newport Beach, Orange County, California )beach nourishment project. I have also reviewed and evaluated the stated views of other interested agencies and concerned public relative to the various practicable alternatives in providing for beach nourishment of Surfside-Sunset Beach. I recommend the dredging of an offshore area to obtain 1.5 million cubic yards of beach nourishment material and ’depositing this material along 6,000 feet of Surfside-Sunset Beach shoreline. j ! ! j2. The primary planning objectives used in formulating the Stage 7 project were (a)provision of beach nourishment material to Surfside-Sunset Beach which is under a continuous state of erosion (b) provision of nourishment material on Surfside-Sunset Beach Which acts as a feeder beach supplying material to the downcoast sandy beach shoreline, and (c) to schedule project construction during a period having the least adverse effect on the'ronment r j ! 3. The possible consequences of the proposed project have been studied relative to environmental, social well-being, economic and engineering impacts. The following points "were considered: j * a. Environmental considerations. The recommended action will alter offshore open :oast subtidal sand-bottom habitat within the 190 acre area proposed to be dredged; it will bave adverse impact on the organisms within and adjoining the area of beach nourishment material deposition. There will be temporary turbidity primarily in the area of material deposition. The extent of turbidity will be reduced through employment of construction features to retain as much sediment material on Surfside-Sunset Beach as possible. The project could possibly have adverse effects on early season grunion spawning during late February and early March 1979. However, depend

Draft Supplementto the Final Environmental Statqm^[jjsur FSIDE -SUI^EandNEWPORT BEAChlOFIANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA / ^ Y f C rJ f i| /i ^ 1 0 '1 DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THEFINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District,Los Angeles, CaliforniaDecember 1977SUMMARY SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (x) Draft Supplement ( ) Final Supplement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The proposed action is a unit of a beach nourishment project which is necessary to restore the eroding Surfside-Sunset Beach shoreline and help maintain the integrity of the sandy beach shoreline downcoast from Surfside-Sunset Beach. The nourishment area or feeder beach extends along approximately 6,000 feet of the Surfside-Sunset sandy beach shoreline. The nourishment material will be obtained from within a 190-acre subtidal borrow site located about 6,500 feet offshore from the feeder beach. In the past, the Corps of Engineers has conducted beach nourishment operations at Surfside-Sunset Beach; nourishment material for these operations hasbeen obtained from the bottom of Anaheim Bay Harbor.3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The most Important beneficial impacts are (a) creation of a wider protective sandy beach along the continually eroding Surfside-Sunset Beach shoreline, thereby reducing the threat of wave-induced damages to existing residential and commercial developments; and (b) provision of sandy beach material at Surfside-Sunset Beach, a feeder beach that provides sand to downcoast public recreational beaches such as Bolsa Chica State Beach, Huntington City Beach, Huntington State Beach, and Vest Newport Beach. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Adverse environmental effects include (a) the destruction of benthic organisms within the 190-a

^ SWEETWATER RIVER FLOODCONTROLCHANNEL,ST^E HIGHWAY^ ROUTE 54,INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5,RECREATION FACILITIESANDCONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS ' LOS ANGELES DISTRICT JULY 1977DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SWEETWATER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL, STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 51*, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5, RECREATION FACILITIES, AND CONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, California July 1977SUMMARY SWEETWATER RIVER FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL,STATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 51*, INTERSTATE HIGHWAY ROUTE 5,RECREATION FACILITIES, AND CONSERVATION OF MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90053. Telephone (213) 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The recommended plan comprises 3.^ miles ofearth-bottom trapezoidal channel to provide design flood protection. To save construction costs and reduce rights-of-way requirements, the flood control channel will be combined with a State of California freeway project. About 1.9 miles of the channel will be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes of State Route 5^. Interstate Route 5 will be modified with the addition of one southbound lane, 1.5 miles in length, and a frecway-to-freeway interchange with State Route 51*. The project will include recreation facilities and acquisition of 168 acres of the Sweetwater-Paradise marsh complex for (a) mitigation of effects resulting from channel construction and (b) preservation of lands for endangered species. Acquisition for mitigation will be a combined Federal/local action, while acquisition for preservation vill be a Federal action. As a corollary element of the recommended plan, the San Diego Unified Port District will designate 50 acres of mudflats as buffer area, and the California Department of Transportation wi

SWEETWATER RIVER ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTRECREATION FACILITIESANDCONSERVATIONOFSWEETWATER-PARADISE MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIAE B fl If U U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS LOS ANGELES DISTRICT JULY 1977DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT RECREATION FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION OF SWEETWATER-PARADISE MARSHLANDS Prepared "byU.S. Amy Engineer District Los Angeles, California July 1977SUMMARY RECREATION FACILITIES AND CONSERVATION OF SWEETWATER-PARADISE MARSHLANDS SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Arny Engineer District, 300 N. Los Angeles Street, Los Angeles, California 90053* Telephone (213) 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: () Administrative (X) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: The recommended plan comprises recreationfacilities and acquisition of 188 acres of the Sweetwater-Paradise Marsh complex for (a) mitigation of effects resulting from construction of the Sweetwater River Flood Control Channel, and (b) preservation of lands for endangered species. Acquisition for mitigation will be a combined Federal/local action, while acquisition for preservation will be a Federal action. As a corollary element of the recommended plan, the San Diego Unified Port District will lease 50 acres of mudflats as buffer area, and the California Department of Transportation will acquire 11 acres of degraded saltpan and marsh and reestablish them as high quality marsh habitat. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The major beneficial impact is the preservationof a majority of the Sveetvater-Paradlse Marsh complex as a permanent wildlife habitat and the enhancement of recreational opportunities for residents of the area. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: There are no known major adverseenvironmental impacts from the acquisition of marshland or the provision of recreational facilities. U. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives considered to marsh acquisition include: (a) no action, and (b) off-site mitigation. 5. COMMENTS REQUESTED: FEDERAL A

DRAFTENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT IMPERIAL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Amy Engineer District, Los Angeles, California February 1978SUMMARYIMPERIAL BEACH EROSION CONTROL PROJECT SAN DIBSO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA (X) Draft ( ) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICEi U.S, Any Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif,Corps of Engineers, P.0. Box 2711 Los Angeles, California 90012 213 - 688-5300 1. NAME OF ACTION: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2, DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: A 5,000-foot-long submerged breakwater consisting of alternating high and low rubblemound segments will be constructed offshore along the minus-10-foot contour (MLLV). An existing rock groin will be extended by 100 feet to connect with the north end of the breakwater, and a new 600-foot-long rock groin will be constructed from the shoreline to the south end of the breakwater. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The recommended plan will protect a recently replenished public recreational beach, adjacent beachfront structures, and the U.S. Naval Radio Station from beach-erosion damage. Erosion controlwill permit increased public use of the beach and indirectly encourage land-use improvements and economic development of the western portion of the City of Imperial Beach. The recommended structures will provide new subtidal rocky habitat. 3 b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The localised, short-term increases in turbidity that may occur during construction could have a minor impact on biota. The new structures will eliminate 6,6 acres of subtidal sandy-bottom habitat and will be an additional safety hazard to beach users, surfers, and ; boaters. / h, ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives to the recommended plan include: (a) groinfields of various configurations; (b) shoreline revetment; (c) periodic beach nourishment; (d) offshore nonsubmerged breakwater; and (e) no project. 5. COMMENTS REQUESTED: .Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties from whom comments have be

