Environmental Impact Report

Fix 5 Cascade Gateway
Shasta County, CA
02–SHA–5–PM R14.8/R20.0
EA 02-0H920
EFIS 0215000083
Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared by the
State of California, Department of Transportation
April 20, 2020

❖
General Information about This Document
What’s in this document:

The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has prepared this Initial Study, which
examines the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Fix 5 Cascade Gateway project
on Interstate 5 in Shasta County. Caltrans is the lead agency under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This document tells you why the project is being proposed,
how the existing environment could be affected by the project, the potential impacts of the
project, and proposed avoidance, minimization, and/or mitigation measures.
What you should do:

• Please read this Initial Study.
• You are invited to review the environmental document and technical studies. A printed copy
of the document can be found during business hours (Monday–Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30
p.m.) at the Caltrans District Office located at 1657 Riverside Drive in Redding or at the
following locations:
o Shasta County Library at 1100 Parkview Avenue, Redding CA
• We welcome your comments. If you have any information or concerns regarding the project,
please send your written comments to Caltrans by the deadline. Submit comments via
regular mail to:
California Department of Transportation

Attn: Carolyn Sullivan
Department of Transportation, North Region Redding
1031 Butte Street, MS-30, Redding, CA 96001
• You may also submit comments via email to:

[email protected].
• Be sure to send comments by the deadline: June 30, 2020
What happens next:
After comments are received from the public and reviewing agencies, Caltrans may: (1) give
environmental approval to the proposed project; (2) do additional environmental studies; or (3)
abandon the project. If the project is given environmental approval and funding is obtained,
Caltrans could design and construct all or part of the project.
For individuals with sensory disabilities, this document is available in Braille, large print, on
audiocassette, or computer disk. To obtain a copy in one of these alternate formats, please
call or write to Caltrans, Attn: Carolyn Sullivan, North Region Office of Environmental
Management, 1657 Riverside Drive, Redding, CA 96001; (530) 225-2928 Voice, or use the
California Relay Service TTY number, 711 or 1-800-735-2929.
❖
SCH No. Pending
02-SHA-5-PM R14.8/R20.0
EA 02-0H920
EFIS 0215000083

Submitted Pursuant to: (State) Division 13, California Public Resources Code
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Transportation
Approved By: Date: 5/7/20

Wesley Stroud, Office Chief
North Region Office of Environmental Management
(530) 225-3510
❖
SCH No. Pending
02-SHA-5-PM R14.8/R20.0
EA 02-0H920
EFIS 0215000083
PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Pursuant to: Division 13, Public Resources Code
Project Description
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) proposes to reconstruct and widen
mainline Interstate 5 (I-5) from 4 lanes to 6 lanes from post miles (PM) R14.8 to R20.0 in Shasta
County, including widening to the median with 12 feet lanes and 10 feet inside shoulders and
the following structures: East Redding (5/44) Separation (06-0126L), N5W44 Connector
Undercrossing (UC) (06-0127L), Route 5/299 Separation (06-01239 L&R), Twin View Blvd UC
(06-0143 L&R), and Churn Creek bridge (06-0107).
Determination
This proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) is included to give notice to interested
agencies and the public that it is Caltrans’ intent to adopt an MND for this project. This does not
mean that Caltrans’ decision regarding the project is final. This MND is subject to change based
on comments received by interested agencies and the public.
Caltrans has prepared an Initial Study for this project, and pending public review, expects to
determine from this study that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on the
environment for the following reasons:
The proposed project would have no effect on agriculture and forest resources, cultural
resources, Tribal cultural resources, land use and planning, mineral resources, population and
housing, and recreation.
The proposed project would have less than significant impacts on aesthetics, air quality, energy,
geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, greenhouse
gas emissions, noise, transportation, public services, utilities and service systems, wildfire, and
mandatory findings of significance.
With incorporated mitigation measures to mitigate for impacts to the movement of native
resident wildlife species within migratory wildlife corridors, the project would not have significant
impacts to biological resources
Individual impacts would not have a cumulatively significant impact on the environment.
Approved By: Date:

Wesley Stroud, Office Chief
North Region Office of Environmental Management
(530) 225-3510
❖
Table of Contents
Chapter 1. Proposed Project ...........................................................................................1
Chapter 2. CEQA Environmental Checklist......................................................................9
Chapter 3. Discussion of Environmental Impacts...........................................................31
3.1 AESTHETICS .....................................................................................................................31
3.2 AIR QUALITY.....................................................................................................................32
3.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ..................................................................................................39
3.4 ENERGY ...........................................................................................................................49
3.5 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ........................................................................................................52
3.6 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ..........................................................................................53
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS .............................................................................71
3.8 HYDROLOGY AND W ATER QUALITY ....................................................................................75
3.9 NOISE ..............................................................................................................................81
3.10 TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC .............................................................................................88
3.11 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS ....................................................................................96
Chapter 4. List of Preparers ........................................................................................ 102
References ............................................................................................................................. 104
List of Tables
Table 1. Permit and Approvals .................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources ...................34
Table 3. Modeled Annual CO2 Emissions and Vehicle Miles Traveled, by Alternative ..............63
Table 4. Summary of Operational Emissions of CO and NOx by Alternative .............................63
Table 5. Estimates of GHG Emissions During Construction (in U.S. Tons) ..............................65
Table 6. Modeled CO2 Emissions by Alternatives (in U.S. Tons) ..............................................65
Table 7. Noise Abatement Criteria ...........................................................................................82
Table 8. I-5 Future worst hour noise levels...............................................................................86
Table 9. Freeway Interchanges ................................................................................................89
Table 10. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes and Other Metrics in the Project Area .........92
Table 11. Total Daily VMT and VMT Per Capita1......................................................................94
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3