'FINAL ' ENVIRON STATEMENT < O~ P» £ IE* R„ A4TION AND MAINTENANCEOFS^SSION^'BXY'—"HARBOR”' -"^*■ "A"t N^DTE* GOS *► COU, NTYj — CALIFORNIA j^^T^arr-as© Mgifm rOSES© <§SP faKfferfgiSoi-alTiaFINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT MISSION BAY ENTRANCE CHANNEL DREDGING SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA August 1974MISSION BAY ENTRANCE CHANNEL DREDGING SAN DIEGO RIVER AND MISSION BAY SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Periodic maintenance dredging of Mission Bay entrancechannel, San Diego County, California; dredging spoils will be used to nourish adjacent beaches. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Wave hazards in the entrance channel will be reduced, and beaches that have been eroded will be repaired. Some organisms will be destroyed; others will be disturbed. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Existing bottom dwelling organisms in the project areas will be destroyed, and freely moving organisms (fishes) will be temporarily affected by turbidity. 4. ALTERNATIVES, (a) No action, and (b) nonstructural closing of Mission Bay to boats. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Agricultural Research Service, USDA Soil Conservation Service, USDA Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, USDC National Ocean Survey, NOAA, USDC Environmental Research Laboratories,NOAA, USDC Region IX, DHUD Office of Environmental Project Review, USDI Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI Pacific Southwest Region, USDI Department of the Navy, 11th Naval District Federal Aviation Administration, USDT Highway Programs Office, FHWA, USDT Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Resources Agency of California California Department of Public Health California Division of Highways San Diego County Environmental Development Agency Sa

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OFMORRO BAY HARBOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared ByU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaJuly 1974SUMMARY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OFMORRO BAY HARBOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Perform maintenance dredging within Morro BayHarbor to maintain Federal channels at presently authorized depths. This will include the Entrance, Navy, and Morro Channels (fig. 1). No dredging will be performed outside of the authorized channels, which do not extend south of the county/state tidelands’ line at Fairbank Point. Dredged material will be deposited in the Pacific Ocean about 2,500 feet seaward of the entrance to Morro Bay as shown on the Disposal Area Map (fig. 2). If any future maintenance is required for the breakwater or if there is any major change in the presently proposed plan for maintenance dredging and dredged material disposal, a supplemental environmental statement will be prepared. 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed activity will maintain the utility ofthe harbor for commercial, sport fishing, and U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and private craft. It will maintain the present economic balance of the marine and tourist industry within the community. It will also maintain intra-coastal navigation safety as the only U.S. Coast Guard Cutter base between Monterey and Santa'Barbara. 3b ADVERSE EFFECTS: The presently proposed maintenance dredging will displaceapproximately 350,000 cubic yards of material presently on the bottom of Federal channels. There will be a short-term loss of benthic organisms on the channel floor and at the offshore disposal site; temporary increase of turbidity at the disposal site; temporary visual impact due to the presence of dredging equipment; and possible tempor

PORT HUENEME HARBORVENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PREPARED DYU. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT • LOS ANGELESFEBRUARY 1974FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTPORT HUENEME HARBOR, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaFebruary 197^PORT HUENEME HARBORVENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Dredging the Central Basin and Channel A of PortHueneme Harbor, Ventura County, California to 35 feet. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed project will (1) increase the shipping capacity of Port Hueneme Harbor, and (2) it will disrupt marine life now living in the harbor. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The ecosystem within the harbor willbe temporarily affected by the proposed dredging. Utilization of the increased shipping capacity of the harbor will increase the potential for oil and other waste spillages from vessels. 4 a. ALTERNATIVES TO HARBOR DEVELOPMENT: (a) “No action”, and (b) lightering of ships in lieu of harbor deepening. 4b. ALTERNATIVES TO USE OF DREDGE SPOIL: (a) Use spoil as landfill fordevelopment; (b) use spoil as beach nourishment; (c) use spoil to create marsh lands. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Agricultural Research Service, USDAU.S. Dept, of CommerceU.S. Dept, of Housing and Urban DevelopmentPacific Southwest Region, USD IU.S. Naval Facilities Engineering CommandU.S. Naval Construction Battalion CenterU.S. Coast Guard, 11th DistrictFederal Aviation AdministrationEnvironmental Protection AgencyFederal Power Commission California State Resources Agency California Dept, of Public Health California Division of Highways Ventura County Planning Dept. Ventura County Dept, of Airports and HarborsVentura County Dept, of Public Works American Cetacean Society California Marine Parks and Harbors Assn., Inc. 6. Draft statemen

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California September 1974SUMMARY SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ( ) (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction, between October 1972 and March 1973, of Stages 4B and 5 of the authorized beach erosion control project in Orange County, California. Earlier stages were completed prior to requirement for EIS. Stage 4B and 5 construction included four rock groins averaging 510 feet in length and the placement of about 358,000 cubic yards of beach fill on eroded areas and between the groins. Other authorized project elements, including construction of a breakwater, extension of the Santa Ana River jetty and placement of additional fills, are deferred pending demonstration of need. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Lost recreational and protective beach was restoredand stabilized. Loss of existing sandy beach marine habitat was prevented. New habitats were created in rock structures for rocky shore species. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Temporary turbidity duringconstruction. Loss of beach slope biota in area occupied by groins. Destruction or displacement of beach biota over about thirty acres of fill and borrow area. (Repopulation is probable). 4. ALTERNATIVES: No action; Annual beach replenishment; Revetments;Continuousbreakwater; Vegetative cover; Snow fencing; Submerged breakwaters; Condemnation and relocation of residents; Compressed-air breakwater. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Agricultural Research Service,Soil & Water Research Div., USDA Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., USDC U.S. Dept, of HUD Pacific Southwest Region, USDI Federal Aviation Admin., USDT U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Environmental Protection Agency Resources Agency of Calif. Orange

25 SEPTEMBER 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SAN LUIS REY RIVER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BYU. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA25 September 1970 SAN LUIS REY RIVER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Project Description. The San Luis Rey River flood control project would provide flood protection in the lower San Luis Rey Valley where urban development is taking place, would eliminate the need for filling that otherwise would be required for development, and would permit increased utilization of property by (a) accelerating the growth of industrial and commercial developments on 373 acres and (b) permitting residential use on about 667.5 acres. The recommended channel improvement, which would be approximately 7.2 miles long, would include: (a) An earth-bottom trapezoidal channelabout 5.7 miles long from Murray Road to about 1 mile upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101; (b) about 1.5 miles of channel grading, which in general would be limited to the removal of spoil banks from a point 1 mile upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101 through the "Narrows" section, to the ocean; and (c) about 800 feet of stone-revetted levee on the left .(south) bank of the San Luis Rey River from the Santa Fe railroad to the ocean. The earth-bottom trapezoidal channel, with stone-revetted side slopes, would have a base width of 400 feet. The entrenched channel would average about 19 feet in depth, with levees on the average of about 9 feet above the existing adjacent ground line. Channel invert stabilizers, located about every 2,000 feet, and one concrete drop structure would be con­structed to control the invert slopes and to minimize streambed erosion. Work within the "Narrows" area would be limited to the removal of spoil banks to reduce the backwater effect at the lower end of the proposed channel. Vegetation and ponds within this reach would be left in place and the area would be made available to the California Department of Fish and Game for wi