Figure 2. U.S. 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................58
Figure 3. California 2017 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .............................................................58
Figure 4. Change in California GDP, Population, and GHG Emissions since 2000 ..................59
Figure 5. Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On-road CO2 Emissions
(Source: Barth and Boriboonsomsin 2010)................................................................................61
Figure 6. California Climate Strategy ........................................................................................66
Figure 7. Noise Levels of Common Activities ...........................................................................83
Figure 8. Levels of Service for Freeways .................................................................................91
Figure 9. Draft fire hazard severity zones in Local Responsibility Area ....................................98
Figure 10. Fire hazard severity zones in State Responsibility Area ..........................................99
List of Abbreviated Terms
AB Assembly Bill
ARB (California) Air Resources Board
BAU Business-as-usual
BMPs Best management practices
CAFE Corporate Average Fuel Economy
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCAA California Clean Air Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 Methane
CNDDB California National Diversity Database
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CO Carbon monoxide
CO-CAT Coastal and Ocean Working Group of the California Climate Action Team
CTP California Transportation Plan
CVRWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
DOT Department of Transportation
EO Executive Order
EPACT92 Energy Policy Act of 1992
ESA Environmentally sensitive area
FCAA Federal Clean Air Act
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FTA Federal Transit Administration
FTIP Federal Transportation Improvement Program
GHG Greenhouse gas
HFC-134a 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane
HFC-152a Difluoroethane
HFC-23 Fluoroform
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
LCFS Low Carbon Fuel Standard
MMTCO2e Metric tons of carbon dioxide
MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NOx Nitrogen oxides
N2O Nitrous oxide
OPR Office of Planning Research
OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy
O3 Ozone
Pb Lead
PPM Parts per million
PM Post mile or particulate matter (air quality)
ROG Reactive organic gas
RTP Regional Transportation Plan
SB Senate Bill
SCS Sustainable Communities Strategy
SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride
SIP State Implementation Plan
SLR Sea-level rise
SO2 Sulfur dioxide
SOx Sulfur oxides
SR State Route
TCAPCD Tehama County Air Pollution Control District
USDOT United States Department of Transportation
U.S. EPA United States Environmental protection Agency
VOCs Volatile organic compounds
VMT Vehicle miles traveled
Chapter 1. Proposed Project
Project Title
Lead Agency Name and Address

California Department of Transportation, District 2
Office of Environmental Management, MS-30
1657 Riverside Drive
Redding, CA 96001
Contact Person and Phone Number

Carolyn Sullivan
Caltrans Environmental Branch Chief, R2
Phone: (530) 225-2928
Email: [email protected]
Project Location
The proposed project is located on Interstate 5 (I-5) Shasta County from PM R14.8 to R20.0.
The project is approximately 5.2 miles in Northern Redding. The project is on the United States
Geological Survey’s Enterprise and Project City 7.5-minute quadrangles. A project location map
showing work locations and associated post miles is provided in Figure 1.
Purpose and Need
The purpose of the proposed project is to improve operations on I-5 by reducing merging
conflicts and congestion, upgrading signing and lighting consistent with adjacent segments of
the corridor, and providing new ITS elements; to improve safety and reduce collision
concentrations; to improve this primary evacuation route for high fire severity zones; to reduce
adverse impacts of closures during winter storms; enhance reliability of interstate and
interregional goods movement; and improve the pavement thus providing higher quality
rideability, reducing maintenance efforts, and minimizing Field Maintenance exposure to traffic.
The need for the proposed project is that the existing facility has aged beyond its design life and
no longer adequately meets transportation demands within the project limits. The existing
pavement is in need of preservation. The existing lighting, signing and median barrier are non-
standard and should be brought to current standards. Additional Intelligent Transportation
System (ITS) elements are needed to improve freeway operations during emergency
events. The mainline flow of traffic is degraded by an increase in merging trucks and other
vehicles at several close consecutive ramps. Recent fires and winter storms developed long
backups, delays, and major detours through and around the project area, demonstrating the
current lack of system resiliency. This four-lane section of freeway is the only bottleneck on I-5
in Shasta County from the Tehama County line to Shasta Lake City, restricting freeway
operations and interregional goods movement. These factors reduce the operational
effectiveness and safety of the facility.
02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 1

Project Description (Build Alternative)
This alternative proposes to add a third mixed-flow through lane. Features on mainline I-5
include:
• A 6-lane freeway with 3-through lanes in the northbound (NB) and southbound (SB)
directions with 10-ft. inside and outside shoulders;
o SB widen in the median PM R15.4/R18.6
o NB widen in the median PM R16.5/R18.6
o NB widen to the outside PM R18.6/R19.2
• Four auxiliary lanes would be constructed.
o SB widen in the median PM 15.8/R17.0, from I-5/SR WB 44 off-ramp, terminating
at the I-5/SR 299 on-ramp
o NB widen in the median, while utilizing existing pavement and re-configuring
existing pavement delineation PM R15.5/R17.0, from I-5/SR WB 44 on-ramp
terminating, at the I-5/SR 299 off-ramp
o SB reconstruct median paving, relocation and upgrade existing concrete barrier
approximately 5-ft to the east, while utilizing existing pavement and re-
configuring existing pavement delineation PM 18.7/R19.4, from I-5/SR SB 273
off-ramp, terminating at the Oasis on-ramp
o NB reconstruct median paving, while utilizing existing pavement and re-
configuring existing pavement delineation PM R18.7/R19.3, from I-5/SR NB 273
on-ramp, terminating at the Oasis off-ramp
• Seven bridges would be widened, including 6 requiring 3/4” minimum polyester concrete
overlay.
o six bridges would be widened in the median including the polyester overlay on
the existing structures.
o One bridge would be widened on the outside and does not require the polyester
overlay across the existing structure.
• Replace ground signage with overhead and on-pavement signage near the Route 299
West/Route 44 Interchange;
• Pavement edge-to-edge overlay of open graded rubber asphalt surface course;
• Replace/repair or install culverts and drainage retention/detention facilities;
• Install a cable barrier in unpaved depressed areas where the median width is greater
than 36 foot;
• Install a concrete barrier in the paved median sections when the median width is 36-ft or
less;
• Existing guardrail and end treatments would be removed and replaced with new Midwest
Guardrail System (MGS) railing, including WB31 transitions and TL-2 terminals; and
• Add traffic controls and ITS elements, including census loops on ramps, traffic
monitoring stations, and the installation of new fiber optic lines would be replaced or
added for enhanced traffic management.

Figure 1. Project Location

❖

Construction Access
The work would be accessed from mainline I-5, interchange ramps, or local streets. Temporary
access would be necessary for work conducted east of Churn Creek Bridge. Improvements
(e.g., excavation and grading) on these access roads and trails would be needed before and
after work.
In-Water Work
Work within Churn Creek would take place June 1 to October 15, during the dry/low flow
season. In-water work includes activities to construct the bridge widening such as removal of
vegetation, construction of temporary access roads, placement of temporary crossing, and
gravel work pad.
Disposal/Borrow Sites
No borrow sites would be utilized on this project.
Approximately 70,000 cubic yards of asphalt grindings and other materials would be generated
from roadway excavation. Grindings and other construction debris would become property of
the contractor. Some excavated materials may be reused onsite as embankment and/or
disposed of at an optional disposal site located at one of the Shasta County Road Department’s
disposal yards; the actual location is still to be determined.
Staging/Stockpiling
Staging/stockpiling of materials and equipment would occur in the median of I-5 within the
project limits.
Right-of-Way
Most of the proposed work would be conducted within Caltrans’ existing right-of-way. No right-
of-way would be permanently acquired. No work would occur on federal lands.
Utilities
Existing utilities within the project limits would be identified and positively located as outlined in
the Caltrans’ utility policy. At the Twin View Boulevard UC and the Churn Creek Br there are
utilities in potential conflict including a 4” gas line, 8” water line and 18” sewer line. Any utilities
that come in conflict with the proposed improvements would be relocated prior to construction.
Several existing utilities cross the roadway where construction activities are expected, however
no conflicts are anticipated and a construction method of protecting the existing utilities in place
would be pursued.
Drainage
The proposed 10-foot, inside shoulder would be sloped toward the median for most of the
project limits. The inside lane (closest to the median) would be sloped towards the median from
PM R15.6 to R16.8. The inside lane would be sloped towards the outside, in-plane with the
existing lanes, from PM R15.4 to R15.6 and R16.8 to R18.6. This would conform to the existing
six-lane facilities adjacent to the project’s median widening. The existing median drainage would
be adjusted, replaced, or expanded as needed. Median inlets attached to cross-culverts would
be maintained or adjusted to perpetuate the existing connectivity. Additional drainage facilities
would be added to meet drainage needs. Culverts within the project limits could be repaired or
replaced as needed.

Detention basins, infiltration trenches, and underground detention vaults would be utilized as
necessary to retain peak flows during storm events. Stormwater from the additional impervious
area out-letting from the R/W, when required, would l be metered to maintain pre-construction
out-flows.
Stormwater
Treatment BMPs would be used within the project limits when feasible. It is anticipated BMPs
would include utilization of existing and proposed bio-strips, bio-swales, detention basins, and
infiltration basins. Alternative Compliance credits established during the development and
construction of the Redding to Anderson 6-Lane (RASL) Project would be used as additional
treatment BMP credit (subject to RWQCB concurrence).
Plantings
Disturbed slopes in the median and new embankment slopes would be stabilized in accordance
with erosion control plans. Gore areas at interchanges would have a contrast treatment applied
between the ramps and mainline. Additional roadway planting and irrigation would be required
to adjust, modify, or replace any highway planting disturbed during construction, which is
anticipated in the gore area and near the northbound Oasis Off-Ramp.
Stage Construction
Two construction stages are anticipated for mainline I-5. The stage one work would consist of
rebuilding the outside shoulder and modifying the shoulder cross slope to accommodate
temporary traffic as needed. Stage 2 would require placing temporary railing (Type K) 2-ft inside
the existing median edge of travelled way (ETW), shifting both lanes of traffic 6-ft to the outside
and using the existing outside shoulder to accommodate the temporary second lane for the
duration of construction.
Construction staging for the Twin View UC and Route (5/299) Separation requires multiple
stages, detouring and coordination with the traffic operations requirement for the City of
Redding. Bridge construction would be staged to avoid daytime lane closure on Twin View and
Lake Blvd. New bridge column construction would require closure of sidewalks. Construction
sequencing would allow continuous pedestrian and bicycle detours throughout the construction
phase. Twin View and Lake Blvd would require full closure in both directions for short, 6-hr
night-time windows to place the new bridge girders.
Construction staging for NB I-5 to WB SR 44 Connector UC requires multiple stages and

detouring. Bridge construction would be staged to allow at least one lane of the 44 Connector
traffic to be in operation during daytime hours. Construction sequencing would allow continuous
pedestrian and bicycle detours throughout the construction phase, except for intermittent night
time closures for placement of girders. The WB 44 Connector would be closed and would utilize
a detour to place the new bridge girders.
Construction staging for the East Redding (5/44) Separation requires multiple stages and
detouring. Bridge construction would be staged to maintain the existing roadway lanes and
ramps however would require reconfiguring the ramps and lanes while reducing the width of the
existing shoulders to provide space for the construction activities during daytime hours, the
construction area would be shielded by K-rail. Closures of lanes, ramps or the entire SR-44
using detours at night during certain construction activities is anticipated.

Construction staging for the Churn Creek bridge requires one stage which shifts traffic towards
the median and placing k-rail on the existing outside shoulder to shield the work area. During
certain construction operations a lane or ramp closure would be required.
Schedule
The entire project is scheduled as a two-season project, anticipated to take place between April
2026 and October 2027. Construction would span approximately 240 working days. The bridge
widening is scheduled as a one-season project, anticipated to take place between April and
October of 2026. Construction would last approximately 7 calendar months and span
approximately 150 working days.
Project Alternatives
The Project Study Report (PSR) dated February 2017 identified two alternatives: A build
alternative (Alternative 2 – widen to the outside) and a No-build alternative. During the
preliminary design phase preceding the Draft Project Report, a third alternative was developed.
Alternative 1 (Preferred Alternative) adds an additional lane and shoulder in both directions
using a combination of inside (to the median) and outside widening.
Alternative 2 (From PSR) added an additional lane and shoulder on I-5 in both directions. The
concept of this alternative was to widen primarily to the outside on the south end of the project
limits. A Value Analysis (VA) study conducted in December 2019 evaluated each of the three
alternatives. The VA team concluded that widening to the median provided the best assured
value for the project. During the preliminary design phase Alternative 2 was found unfeasible
for the following reasons:
• Widening to the outside near the 44 Interchange would require reconfiguration of both
the Southbound I-5 to Eastbound 44 connector ramp and the Westbound 44 to
Southbound 5 connector ramp. This reconfiguration would generate extensive work and
require several non-standard geometric features.
• Widening to the outside North of the 44 Interchange would negatively affect the
environmentally sensitive park and trail area west of I-5, which is protected through the
U.S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966 Section 4(F).
• Widening to the outside would generally not allow a consistent transition when
conforming to the existing mainline configuration, forcing a non-desirable shift prior to
conforming into the existing roadway.
Alternative 3 (No Build) proposes no improvements to I-5, other than routine maintenance over
the design life. Without the proposed improvements, assets in fair to poor condition would
continue to deteriorate. Traffic operation would not improve and there would not be a reduction
in merging conflicts and congestion. There would be no improvement in resiliency during
emergency events. This alternative does not meet the need and purpose of the project.
Permits and Approvals Needed
Work would require permits from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB). In
addition, a Notice of Intent would need to be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board
to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Construction Permit (the permit regulates the
discharge of storm water runoff from construction sites). Permits required for the project are
summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Permit and Approvals
Agency/Landowner Permit Type
CDFW Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
CVRWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification
NOAA Fisheries Letter of Concurrence – Informal Section 7 Consultation
State Water Resources Control Board A Notice of Intent would be filed to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Construction Permit.
Because more than one acre of ground disturbance would