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LYTLE AND WARM CREEKSSAN BERNARDINO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. LOS ANGELESCORPS OF ENGINEERS MARCH. 1972FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LYTLE AND WARM CREEKS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF. PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.MARCH 1972Lytle and Warm Creeks San Bernardino County, Calif. ( )Draft (X)Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. Name of Action (X)Administrative ( )Legislative 2. Description of action: Construction of channel improvements alongreaches of Lytle, Warm and East Twin Creeks and a reach of the Santa Ana River. The improvements would extend through the Cities of San Bernardino and Colton, San Bernardino County, California. 3a. Environmental impacts: Construction of the channel improvementswould provide flood protection for developed areas consisting of valuable residential, commercial and industrial property, important utilities and interstate highways and railroads. Extensive landscaping and planting along the channels, would provide screening and enhance the esthetic value of the area. 3b. Adverse environmental effects: Loss of seasonal semi-naturalappearance of the watercourses, rapid urbanization of the project area, an increase in the demand for water and waste disposal and in general an increase in all of the ills commonly associated with urbanization. 4. Alternatives: a.Reservoir plan; b. Enlargement of existing channel;c. Improvement of East Branch Lytle Creek only; d. Improvement of East Branch Lytle Creek channel and a reach of Warm Creek; e. Authorized plan; f. Nonstructural measures; and g. No action. 5. Comments received: Environmental Protection Agency Forest Service, USDA Soil Conservation Service, USDA U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development National Park Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI Geological Survey, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USD

25 SEPTEMBER 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AND VICINITY SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA25 September 1970 GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AND VICINITY SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 1. Project description. - The recommended improvement is designed to provide flood protection along Atascadero Creek and its tributaries in the Goleta area, which is essentially a part of the greater Santa Barbara,California, area. The proposed project would comprise 12.5 miles of channel improvement, including 1.3 miles of channel clearing and 11.2 miles of channel construction. The proposed channels would follow the existing alinements of the streams, except along Carneros Creek and for a short reach along San Jose Creek. Carneros Creek would be diverted from its existing course about 0.6 mile upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101to Tecolotito Creek, at a point just downstream from U.S. Highway No. 101.San Jose Creek would be realined for a short distance just upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101 freeway to eliminate sharp bends in the stream and torealine the highway bridge with the railroad bridge. Rectangular and trapezoidal concrete channels were adopted for the upper reaches of the proposed improvements because of grade requirements, the desirability of maintaining depressed channels to handle local storm drainage, and because of the limitation of available rights-of-way. Earth- bottom channels, with stone-revetted side slopes, were recommended along the lower reaches of the streams, which would be within the tidal range. Beautification and recreation features are a part of the recommended plan of improvement. Groups of plantings would be spaced approximately 150 feet apart alternately on each side of the channel and if rights-of- way are available, at road crossings. Each group of plantings would consist of three or more trees, with surrounding shrubs, to be located just outside the access and maintenance roads.

14 December 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BEACH EROSION CONTROL ouNSET CLIFFS PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES1. Project Description: a. Name; Sunset Cliffs b. Specific Location; The authorized project is located in the City of 3an Diego, San Diego County, California. The bluff area along the Ocean Beach section of the city is known locally as Sunset Cliffs. c. Project Purpose: The erosion of the beach and cliffs inthe Ocean Beach and Sunset Cliffs area has been progressing for many years., The retreat of the bluffs has damaged public streets and destroyed both public and private land and improvements. The purpose of the project is to retard the natural erosion process and to insure that the existing public and private improvements are protected. The protective plan of improvement is divided intc two segments, A and B.The limits of segment A are from Santa Cruz Avenue to Osprey Street and the proposed improvements consist of constructing a protective beach at the toe of the cliffs, which would be stabilized by the construction of four rock groins. The limits of segment B are from Osprey Street to Ladera Street and the proposed improvements consist of 11 separate lengths of rock revetment along the toe of the bluffs, construction of two dikes, and the sealing, or closing of 10 caves.- d. Authorizing Document: The city of San Diego, California (Sunset Cliffs), beach erosion project was authorized by act of Congress, Public Law 89-789, 89th Congress, approved 7 November 1966, in accordance with the plan published in House Document No. 477, 89th Congress, 2d session. The environmental statement for this project is authorized by act of Congress, Public Law 91-190, 91st Congress, Senate Bill 1075, approved 1 January 1970. e. Current Status: Funds for the project have not beenappropriated by Congress. With the approval of the Congressional Public Works Committees, the city of San Diego advanced the Federal share (50 p

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA PAULA CREEK CHANNELVENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERSMARCH 1972FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA PAULA CREEK CHANNEL VENTURA COUNTY, CALIF. PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.March 1972Santa Paula Creek Channel Ventura County, California ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Initiate construction of: (a) two debris basins, one each onSanta Paula and Mud Creeks, and (b) concrete channel improvements along both creeks. Recreation would be developed at Santa Paula Creek Debris Basin and channel. The improvements would be in Ventura County, Calif. 3 a. Environmental Impacts: The proposed project would provide protection for theCity of Santa Paula and adjacent agricultural and urban areas from floods originating in the Santa Paula Creek drainage area. The recommended improvements would also protect the existing local water supply and provide for additional recreational facilities. The natural landscape would be altered. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Loss of existing natural streambeds; increasedrequirements for water and sewer facilities; and increased air, water, and noise pollution caused by urbanization and other development. 4. Alternatives: (a) Upstream locations for Santa Paula Creek Debris Basin and additional concrete channel on that creek; (b) upstream location for Mud Creek Debris Basin and additional concrete channel on that creek; (c) other concrete channel sections on Santa Paula Creek; (d) trapezoidal earth bottom channel with drop structures on Santa Paula Creek; (e) flood plain management; and (0 no action. 5. Comments Received: Preliminary draft: Forest Service, USDA Geological Survey, USDISoil Conservation Service, USDA Federal Aviation Administration, USDTBureau of Indian Affairs, USDI F

GILA RIVER BASIN NEW RIVERAND PHOENIX CITY STREAMS ARIZONA FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT DREAMY DRAW DAM MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 1972GILA RIVER BASIN NEW RIVERAND PHOENIX CITY STREAMS ARIZONA DREAMY DRAW DAM MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. Name of action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of action: Initiate construction, on receipt of funds, of flood controlimprovements consisting of a dam and detention basin, a dike, and a spillway in Dreamy Draw, Maricopa County, Ariz. 3 a. Environmental impacts: The proposed project would provide protection for thedownstream northeastern part of the City of Phoenix, Ariz., from floods originating on the 1.3-square-mile drainage area upstream from the recommended improvements. The riparian and upland desert landscape in the project area would be altered by the creation of the borrow area and the construction of the flood control structures. b. Adverse environmental effects: In general, construction of the recommendedimprovements would not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the project area. In fact, removal of solid waste would improve the appearance of the basin area. About 3 acres of animal habitat would be destroyed. 4. Alternatives: (a) Debris basin with concrete spillway and channel improvements; (b)concrete channel only; (c) dam, detention basin, dikes, and spillway at a downstream site;(d) nonstructural or flood plain regulations; and (e) no action. 5. Comments received: Soil Conservation Service, USDA Bureau of Indian Affairs, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Bureau of Mines, USDI Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI National Park Service, USDI Water Quality Office, USEPA Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona Highway Depar

April 1971 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT "SM STREET CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDLES, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaSUMMARY"S" STREET CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, COLORADO RIVER, CALIFORNIA I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U. S.-Array Engineer District, Los Angeles, California. - 1* Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2* Project Description: A concrete channel approximately 3,160 feetalong "S" Street Wash, located in the City of Needles, County of San Bernardino, California. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Project will provide protection againstflood and debris deposition for the City of Needles including residential, commercial and public properties. b. Adverse Environment Effects: A scar on the desert landscape in theupper reaches of the project area - - to be mitigated,in part, by beautifi­cation measures. 4. A11ernatives: (a) no action (b) a diversion levee to divert flowfrom "S" Street Wash and Sidewinder Wash to Roadrunner Wash (c) zoning. 5. Comments Received: E.P.A. H.U.D. U.S. Bureau Mines N.P.S. U.S. - SFW Sec. Resources & Development, California Chief Engineer, San Bern County, California 6. Draft Statement to CEQ 30 March 1971_ Final Statement to CEQ j -1 L'71CONTENTS Page 1. Project description................................................................ 1 2. Environmental setting without the project ................. 1 3. The environmental impact of the proposed project. 4 4. Adverse environmental effects which cannot beavoided should the proposal be implemented. . . . 5 5. Alternatives to the proposed action ............................... 6 6. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivit6 ...................... 7. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved should the proposed action be implemented7 ................................... 8. Coordinati

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT UNIVERSITY WASH AND SPRING BROOK RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA25 September 1970 UNIVERSITY WASH AMD SPRING BROOK RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA EN\TR0r^g]7JAL STATEMENT 1. Project Description. Tne recommended project is designed to prevent the inundation by floods up to 100-year frequency magnitude of highly developed areas along University Wash and Spring Brook, and is located in the north­eastern para of the City of Riverside, California. University Wash would be a rectangular reinforced-concrete channel about 2.7 niles long. The channel would be covered for about 7,600 feet, including 1,900 feet of existing covered section under the U.S. Highway No. 60 and State Highway No. 91 freeway interchange. The channel would have capacities ranging from 2,500 cubic feet per second at the upstream end to 3>200 c.f.s. at the downstream end. The channel widths would vary from about 17 to 23 feet, and wall heights would range from 8 to 11.5 feet. Spring Brook would be a rectangular reinforceu- concrete channel about 2.2 miles long and would terminate at Evans Lake with an 0.3-mile transition and stone-revetted trapezoidal section. The channel would have capacities ranging from 1,650 c.f.3. at the upstream end to 3,900 c.f.s. at the downstream end. The channel width would vary from 12 to 32 feet and the wall height would range from 8.5 to 9 feet. The trapezoidal channel would have a base width of 105 feet with 1 on 2 side slopes and & height to the top of channel lining of 12 feet. Upstream from U.S. Highway No. 395new bridges would be required at the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fc railroad and at Iowa Avenue to keep the design flood within the natural wash. The study was authorized by a resolution adopted on 22 Kay 1959 by the Committee on Public Works cf the United States Senate, which requested the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review the report on Santa Ana River ar.d tributaries, Cali

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT FORVENTURA MARINA VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California10 August 197110 August 1971 Ventura Marina, Ventura County, California ( ) Draft (x) Final Environmental Statement Reponslble Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los AngelesLos Angeles, California 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed navigation Improvement forVentura Marina, Ventura County, California, consists of: a. construction of a detached breakwater 1500 feet long; b. dredging about 800,000 cubic yards to form a sand-trap in the lee of the breakwater;c. construction of recreational facilities for sport fishing; d. construc­tion of parking lots and sanitation facilities. The plan further provides for the United States to maintain the general navigation features of Ventura Marina, constructed by local Interest comprising: a. a northjetty; b. a middle jetty; c. a south jetty; and d. an entrance channel. 3a. Environmental Impacts. The proposed project will provide a suitable and safe entrance to the marina for year round boating activity. The breakwater construction will create excellent sport fishing conditions from the jetty heads, along with public restroom facilities. The con­struction of the proposed project will result in a temporary disruption of the marine biota of the area. If increased navigation and development of the area is not controlled,, additional environmental problems such as, increased water and air pollution, encroachment upon the sand-dunes and the salt and fresh water marshes at the mouth of the Santa Clara River, would result in the elimination of many species of marsh vegetation, waterfowl and wildlife. 3b. Adverse Environmental Effects which cannot be Avoided. The proposed project will result in the direct loss of some marine biota, however, this loss is anticipated to be small. All of the other adverse environ­mental effect

March 1971 (Revised) ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA ROSA WASH PROJECT (TAT MOMOLIKDT DAM AND LAKE ST. CLAIR)PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 1971 SUMMARY Santa Rosa Wash, Pinal County, Arizona ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U. S. Army District, Los Angel°s, California 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Construction of an earthfill dam and appurtenant works on Santa Rosa Wash, Papago Indian Reservation, Pinal County, Arizona. 3. a. Environmental "impacts: The project will provide flood protectionto several Towns and 46,000 irrigable acres along Santa Rosa Wash, irrigate 1,600 acres of desertland to turn it into productive agricultural lands, and provide recreation. Change the sonoran desert ecology to a desert impoundment vegetative ecology along the periphery of the pool. b. Adverse environmental effects: Slight loss of native vegetationresulting from the recreational development will force some wildlife to seek other habitat. Temporary disruption will occur during construction. 4. Alternatives: (a) channel improvement and (b) "do nothing". 5. Comments received: Bureau of Reclamation, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI National Park Service, USDI U.S. Dept. Health Education &Welfare National Park Service, ArcheologicalCen. Bureau of Sport Fisheries andWildlife, USDI Soil Cons Ser, Dept. Ag.orest Service, Dept. Ag.ureau of Mines, USDIIA, USDIOR, USDIrizona Game & Fish Dept. 6. Draft statement to CEQ: Not furnished.Final statement to CEQ: __________________________.1. Project authorization. The Santa Rosa Wash project, Pinal County, Ariz., was authorized by the 1965 Flood Control Act, Public Law 89-298, Eighty-ninth Congress, 1st session, approved 27 October 1965, vhich authorized the construction of water resource development projects for flood control and other purposes. 2. General. Onsite investigations of the Santa Rosa Wash proj

29 September 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WARM CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES UPSTREAM FROM EAST WIN CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF. PREPARED BYU.S. AFMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA29 September 1970 WARM CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES UPSTREAM FROM EAST WIN CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA ENVIRQNI1KNTAL STATEMENT 1. Project Inscription. The recommended plan was developed to provide ahigh degree of flood control by improvements which would be in harmony, insofar as possible, with plans proposed by local interests. The improve­ment is located in San Bernardino County about 65 miles east of the City of Los Angeles and includes the eastern part of the City of San Bernardino. Hie recommended plan provides for the folloi/ing improvements: (a) the Patten Diversion System - comprising five debris basins, a channel, and a diversion levee; (b) the Sand Creek debris basin and channel; (c) the LittleSar.d Creek debris basin and channel; (d) the Karrison Canyon debris basin and channel; (e) the Daley Canyon debris basin and the Del Rosa channel; and (f) the Warm Creek channel. All channels would be rectangular in section and constructed of reinforced concrete. The Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representa­tives , 87th Congress, requested a review of the report on the Santa Ana River and Tributaries, California, published as House Document Number 135, 8lst Congress, first session, with a view to determining the advisability of providing improvements for flood control and allied purposes or. Warns Creek and tributaries, upstream from East Twin Creek, in San Bernardino County, California. The review report was completed and the recommended plan of improvement is now under review by the Secretary of the Army. The proposed project has a 1.5 benefit to cost ratio. (5-1/8^ discount rate). 2. Environmental Setting Without the Project. The Warn Creek basin \rp3treom from the East Twin Creek confluence comprises about 17 square miles in the north-central part o