occur, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
would need to be prepared in accordance with Caltrans
standard specifications for water pollution control (California
Department of Transportation 2018).
US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 (linear transportation projects)

Chapter 2. CEQA Environmental Checklist
This checklist identifies physical, biological, social, and economic factors that might be affected
by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the
projects would indicate that there are no impacts to a particular resource. A NO IMPACT
answer in the last column reflects this determination. The words "significant" and "significance"
used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions
in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not
represent thresholds of significance.

Potentially Less Than Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Impact with Impact
Mitigation
I. AESTHETICS: Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within
a state scenic highway?
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing

visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning
and other regulations governing scenic quality?
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would

adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
See Section 3.1: Aesthetics

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant
environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture
and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
regarding the state’s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy
Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the
California Air Resources Board. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a

Williamson Act contract?
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest

land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land

to non-forest use?
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due

to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use?
a) Land adjacent to I-5 is classified as Otherland and Urban and Built-Up Land (California Department of
Conservation 2020a). The project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use. Therefore, there would be no
impact.
b) No properties within the project limits are enrolled in a Williamson Act contract (California Department of
Conservation 2020b). Therefore, the would be no impact.
c) No forest land or timberland is present within the project limits. As such, the project would not conflict with
existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production
(as defined by Government Code section 51104(g)). Therefore, there would be no impact.
d) No forest land is present within the project limits. The project would not result in the loss of forest land or
convert forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, there would be no impact.
e) The project would not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on agriculture and forest resources.
See

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management district
or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air

quality plan?
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality
standard?
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

concentrations?
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)

adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
See Section 3.2: Air Quality

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, or NOAA Fisheries?
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or

other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally

protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native

resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting

biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or
other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
See Section 3.3: Biological Resources

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a

historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an

archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside

of dedicated cemeteries?
a - c) The cultural resources study included a pre-field record search with the California Historical Resources
Information System and the Caltrans Cultural Resource Database, Native American consultation, and archaeological
fieldwork of the project area. This cultural resource study was conducted to satisfy requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (36 CFR 800, as
amended in 1992), and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970. More specifically, its purpose was to
identify and evaluate historic properties found within the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and to assess effects to the
properties that may result from the proposed project.
No archaeological resources were noted within or adjacent to the project area (California Department of Transportation
2020a). The existing bridges were evaluated as part of the 2014 Bridge Survey and all structures meet the criteria of a
Category 5 structure and is not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The Native American Heritage
Commission was contacted and provided a list of interested individuals and tribes. Listed tribes were contacted and the
Cultural Resources Director of the Wintu Tribe of Northern requested additional information about the project. She would
also like to be consulted, review the Cultural Report, and requested the possibility of a monitor during construction.
If previously unidentified cultural resources are encountered during construction, i.e., “late discoveries,” it is Caltrans’
policy that work in that area must stop immediately and not resume until a qualified archaeologist can assess the finds
and determine an appropriate course of action in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (Environmental
Handbook 2006, Vol. 2, Chapter 2-4.4).
No indicators of human remains were observed within the project limits. If human remains are identified during
construction, they would be treated in accordance with the requirements of California Health and Safety Code section
7050.5 and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. If, pursuant to §7050.5(c) of the California Health and Safety Code,
the county coroner/medical examiner determines that the human remains are or may be of Native American origin, then
the discovery shall be treated in accordance with the provisions of §5097.98 (a)-(d) of the California Public Resources
Code. Caltrans shall ensure that, to the extent permitted by applicable law and regulation, the views of the Tribes and the
Most Likely Descendent(s) are taken into consideration when decisions are made about the sensitive and dignified
treatment and disposition of the Native American human remains and associated burial items. It is the intent of Caltrans
that human remains would not be unnecessarily disturbed and would not be disinterred unless necessary to protect them
from damage or destruction.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on cultural resources.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
VI. ENERGY: Would the project:
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to

wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable

energy or energy efficiency?
See section 3.4 Energy.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project:
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse

effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on

the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on
other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to
Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides?
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that

would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of

the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of

septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource

or site or unique geologic feature?
See Section 3.5: Geology and Soils

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or

indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted

for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
See Section 3.6: Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment

through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely

hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous

materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an

adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a

significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires?
See Section 3.7: Hazards and Hazardous Materials

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may
impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or

area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site;
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface

runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or
offsite;
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed

the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of

pollutants due to project inundation?
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality

control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
See Section 3.8: Hydrology and Water Quality

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict

with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
a) The proposed project is in the City of Redding on I-5 the major North-South travel corridor in the State. The
proposed project is within the City of Redding General Plan 2000-2020 (City of Redding 2000). Land use in the
project vicinity varies but is primarily single and multiple family homes. Other land use consists of commercial,
industrial, office, open space, and public. Because there is an existing travel corridor, construction of the
project would not physically divide an established community. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) The proposed project would not affect existing and/or future land uses nor would the project cause a significant
environmental impact due to a conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, and/or regulation adopted for
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on land use and planning.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource

that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral

resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
a-b) No mineral resources occur within the project limits nor would any be affected by the proposed project.
Therefore, there would be no impact.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on mineral resources.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in:
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase

in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or

groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or

an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,
would the project expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels?
See Section 3.9: Noise

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project:
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area,

either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and
businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,

necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
a) The proposed project would not induce population growth, either directly or indirectly. The project adds lanes in
a segment where there is a gap between three lane segments to the north and south. Therefore, there would
be no impact.
b) The proposed project would not displace any existing housing or people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on population and housing.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks?
Other public facilities?
a) Existing traffic has two lanes in both directions. Impacts to schools, parks and other public facilities would be
negligible. However, limited periods during construction may require traffic be limited to one lane, in each
direction or one direction. Some construction activities may need roadway closure to be conducted. These
limited closures and lane reductions would mostly come at night, but fire and police response times could be
delayed because of these closures.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have less than significant impacts to public services.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVI. RECREATION:
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood

and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the

construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a-b) The proposed project would not increase the use of existing parks or other recreational facilities. In
addition, the proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction and/or
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on recreation.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project:
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing

the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA

Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design

feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
d) Result in inadequate emergency access?
See Section 3.10: Transportation

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with
cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of

Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion

and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource
to a California Native American tribe.
a-b) a-b) Assembly Bill (AB) 52 (Chapter 532, California Statutes of 2014) establishes a formal consultation
process for California tribes as part of the CEQA review process and equates significant impacts on “tribal
cultural resources” with significant environmental impacts (Public Resources Code 21084.2). Caltrans
contacted the following tribes to inform them of the project and request their participation: Winnenem
Wintu, Redding Rancheria, and Wintu Tribe of Northern California. Currently, there are no tribal cultural
resources that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources, or determined to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 within the project area.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have no impact on tribal cultural resources.

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project:
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or

expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project

and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal,
dry and multiple dry years?
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment

provider which serves or may serve the project that it has
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
d) Generate solid waste in excess of state or local standards, or

in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and

reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
See Section 3.11: Utilities and Service Systems

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones,
would the project:
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or

emergency evacuation plan?
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate

wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant
concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire?
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated

infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including

downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
See Section 3.12: Wildfire

Impact with Impact
Mitigation
XXI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade

the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat
of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,

but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?

Chapter 3. Discussion of Environmental Impacts
3.1 Aesthetics
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, establishes that the
federal government use all practicable means to ensure all Americans safe, healthful,
productive, and aesthetically (emphasis added) and culturally pleasing surroundings (42 United
States Code [USC] 4331[b][2]). To further emphasize this point, the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), in its implementation of NEPA (23 USC 109[h]), directs that final
decisions on projects are to be made in the best overall public interest taking into account
adverse environmental impacts, including among others, the destruction or disruption of
aesthetic values.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) establishes that it is the policy of the state to
take all action necessary to provide the people of the state “with…enjoyment of aesthetic,
natural, scenic and historic environmental qualities” (CA Public Resources Code [PRC] Section
21001[b]).
California Streets and Highways Code Section 92.3 directs Caltrans to use drought resistant
landscaping and recycled water when feasible and incorporate native wildflowers and native
and climate-appropriate vegetation into the planting design when appropriate.
Affected Environment
The proposed project is in an urban part of Shasta County. Interstate 5 within the project area is
not designated as a scenic highway (California Department of Transportation 2011). Within the
project area, the most notable potentially scenic resources are Boulder and Churn Creek and
adjacent riparian vegetation.
Environmental Consequences
The proposed work would require the removal of vegetated berms within the median of I-5 and
widening the Churn Creek Bridge. The current extent of the earth berm is limited, most of the
median is a grass or concrete area with a high-tension cable barrier. From that sense the visual
impacts of adding another lane is minimal as currently much is gently sloped open area. The
addition of the lanes, in areas with the earth berm would increase range-of-view. Currently,
traveling with the 6-foot earthen berm, can feel restrictive. Once removed, while vehicles from
the opposite direction would be visible, the entire interstate corridor would be visible, potentially
reducing the feeling of constriction for small vehicles traveling next to commercial vehicles.
To widen the bridge some vegetation would need to be removed including some cottonwood
and honey locust trees. Removal of the vegetated berm and these trees would have a negligible
impact on the visual character of the project area because other mature trees and landscaping
line the Interstate.
`
02-0H920 Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 31
Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration
CEQA Determination
The proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on any scenic vistas, would
not substantially damage scenic resources within a state scenic highway, and would not create
a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day and/or nighttime
views in the area. Because the project would only negligibly degrade the existing visual
character of the site and its surroundings, the project would have a less than significant impact
on aesthetics.
Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measures
No avoidance/minimization measures are included in the project.
3.2 Air Quality
Regulatory Setting
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA), as amended, is the primary federal law that governs air
quality while the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) is its companion state law. These laws, and
related regulations by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) and the
California Air Resources Board (ARB), set standards for the concentration of pollutants in the
air. At the federal level, these standards are called National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). NAAQS and state ambient air quality standards have been established for six criteria
pollutants that have been linked to potential health concerns: carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3), particulate matter (PM) —which is broken down for regulatory
purposes into particles of 10 micrometers or smaller (PM10) and particles of 2.5 micrometers
and smaller (PM2.5), Lead (Pb), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, state standards exist for
visibility reducing particles, sulfates, hydrogen sulfide (H2S), and vinyl chloride. The NAAQS and
state standards are set at levels that protect public health with a margin of safety and are
subject to periodic review and revision. Both state and federal regulatory schemes also cover
toxic air contaminants (air toxics); some criteria pollutants are also air toxics or may include
certain air toxics in their general definition.
Federal air quality standards and regulations provide the basic scheme for project-level air
quality analysis under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). In addition to this
environmental analysis, a parallel “Conformity” requirement under the FCAA also applies.
Conformity
The conformity requirement is based on FCAA Section 176(c), which prohibits the U.S.
Department of Transportation (USDOT) and other federal agencies from funding, authorizing, or
approving plans, programs, or projects that do not conform to State Implementation Plan (SIP)
for attaining the NAAQS. “Transportation Conformity” applies to highway and transit projects
and takes place on two levels: the regional (or planning and programming) level and the project
level. The proposed project must conform at both levels to be approved.
Conformity requirements apply only in nonattainment and “maintenance” (former nonattainment)

areas for the NAAQS, and only for the specific NAAQS that are or were violated. U.S. EPA
regulations at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 93 govern the conformity process.