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GILA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN CAMELSBACK RESERVOIR SITE AND SALT RIVER, ARIZ.(UPPER END OF SAFFORD VALLEY BETWEEN THE BROWN CANAL HEADING AND THE SAN CARLOS INDIAN RESERVATION, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZ.) PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.November 1970First revision I November 1971 Second revision January 1973STATEMENT OF FINDINGS GILA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN CAMELSBACK RESERVOIR SITE AND SALT RIVER, ARIZ.y,ULEY BETWEEN THE GROWN CANAL HEADINGND THE SaN CARLOS INDIAN RESERVATION, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZ.) I. As District Engineer, Los Angeles District, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, I have reviewed and evaluated, in what I believe to be the public interest, the project for Gila River channel improvements, upper end of Safford Valley between the Brown Canal heading and the San Carlos Indian Reservation, Graham County, Ariz., which is outlined in the project description section of this environmental impact statement. In evaluating this project, I have consideredall project documents, comments by concerned agencies and individuals, and possible alternatives. 2. My staff has (a) compiled an environmental impact statement that covers the fundamental and basic environmental impacts; (b) computed the cost and economic impacts of the proposed project; (c) considered the project effects on the surrounding community; (d) considered alternatives; and (e) prepared engineering plans for the project. I have reviewed their findings and the comments of Federal, State, local agencies, and interested parties. 3. In my evaluation the following points were considered: a. Economic considerations. The channel clearing project is a worth- v.hile independent element of the comprehensive plan for improvement of the Gila River upstream from the Salt River. The comprehensive plan also includes Camolsback Reservoir, which is not considered herein. Although the major benefits from the channel clearing would result from salvage ofwa

PB joo TO v '1V.S6, “Il I- '$/ <* e - °I7I C . ( BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DENVER LIBRARY TE0SG020 It wNaA Lt nCnOmUNvTf nYv, AARDIT 7ZAOWNAA // s n ' J #* J> Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer District , Los Angeles, California 92050020 :n0 1 . Project authorization, The M S " Rosa Wash project, Pinal County, A riz ., was authorized by the 1^65 Flood Control Act, Public Law 89-298, Eighty-ninth Congress, 1st session, approved 27 October 1965> which authorized the construction of water resource development projects for flood control and other purposes. 2 . General. Onsite investigations of the Santa Rosa Wash project area were made during the environmental study. The recommended plan was submitted to Federal, State, and lo ca l agencies fo r review and comments. These comments have been considered and are incorporated in th is revised environmental statement. The combined multipurpose lake and the downstream agricultural project sire parts of the overall economic development plan of the Papago Indian Reservation. 3 . Project description. The principal features of the Santa Rosa Wash project (Tat Momolikot _Dam and Lake St. C la ir), which lie s wholly within the Papago Trd-tan Reservation, would include construction of (a) an e a rth fiU embankment with a crest length of 12,500 fe e t, a crest width of 20 fe e t, and a maximum height of 75.5 feet above streambed; (b) two small e a r th fill dikes along the eastern periphery of the lake; (c) conservation outlet works consisting of a gated intake structure and a 5- foot conduit along the right abutment of the dam; (d) a detached broadcrested spillway with a crest length of 1,000 fe e t; (e) ungated flood control outlet works consisting of a rectangular concrete conduit within the built-up section of the spillway and about 4,600 feet of concrete and rock-lined outlet channel; ( f ) about 4 miles of acce

25 SEPTEMBER 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AND VICINITY SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA25 September 1970 GOLETA, CALIFORNIA, AND VICINITY SANTA BARBARA COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT 1. Project description. - The recommended improvement is designed to provide flood protection along Atascadero Creek and its tributaries in the Goleta area, which is essentially a part of the greater Santa Barbara,California, area. The proposed project would comprise 12.5 miles of channel improvement, including 1.3 miles of channel clearing and 11.2 miles of channel construction. The proposed channels would follow the existing alinements of the streams, except along Carneros Creek and for a short reach along San Jose Creek. Carneros Creek would be diverted from its existing course about 0.6 mile upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101to Tecolotito Creek, at a point just downstream from U.S. Highway No. 101.San Jose Creek would be realined for a short distance just upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101 freeway to eliminate sharp bends in the stream and torealine the highway bridge with the railroad bridge. Rectangular and trapezoidal concrete channels were adopted for the upper reaches of the proposed improvements because of grade requirements, the desirability of maintaining depressed channels to handle local storm drainage, and because of the limitation of available rights-of-way. Earth- bottom channels, with stone-revetted side slopes, were recommended along the lower reaches of the streams, which would be within the tidal range. Beautification and recreation features are a part of the recommended plan of improvement. Groups of plantings would be spaced approximately 150 feet apart alternately on each side of the channel and if rights-of- way are available, at road crossings. Each group of plantings would consist of three or more trees, with surrounding shrubs, to be located just outside the access and maintenance roads.

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT NAVIGATION IMPROVEMENT FORVENTURA MARINA VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California10 August 197110 August 1971 Ventura Marina, Ventura County, California ( ) Draft (x) Final Environmental Statement Reponslble Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los AngelesLos Angeles, California 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: The proposed navigation Improvement forVentura Marina, Ventura County, California, consists of: a. construction of a detached breakwater 1500 feet long; b. dredging about 800,000 cubic yards to form a sand-trap in the lee of the breakwater;c. construction of recreational facilities for sport fishing; d. construc­tion of parking lots and sanitation facilities. The plan further provides for the United States to maintain the general navigation features of Ventura Marina, constructed by local Interest comprising: a. a northjetty; b. a middle jetty; c. a south jetty; and d. an entrance channel. 3a. Environmental Impacts. The proposed project will provide a suitable and safe entrance to the marina for year round boating activity. The breakwater construction will create excellent sport fishing conditions from the jetty heads, along with public restroom facilities. The con­struction of the proposed project will result in a temporary disruption of the marine biota of the area. If increased navigation and development of the area is not controlled,, additional environmental problems such as, increased water and air pollution, encroachment upon the sand-dunes and the salt and fresh water marshes at the mouth of the Santa Clara River, would result in the elimination of many species of marsh vegetation, waterfowl and wildlife. 3b. Adverse Environmental Effects which cannot be Avoided. The proposed project will result in the direct loss of some marine biota, however, this loss is anticipated to be small. All of the other adverse environ­mental effect

April 1971 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT "SM STREET CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS NEEDLES, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY,CALIFORNIA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaSUMMARY"S" STREET CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT, COLORADO RIVER, CALIFORNIA I FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Responsible Office: U. S.-Array Engineer District, Los Angeles, California. - 1* Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2* Project Description: A concrete channel approximately 3,160 feetalong "S" Street Wash, located in the City of Needles, County of San Bernardino, California. 3. a. Environmental Impacts: Project will provide protection againstflood and debris deposition for the City of Needles including residential, commercial and public properties. b. Adverse Environment Effects: A scar on the desert landscape in theupper reaches of the project area - - to be mitigated,in part, by beautifi­cation measures. 4. A11ernatives: (a) no action (b) a diversion levee to divert flowfrom "S" Street Wash and Sidewinder Wash to Roadrunner Wash (c) zoning. 5. Comments Received: E.P.A. H.U.D. U.S. Bureau Mines N.P.S. U.S. - SFW Sec. Resources & Development, California Chief Engineer, San Bern County, California 6. Draft Statement to CEQ 30 March 1971_ Final Statement to CEQ j -1 L'71CONTENTS Page 1. Project description................................................................ 1 2. Environmental setting without the project ................. 1 3. The environmental impact of the proposed project. 4 4. Adverse environmental effects which cannot beavoided should the proposal be implemented. . . . 5 5. Alternatives to the proposed action ............................... 6 6. The relationship between local short-term uses of man's environment and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivit6 ...................... 7. Any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources which would be involved should the proposed action be implemented7 ................................... 8. Coordinati

ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT UNIVERSITY WASH AND SPRING BROOK RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA25 September 1970 UNIVERSITY WASH AMD SPRING BROOK RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA EN\TR0r^g]7JAL STATEMENT 1. Project Description. Tne recommended project is designed to prevent the inundation by floods up to 100-year frequency magnitude of highly developed areas along University Wash and Spring Brook, and is located in the north­eastern para of the City of Riverside, California. University Wash would be a rectangular reinforced-concrete channel about 2.7 niles long. The channel would be covered for about 7,600 feet, including 1,900 feet of existing covered section under the U.S. Highway No. 60 and State Highway No. 91 freeway interchange. The channel would have capacities ranging from 2,500 cubic feet per second at the upstream end to 3>200 c.f.s. at the downstream end. The channel widths would vary from about 17 to 23 feet, and wall heights would range from 8 to 11.5 feet. Spring Brook would be a rectangular reinforceu- concrete channel about 2.2 miles long and would terminate at Evans Lake with an 0.3-mile transition and stone-revetted trapezoidal section. The channel would have capacities ranging from 1,650 c.f.3. at the upstream end to 3,900 c.f.s. at the downstream end. The channel width would vary from 12 to 32 feet and the wall height would range from 8.5 to 9 feet. The trapezoidal channel would have a base width of 105 feet with 1 on 2 side slopes and & height to the top of channel lining of 12 feet. Upstream from U.S. Highway No. 395new bridges would be required at the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fc railroad and at Iowa Avenue to keep the design flood within the natural wash. The study was authorized by a resolution adopted on 22 Kay 1959 by the Committee on Public Works cf the United States Senate, which requested the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors to review the report on Santa Ana River ar.d tributaries, Cali

14 December 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT BEACH EROSION CONTROL ouNSET CLIFFS PROJECT, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES1. Project Description: a. Name; Sunset Cliffs b. Specific Location; The authorized project is located in the City of 3an Diego, San Diego County, California. The bluff area along the Ocean Beach section of the city is known locally as Sunset Cliffs. c. Project Purpose: The erosion of the beach and cliffs inthe Ocean Beach and Sunset Cliffs area has been progressing for many years., The retreat of the bluffs has damaged public streets and destroyed both public and private land and improvements. The purpose of the project is to retard the natural erosion process and to insure that the existing public and private improvements are protected. The protective plan of improvement is divided intc two segments, A and B.The limits of segment A are from Santa Cruz Avenue to Osprey Street and the proposed improvements consist of constructing a protective beach at the toe of the cliffs, which would be stabilized by the construction of four rock groins. The limits of segment B are from Osprey Street to Ladera Street and the proposed improvements consist of 11 separate lengths of rock revetment along the toe of the bluffs, construction of two dikes, and the sealing, or closing of 10 caves.- d. Authorizing Document: The city of San Diego, California (Sunset Cliffs), beach erosion project was authorized by act of Congress, Public Law 89-789, 89th Congress, approved 7 November 1966, in accordance with the plan published in House Document No. 477, 89th Congress, 2d session. The environmental statement for this project is authorized by act of Congress, Public Law 91-190, 91st Congress, Senate Bill 1075, approved 1 January 1970. e. Current Status: Funds for the project have not beenappropriated by Congress. With the approval of the Congressional Public Works Committees, the city of San Diego advanced the Federal share (50 p

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA PAULA CREEK CHANNELVENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT,LOS ANGELES CORPS OF ENGINEERSMARCH 1972FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA PAULA CREEK CHANNEL VENTURA COUNTY, CALIF. PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.March 1972Santa Paula Creek Channel Ventura County, California ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. Name of Action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Initiate construction of: (a) two debris basins, one each onSanta Paula and Mud Creeks, and (b) concrete channel improvements along both creeks. Recreation would be developed at Santa Paula Creek Debris Basin and channel. The improvements would be in Ventura County, Calif. 3 a. Environmental Impacts: The proposed project would provide protection for theCity of Santa Paula and adjacent agricultural and urban areas from floods originating in the Santa Paula Creek drainage area. The recommended improvements would also protect the existing local water supply and provide for additional recreational facilities. The natural landscape would be altered. b. Adverse Environmental Effects: Loss of existing natural streambeds; increasedrequirements for water and sewer facilities; and increased air, water, and noise pollution caused by urbanization and other development. 4. Alternatives: (a) Upstream locations for Santa Paula Creek Debris Basin and additional concrete channel on that creek; (b) upstream location for Mud Creek Debris Basin and additional concrete channel on that creek; (c) other concrete channel sections on Santa Paula Creek; (d) trapezoidal earth bottom channel with drop structures on Santa Paula Creek; (e) flood plain management; and (0 no action. 5. Comments Received: Preliminary draft: Forest Service, USDA Geological Survey, USDISoil Conservation Service, USDA Federal Aviation Administration, USDTBureau of Indian Affairs, USDI F

29 September 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT WARM CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES UPSTREAM FROM EAST WIN CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF. PREPARED BYU.S. AFMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA29 September 1970 WARM CREEK AND TRIBUTARIES UPSTREAM FROM EAST WIN CREEK, SAN BERNARDINO,CALIFORNIA ENVIRQNI1KNTAL STATEMENT 1. Project Inscription. The recommended plan was developed to provide ahigh degree of flood control by improvements which would be in harmony, insofar as possible, with plans proposed by local interests. The improve­ment is located in San Bernardino County about 65 miles east of the City of Los Angeles and includes the eastern part of the City of San Bernardino. Hie recommended plan provides for the folloi/ing improvements: (a) the Patten Diversion System - comprising five debris basins, a channel, and a diversion levee; (b) the Sand Creek debris basin and channel; (c) the LittleSar.d Creek debris basin and channel; (d) the Karrison Canyon debris basin and channel; (e) the Daley Canyon debris basin and the Del Rosa channel; and (f) the Warm Creek channel. All channels would be rectangular in section and constructed of reinforced concrete. The Committee on Public Works of the United States House of Representa­tives , 87th Congress, requested a review of the report on the Santa Ana River and Tributaries, California, published as House Document Number 135, 8lst Congress, first session, with a view to determining the advisability of providing improvements for flood control and allied purposes or. Warns Creek and tributaries, upstream from East Twin Creek, in San Bernardino County, California. The review report was completed and the recommended plan of improvement is now under review by the Secretary of the Army. The proposed project has a 1.5 benefit to cost ratio. (5-1/8^ discount rate). 2. Environmental Setting Without the Project. The Warn Creek basin \rp3treom from the East Twin Creek confluence comprises about 17 square miles in the north-central part o