Conformity requirements do not apply in unclassifiable/attainment areas for NAAQS and do not
apply at all for state standards regardless of the status of the area.
Regional conformity is concerned with how well the regional transportation system supports
plans for attaining the NAAQS for carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), ozone (O3),
particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5), and in some areas (although not in California), sulfur
dioxide (SO2). California has nonattainment or maintenance areas for all these transportation-
related “criteria pollutants” except SO2 and has a nonattainment area for lead (Pb); however, lead
is not currently required by the FCAA to be covered in transportation conformity analysis.
Regional conformity is based on emission analysis of Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs)
and Federal Transportation Improvement Programs (FTIPs) that include all transportation
projects planned for a region over a period of at least 20 years (for the RTP) and 4 years (for the
FTIP). RTP and FTIP conformity uses travel demand and emission models to determine
whether the implementation of those projects would conform to emission budgets or other tests
at various analysis years showing that requirements of the FCAA and the SIP are met. If the
conformity analysis is successful, the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) make the
determinations that the RTP and FTIP are in conformity with the SIP for achieving the goals of
the FCAA. Otherwise, the projects in the RTP and/or FTIP must be modified until conformity is
attained. If the design concept and scope and the “open-to-traffic” schedule of a proposed
transportation project are the same as described in the RTP and FTIP, then the proposed
project meets regional conformity requirements for purposes of project-level analysis.
Project-level conformity is achieved by demonstrating that the project comes from a conforming
RTP and TIP; the project has a design concept and scope1 that has not changed significantly
from those in the RTP and TIP; project analyses have used the latest planning assumptions and
EPA-approved emissions models; and in PM areas, the project complies with any control
measures in the SIP. Furthermore, additional analyses (known as hot-spot analyses) may be
required for projects located in CO and PM nonattainment or maintenance areas to examine
localized air quality impacts.
The project is in the northern Sacramento Valley. The climate in the project vicinity is
Mediterranean, which is characterized by hot summers and wet winters with occasional
snowfall. The average annual precipitation recorded at nearby Redding Municipal Airport
between 1986 and 2016 is 33.68 inches (Western Regional Climate Center 2019). Wind
direction and strength varies seasonally in the project vicinity. In spring, prevailing winds are
generally from the northwest. In summer, a weak Delta breeze is occasionally evident as cool
air from the Bay Area moves north into the Sacramento Valley. In winter, Pacific storms moving
westward across northern California bring strong south winds. Inversion layers, which are
common in winter, occur when a layer of warm air overlies a layer of dense cold air and
prevents atmospheric mixing. If the trapped cold air contains large quantities of pollutants, air
quality can be substantially impaired.
The project is in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin and is within the jurisdiction of the Shasta
County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) and the California Air Resources Board.
The SCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for preparing the Air Quality Management Plan
1 "Design concept" means the type of facility that is proposed, such as a freeway or arterial highway.
"Design scope" refers to those aspects of the project that would clearly affect capacity and thus any
regional emissions analysis, such as the number of lanes and the length of the project.

(AQMP) in cooperation with local governments and the private sector. The AQMP provides the
framework for meeting state and federal ambient air quality standards.
The project is in an attainment/unclassified area for all current NAAQS. Therefore, conformity
requirements do not apply. Construction activities would not last for more than 5 years at one
general location, so construction-related emissions do not need to be included in regional and
project-level conformity analysis (40 CFR 93.123(c)(5)). Regarding state air quality standards,
the project is in a nonattainment area for one criteria pollutant—ozone. The project area
attainment status of state and federal criterial air pollutants is shown in Table 2.
Table 2. State and Federal Criteria Air Pollutant Standards, Effects, and Sources
State Federal
Principal Health
Averaging State1 Federal2 Project Area Project Area
Pollutant and Atmospheric Typical Sources
Time Standard Standard Attainment Attainment
Effects
Status Status
1 hour 0.09 ppm4 --- Low-altitude ozone Nonattainment ---
is almost entirely
formed from
High concentrations
reactive organic
irritate lungs. Long-
gases/volatile
term exposure may
organic compounds
cause lung tissue
(ROG or VOC) and
damage and cancer.
nitrogen oxides
Long-term exposure
(NOx) in the
damages plant
0.070 ppm presence of
materials and
Ozone (O3)3 sunlight and heat.
reduces crop Unclassified/
8 hours 0.070 ppm Common precursor Nonattainment
(4th highest productivity. Attainment
emitters include
in 3 years) Precursor organic
motor vehicles and
compounds include
other internal
many known toxic air
combustion
contaminants.
engines, solvent
Biogenic VOC may
evaporation,
also contribute.
boilers, furnaces,
and industrial
processes.
Combustion Unclassified/
1 hour 20 ppm 35 ppm CO interferes with Unclassified
sources, especially Attainment
the transfer of
gasoline-powered
oxygen to the blood Unclassified/
8 hours 9.0 ppm 9 ppm engines and motor Unclassified
and deprives Attainment
Carbon vehicles. CO is the
sensitive tissues of
Monoxide traditional signature
oxygen. CO also is
(CO)5 pollutant for on-
a minor precursor for
8 hours road mobile
6 ppm --- photochemical Unclassified ---
(Lake Tahoe) sources at the local
ozone. Colorless,
and neighborhood
odorless.
scale.
150 μg/m3 Irritates eyes and Dust- and fume-
(expected respiratory tract. producing industrial
number of Decreases lung and agricultural
24 hours 50 μg/m3 7 days above capacity. Associated operations; Attainment Unclassified
Respirable standard < with increased combustion smoke
Particulate or equal to cancer and mortality. & vehicle exhaust;
Matter 1) Contributes to haze atmospheric
(PM10)6 and reduced chemical reactions;
visibility. Includes construction and
some toxic air other dust-
Annual 20 μg/m3 --- 7 contaminants. Many producing activities; Attainment ---
toxic & other aerosol unpaved road dust
and solid and re-entrained

compounds are part paved road dust;
of PM10. natural sources.
24 hours --- 35 μg/m3 Combustion ---

including motor
Increases respiratory
vehicles, other
disease, lung
mobile sources,
damage, cancer,
and industrial
and premature
activities;
death. Reduces
residential and
visibility and
agricultural burning;
Fine produces surface
also formed
Particulate soiling. Most diesel
through Unclassified/
Matter Annual 12 μg/m3 12.0 μg/m3 exhaust particulate Attainment
atmospheric Attainment
(PM2.5)8 matter – a toxic air
chemical and
contaminant – is in
photochemical
the PM2.5 size
reactions involving
range. Many toxic &
other pollutants
other aerosol and
including NOx,
solid compounds are
sulfur oxides (SOx),
part of PM2.5.
ammonia, and
ROG.
Irritating to eyes and Unclassified/
1 hour 0.18 ppm 0.100 ppm9 Attainment
respiratory tract. Attainment
Colors atmosphere Motor vehicles and
reddish-brown. other mobile or
Nitrogen Contributes to acid portable engines,
Dioxide (NO2) rain & nitrate especially diesel; Unclassified/
Annual 0.030 ppm 0.053 ppm contamination of refineries; industrial Attainment
Attainment
stormwater. Part of operations.
the “NOx” group of
ozone precursors.
0.075 ppm Fuel combustion
(99th (especially coal and Unclassified/
1 hour 0.25 ppm percentile high-sulfur oil), Attainment
Attainment
over 3 Irritates respiratory chemical plants,
years) tract; injures lung sulfur recovery
tissue. Can yellow plants, metal Unclassified/
Sulfur Dioxide 3 hours --- 0.5 ppm11 plant leaves. processing; some ---
Attainment
(SO2)10 Destructive to natural sources like
0.14 ppm marble, iron, steel. active volcanoes. Unclassified/
24 hours 0.04 ppm (for certain Contributes to acid Limited contribution Attainment
Attainment
areas) rain. Limits visibility. possible from
0.030 ppm heavy-duty diesel
vehicles if ultra-low Unclassified/
Annual --- (for certain ---
sulfur fuel not used. Attainment
areas)
Monthly 1.5 μg/m3 --- Disturbs
Lead-based Attainment ---
industrial
1.5 μg/m3 gastrointestinal
processes like
Calendar system. Causes Unclassified/
--- (for certain battery production ---
Quarter anemia, kidney Attainment
areas) and smelters. Lead
disease, and
Lead (Pb)12 paint, leaded
neuromuscular and
gasoline. Aerially
Rolling 3- neurological
deposited lead from Unclassified/
month --- 0.15 μg/m3 13 dysfunction. Also a ---
older gasoline use Attainment
average toxic air contaminant
may exist in soils
and water pollutant.
along major roads.
Industrial
Premature mortality
processes,
and respiratory
refineries and oil
effects. Contributes
fields, mines,
to acid rain. Some
Sulfates 24 hours 25 μg/m3 --- natural sources like Attainment N/A
toxic air
volcanic areas,
contaminants attach
salt-covered dry
to sulfate aerosol
lakes, and large
particles.
sulfide rock areas.

Industrial
Colorless, processes such as:
flammable, refineries and oil
poisonous. fields, asphalt
Respiratory irritant. plants, livestock
Hydrogen
1 hour 0.03 ppm --- Neurological operations, sewage Unclassified N/A
Sulfide (H2S)
damage and treatment plants,
premature death. and mines. Some
Headache, nausea. natural sources like
Strong odor. volcanic areas and
hot springs.
Reduces visibility.
Produces haze.
NOTE: not directly
related to the
Visibility of Regional Haze
10 miles or program under the See particulate
more Federal Clean Air
Visibility matter above.
Reducing (Tahoe: 30 Act, which is
8 hours --- May be related Unclassified N/A
Particles miles) at oriented primarily
more to aerosols
(VRP)14 relative toward visibility
than to solid
humidity issues in National
particles.
less than Parks and other
70% “Class I” areas.
However, some
issues and
measurement
methods are similar.
Neurological effects,
liver damage, Not indicated
cancer. on the
Vinyl Industrial
24 hours 0.01 ppm --- California Air N/A
Chloride12 Also considered a processes
Resources
toxic air Board website
contaminant.
1
California standards for ozone, carbon monoxide (except 8-hour Lake Tahoe), sulfur dioxide (1 and 24 hour), nitrogen dioxide, and
particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5, and visibility reducing particles), are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be
equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the
California Code of Regulations
2
Federal standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual arithmetic mean) are not to be exceeded more
than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration measured at each site in a year,
averaged over three years, is equal to or less than the standard. For PM10, the 24-hour standard is attained when the expected
number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration above 150 μg/m 3 is equal to or less than one. For PM2.5,
the 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over three years, are equal to or less than
the standard. Contact the U.S.EPA for further clarification and current national policies.
3
On October 1, 2015, the national 8-hour ozone primary and secondary standards were lowered from 0.075 to 0.070 ppm.
Transportation conformity applies in newly designated nonattainment areas for the 2015 national 8-hour ozone primary and
secondary standards on and after August 4th, 2019 (see Transportation Conformity Guidance for 2015 Ozone NAAQS
Nonattainment Areas).
4
ppm = parts per million
5
Transportation conformity requirements for CO no longer apply after June 1, 2018 for the following California Carbon Monoxide
Maintenance Areas (see U.S. EPA CO Maintenance Letter).
6
On December 14, 2012, the national annual PM2.5 primary standard was lowered from 15 μg/m 3 to 12 μg/m3. The existing national
24-hour PM2.5 standards (primary and secondary) were retained at 35 μg/m3, as was the annual secondary standard of 15 μg/m 3.
The existing 24-hour PM10 standards (primary and secondary) of 150 μg/m3 also were retained. The form of the annual primary and
secondary standards is the annual mean, averaged over 3 years.
7
μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter
8
The 65 μg/m3 PM2.5 (24-hr) NAAQS was not revoked when the 35 μg/m3 NAAQS was promulgated in 2006. The 15 μg/m 3 annual
PM2.5 standard was not revoked when the 12 μg/m 3 standard was promulgated in 2012. Therefore, for areas designated
nonattainment or nonattainment/maintenance for the 1997 and or 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS, conformity requirements still apply until the
NAAQS are fully revoked.