PB joo TO v '1V.S6, “Il I- '$/ <* e - °I7I C . ( BUREAU OF RECLAMATION DENVER LIBRARY TE0SG020 It wNaA Lt nCnOmUNvTf nYv, AARDIT 7ZAOWNAA // s n ' J #* J> Prepared by U.S. Army Engineer District , Los Angeles, California 92050020 :n0 1 . Project authorization, The M S " Rosa Wash project, Pinal County, A riz ., was authorized by the 1^65 Flood Control Act, Public Law 89-298, Eighty-ninth Congress, 1st session, approved 27 October 1965> which authorized the construction of water resource development projects for flood control and other purposes. 2 . General. Onsite investigations of the Santa Rosa Wash project area were made during the environmental study. The recommended plan was submitted to Federal, State, and lo ca l agencies fo r review and comments. These comments have been considered and are incorporated in th is revised environmental statement. The combined multipurpose lake and the downstream agricultural project sire parts of the overall economic development plan of the Papago Indian Reservation. 3 . Project description. The principal features of the Santa Rosa Wash project (Tat Momolikot _Dam and Lake St. C la ir), which lie s wholly within the Papago Trd-tan Reservation, would include construction of (a) an e a rth fiU embankment with a crest length of 12,500 fe e t, a crest width of 20 fe e t, and a maximum height of 75.5 feet above streambed; (b) two small e a r th fill dikes along the eastern periphery of the lake; (c) conservation outlet works consisting of a gated intake structure and a 5- foot conduit along the right abutment of the dam; (d) a detached broadcrested spillway with a crest length of 1,000 fe e t; (e) ungated flood control outlet works consisting of a rectangular concrete conduit within the built-up section of the spillway and about 4,600 feet of concrete and rock-lined outlet channel; ( f ) about 4 miles of acce

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OFMORRO BAY HARBOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared ByU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaJuly 1974SUMMARY OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OFMORRO BAY HARBOR SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Perform maintenance dredging within Morro BayHarbor to maintain Federal channels at presently authorized depths. This will include the Entrance, Navy, and Morro Channels (fig. 1). No dredging will be performed outside of the authorized channels, which do not extend south of the county/state tidelands’ line at Fairbank Point. Dredged material will be deposited in the Pacific Ocean about 2,500 feet seaward of the entrance to Morro Bay as shown on the Disposal Area Map (fig. 2). If any future maintenance is required for the breakwater or if there is any major change in the presently proposed plan for maintenance dredging and dredged material disposal, a supplemental environmental statement will be prepared. 3a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed activity will maintain the utility ofthe harbor for commercial, sport fishing, and U.S. Coast Guard vessels, and private craft. It will maintain the present economic balance of the marine and tourist industry within the community. It will also maintain intra-coastal navigation safety as the only U.S. Coast Guard Cutter base between Monterey and Santa'Barbara. 3b ADVERSE EFFECTS: The presently proposed maintenance dredging will displaceapproximately 350,000 cubic yards of material presently on the bottom of Federal channels. There will be a short-term loss of benthic organisms on the channel floor and at the offshore disposal site; temporary increase of turbidity at the disposal site; temporary visual impact due to the presence of dredging equipment; and possible tempor

PORT HUENEME HARBORVENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT PREPARED DYU. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT • LOS ANGELESFEBRUARY 1974FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENTPORT HUENEME HARBOR, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaFebruary 197^PORT HUENEME HARBORVENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Dredging the Central Basin and Channel A of PortHueneme Harbor, Ventura County, California to 35 feet. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT: The proposed project will (1) increase the shipping capacity of Port Hueneme Harbor, and (2) it will disrupt marine life now living in the harbor. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: The ecosystem within the harbor willbe temporarily affected by the proposed dredging. Utilization of the increased shipping capacity of the harbor will increase the potential for oil and other waste spillages from vessels. 4 a. ALTERNATIVES TO HARBOR DEVELOPMENT: (a) “No action”, and (b) lightering of ships in lieu of harbor deepening. 4b. ALTERNATIVES TO USE OF DREDGE SPOIL: (a) Use spoil as landfill fordevelopment; (b) use spoil as beach nourishment; (c) use spoil to create marsh lands. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Agricultural Research Service, USDAU.S. Dept, of CommerceU.S. Dept, of Housing and Urban DevelopmentPacific Southwest Region, USD IU.S. Naval Facilities Engineering CommandU.S. Naval Construction Battalion CenterU.S. Coast Guard, 11th DistrictFederal Aviation AdministrationEnvironmental Protection AgencyFederal Power Commission California State Resources Agency California Dept, of Public Health California Division of Highways Ventura County Planning Dept. Ventura County Dept, of Airports and HarborsVentura County Dept, of Public Works American Cetacean Society California Marine Parks and Harbors Assn., Inc. 6. Draft statemen

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SURFSIDE-SUNSET AND NEWPORT BEACH ORANGE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared byU. S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California September 1974SUMMARY SURFSIDE-SUNSET-NEWPORT BEACH, CALIFORNIA ( ) (X) Final Environmental Statement RESPONSIBLE OFFICE: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, California 1. NAME OF ACTION: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. DESCRIPTION OF ACTION: Construction, between October 1972 and March 1973, of Stages 4B and 5 of the authorized beach erosion control project in Orange County, California. Earlier stages were completed prior to requirement for EIS. Stage 4B and 5 construction included four rock groins averaging 510 feet in length and the placement of about 358,000 cubic yards of beach fill on eroded areas and between the groins. Other authorized project elements, including construction of a breakwater, extension of the Santa Ana River jetty and placement of additional fills, are deferred pending demonstration of need. 3 a. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Lost recreational and protective beach was restoredand stabilized. Loss of existing sandy beach marine habitat was prevented. New habitats were created in rock structures for rocky shore species. 3b. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS: Temporary turbidity duringconstruction. Loss of beach slope biota in area occupied by groins. Destruction or displacement of beach biota over about thirty acres of fill and borrow area. (Repopulation is probable). 4. ALTERNATIVES: No action; Annual beach replenishment; Revetments;Continuousbreakwater; Vegetative cover; Snow fencing; Submerged breakwaters; Condemnation and relocation of residents; Compressed-air breakwater. 5. COMMENTS RECEIVED: Agricultural Research Service,Soil & Water Research Div., USDA Nat. Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin., USDC U.S. Dept, of HUD Pacific Southwest Region, USDI Federal Aviation Admin., USDT U.S. Coast Guard U.S. Atomic Energy Commission Environmental Protection Agency Resources Agency of Calif. Orange

GILA RIVER BASIN NEW RIVERAND PHOENIX CITY STREAMS ARIZONA FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT DREAMY DRAW DAM MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 1972GILA RIVER BASIN NEW RIVERAND PHOENIX CITY STREAMS ARIZONA DREAMY DRAW DAM MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. Name of action: (X) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of action: Initiate construction, on receipt of funds, of flood controlimprovements consisting of a dam and detention basin, a dike, and a spillway in Dreamy Draw, Maricopa County, Ariz. 3 a. Environmental impacts: The proposed project would provide protection for thedownstream northeastern part of the City of Phoenix, Ariz., from floods originating on the 1.3-square-mile drainage area upstream from the recommended improvements. The riparian and upland desert landscape in the project area would be altered by the creation of the borrow area and the construction of the flood control structures. b. Adverse environmental effects: In general, construction of the recommendedimprovements would not have an adverse impact on the appearance of the project area. In fact, removal of solid waste would improve the appearance of the basin area. About 3 acres of animal habitat would be destroyed. 4. Alternatives: (a) Debris basin with concrete spillway and channel improvements; (b)concrete channel only; (c) dam, detention basin, dikes, and spillway at a downstream site;(d) nonstructural or flood plain regulations; and (e) no action. 5. Comments received: Soil Conservation Service, USDA Bureau of Indian Affairs, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI Bureau of Mines, USDI Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, USDI Bureau of Reclamation, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI National Park Service, USDI Water Quality Office, USEPA Arizona Game & Fish Department Arizona Highway Depar

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LYTLE AND WARM CREEKSSAN BERNARDINO COUNTY , CALIFORNIA U.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT. LOS ANGELESCORPS OF ENGINEERS MARCH. 1972FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT LYTLE AND WARM CREEKS SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CALIF. PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.MARCH 1972Lytle and Warm Creeks San Bernardino County, Calif. ( )Draft (X)Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, Calif. 1. Name of Action (X)Administrative ( )Legislative 2. Description of action: Construction of channel improvements alongreaches of Lytle, Warm and East Twin Creeks and a reach of the Santa Ana River. The improvements would extend through the Cities of San Bernardino and Colton, San Bernardino County, California. 3a. Environmental impacts: Construction of the channel improvementswould provide flood protection for developed areas consisting of valuable residential, commercial and industrial property, important utilities and interstate highways and railroads. Extensive landscaping and planting along the channels, would provide screening and enhance the esthetic value of the area. 3b. Adverse environmental effects: Loss of seasonal semi-naturalappearance of the watercourses, rapid urbanization of the project area, an increase in the demand for water and waste disposal and in general an increase in all of the ills commonly associated with urbanization. 4. Alternatives: a.Reservoir plan; b. Enlargement of existing channel;c. Improvement of East Branch Lytle Creek only; d. Improvement of East Branch Lytle Creek channel and a reach of Warm Creek; e. Authorized plan; f. Nonstructural measures; and g. No action. 5. Comments received: Environmental Protection Agency Forest Service, USDA Soil Conservation Service, USDA U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development National Park Service, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, USDI Geological Survey, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USD

March 1971 (Revised) ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SANTA ROSA WASH PROJECT (TAT MOMOLIKDT DAM AND LAKE ST. CLAIR)PINAL COUNTY, ARIZONA Prepared byU.S. Army Engineer District, Los Angeles, CaliforniaMarch 1971 SUMMARY Santa Rosa Wash, Pinal County, Arizona ( ) Draft (X) Final Environmental Statement Responsible Office: U. S. Army District, Los Angel°s, California 1. Name of Action: (x) Administrative ( ) Legislative 2. Description of Action: Construction of an earthfill dam and appurtenant works on Santa Rosa Wash, Papago Indian Reservation, Pinal County, Arizona. 3. a. Environmental "impacts: The project will provide flood protectionto several Towns and 46,000 irrigable acres along Santa Rosa Wash, irrigate 1,600 acres of desertland to turn it into productive agricultural lands, and provide recreation. Change the sonoran desert ecology to a desert impoundment vegetative ecology along the periphery of the pool. b. Adverse environmental effects: Slight loss of native vegetationresulting from the recreational development will force some wildlife to seek other habitat. Temporary disruption will occur during construction. 4. Alternatives: (a) channel improvement and (b) "do nothing". 5. Comments received: Bureau of Reclamation, USDI Bureau of Land Management, USDI National Park Service, USDI U.S. Dept. Health Education &Welfare National Park Service, ArcheologicalCen. Bureau of Sport Fisheries andWildlife, USDI Soil Cons Ser, Dept. Ag.orest Service, Dept. Ag.ureau of Mines, USDIIA, USDIOR, USDIrizona Game & Fish Dept. 6. Draft statement to CEQ: Not furnished.Final statement to CEQ: __________________________.1. Project authorization. The Santa Rosa Wash project, Pinal County, Ariz., was authorized by the 1965 Flood Control Act, Public Law 89-298, Eighty-ninth Congress, 1st session, approved 27 October 1965, vhich authorized the construction of water resource development projects for flood control and other purposes. 2. General. Onsite investigations of the Santa Rosa Wash proj

FINALENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT GILA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN CAMELSBACK RESERVOIR SITE AND SALT RIVER, ARIZ.(UPPER END OF SAFFORD VALLEY BETWEEN THE BROWN CANAL HEADING AND THE SAN CARLOS INDIAN RESERVATION, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZ.) PREPARED BYU.S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.November 1970First revision I November 1971 Second revision January 1973STATEMENT OF FINDINGS GILA RIVER CHANNEL IMPROVEMENTS BETWEEN CAMELSBACK RESERVOIR SITE AND SALT RIVER, ARIZ.y,ULEY BETWEEN THE GROWN CANAL HEADINGND THE SaN CARLOS INDIAN RESERVATION, GRAHAM COUNTY, ARIZ.) I. As District Engineer, Los Angeles District, U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers, I have reviewed and evaluated, in what I believe to be the public interest, the project for Gila River channel improvements, upper end of Safford Valley between the Brown Canal heading and the San Carlos Indian Reservation, Graham County, Ariz., which is outlined in the project description section of this environmental impact statement. In evaluating this project, I have consideredall project documents, comments by concerned agencies and individuals, and possible alternatives. 2. My staff has (a) compiled an environmental impact statement that covers the fundamental and basic environmental impacts; (b) computed the cost and economic impacts of the proposed project; (c) considered the project effects on the surrounding community; (d) considered alternatives; and (e) prepared engineering plans for the project. I have reviewed their findings and the comments of Federal, State, local agencies, and interested parties. 3. In my evaluation the following points were considered: a. Economic considerations. The channel clearing project is a worth- v.hile independent element of the comprehensive plan for improvement of the Gila River upstream from the Salt River. The comprehensive plan also includes Camolsback Reservoir, which is not considered herein. Although the major benefits from the channel clearing would result from salvage ofwa

25 SEPTEMBER 1970 ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT SAN LUIS REY RIVER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BYU. S. ARMY ENGINEER DISTRICT, LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA25 September 1970 SAN LUIS REY RIVER, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT Project Description. The San Luis Rey River flood control project would provide flood protection in the lower San Luis Rey Valley where urban development is taking place, would eliminate the need for filling that otherwise would be required for development, and would permit increased utilization of property by (a) accelerating the growth of industrial and commercial developments on 373 acres and (b) permitting residential use on about 667.5 acres. The recommended channel improvement, which would be approximately 7.2 miles long, would include: (a) An earth-bottom trapezoidal channelabout 5.7 miles long from Murray Road to about 1 mile upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101; (b) about 1.5 miles of channel grading, which in general would be limited to the removal of spoil banks from a point 1 mile upstream from U.S. Highway No. 101 through the "Narrows" section, to the ocean; and (c) about 800 feet of stone-revetted levee on the left .(south) bank of the San Luis Rey River from the Santa Fe railroad to the ocean. The earth-bottom trapezoidal channel, with stone-revetted side slopes, would have a base width of 400 feet. The entrenched channel would average about 19 feet in depth, with levees on the average of about 9 feet above the existing adjacent ground line. Channel invert stabilizers, located about every 2,000 feet, and one concrete drop structure would be con­structed to control the invert slopes and to minimize streambed erosion. Work within the "Narrows" area would be limited to the removal of spoil banks to reduce the backwater effect at the lower end of the proposed channel. Vegetation and ponds within this reach would be left in place and the area would be made available to the California Department of Fish and Game for wi