9
Final 1-hour NO2 NAAQS published in the Federal Register on 2/9/2010, effective 3/9/2010. Initial area designation for California
(2012) was attainment/unclassifiable throughout. Project-level hot spot analysis requirements do not currently exist. Near-road
monitoring starting in 2013 may cause re-designation to nonattainment in some areas after 2016.
10
On June 2, 2010, a new 1-hour SO2 standard was established and the existing 24-hour and annual primary standards were
revoked. To attain the 1-hour national standard, the 3-year average of the annual 99th percentile of the 1-hour daily maximum
concentrations at each site must not exceed 75ppb. The 1971 SO2 national standards (24-hour and annual) remain in effect until
one year after an area is designated for the 2010 standard, except that in areas designated nonattainment for the 1971 standards,
the 1971 standards remain in effect until implementation plans to attain or maintain the 2010 standards are approved.
11
Secondary standard, the levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse
effects of a pollutant rather than health. Conformity and environmental analysis address both primary and secondary NAAQS.
12
The ARB has identified vinyl chloride and the particulate matter fraction of diesel exhaust as toxic air contaminants. Diesel
exhaust particulate matter is part of PM10 and, in larger proportion, PM2.5. Both the ARB and U.S. EPA have identified lead and
various organic compounds that are precursors to ozone and PM2.5 as toxic air contaminants. There are no exposure criteria for
adverse health effect due to toxic air contaminants, and control requirements may apply at ambient concentrations below any
criteria levels specified above for these pollutants or the general categories of pollutants to which they belong.
13
Lead NAAQS are not considered in Transportation Conformity analysis.
14
In 1989, the ARB converted both the general statewide 10-mile visibility standard and the Lake Tahoe 30-mile visibility standard to
instrumental equivalents, which are "extinction of 0.23 per kilometer" and "extinction of 0.07 per kilometer" for the statewide and
Lake Tahoe Air Basin standards, respectively.
Sensitive receptors are hospitals, schools, homes, hotels, daycare facilities, elderly housing,
and convalescent facilities. These are areas where the occupants are more susceptible to the
adverse effects of exposure to toxic chemicals, pesticides, and other pollutants. No sensitive
receptors are present within the project area. However, sensitive receptors present within a 1/4-
mile radius of the project area include numerous homes, several hotels, Boulder Creek
Elementary School, and Bethel School.
The Air Quality Report completed for the project concluded that construction impacts to air
quality are temporary in duration and therefore would not result in long-term adverse conditions
(California Department of Transportation 2020b). During construction, short-term degradation of
air quality may occur due to the release of particulate emissions (airborne dust) generated by
excavation, grading, hauling, and other construction-related activities. Emissions from
construction equipment also are expected and would include carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen
oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), directly-emitted particulate matter (PM10
and PM2.5), and toxic air contaminants such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. Ozone is a
regional pollutant that is derived from NOx and VOCs in the presence of sunlight and heat.
Site preparation and roadway construction typically involves clearing, cut-and-fill activities,
grading, removing or improving existing roadways, building bridges, and paving roadway
surfaces. Construction-related effects on air quality from most highway projects would be
greatest during the site preparation phase because most engine emissions are associated with
the excavation, handling, and transport of soils to and from the site. These activities could
temporarily generate enough PM10, PM2.5, and small amounts of CO, SO2, NOx, and VOCs to
be of concern. Sources of fugitive dust would include disturbed soils at the construction site and
trucks carrying uncovered loads of soils. Unless properly controlled, vehicles leaving the site
could deposit mud on local streets, which could be an added source of airborne dust after it
dries. PM10 emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the nature and magnitude of
construction activity and local weather conditions. PM10 emissions would depend on soil
moisture, silt content of soil, wind speed, and the amount of equipment operating. Larger dust
particles would settle near the source, while fine particles would be dispersed over greater
distances from the construction site.

Construction activities for large development projects are estimated by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) to add 1.2 tons of fugitive dust per acre of soil
disturbed per month of activity. If water or other soil stabilizers are used to control dust, the
emissions can be reduced by up to 50 percent. The Department’s Standard Specifications
(Section 14) on dust minimization require use of water or dust palliative compounds and would
reduce potential fugitive dust emissions during construction.
In addition to dust-related PM10 emissions, heavy-duty trucks and construction equipment

powered by gasoline and diesel engines would generate CO, SO2, NOx, VOCs and some soot
particulate (PM10 and PM2.5) in exhaust emissions. If construction activities were to increase
traffic congestion in the area, CO and other emissions from traffic would increase slightly while
those vehicles are delayed. These emissions would be temporary and limited to the immediate
area surrounding the construction site.
SO2 is generated by oxidation during combustion of organic sulfur compounds contained in

diesel fuel. Under California law and ARB regulations, off-road diesel fuel used in California
must meet the same sulfur and other standards as on-road diesel fuel (not more than 15 ppm
sulfur), so SO2-related issues due to diesel exhaust would be minimal.
Some phases of construction, particularly asphalt paving, may result in short-term odors in the
immediate area of each paving site(s). Such odors would quickly disperse to below detectable
levels as distance from the site(s) increases.
Long-term operation of the project would result in an overall improvement in local air quality
because fewer pollutants would be released from vehicles because of reduced traffic congestion
and more efficient traffic flow.
CEQA Determination
Once constructed, the project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of an applicable
air quality management plan, result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in ozone for
which the project vicinity is currently in non-attainment, expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations, or result in other emissions (such as those leading to objectionable
odors) that could adversely affect a substantial number of people. During construction, the
project could result in short-term elevated levels of dust, criteria pollutants, and odors.
However, with implementation of avoidance/minimization measures for dust and pollutant
control during construction and rapid dissipation of any odors, the project would have a less
than significant impact on air quality.
As described in the Air Quality Report (California Department of Transportation 2020b), the
construction contractor shall comply with Section 10-5 “Dust Control”, Section 14-9 “Air Quality”,
and Section 18 “Dust Palliatives” in the 2018 Caltrans Standard Specifications (California
Department of Transportation 2018). Compliance with these standard specifications would
include implementing the following dust and pollutant reduction/control measures to minimize
any air quality impacts resulting from construction activities:

• A dust control plan shall be developed documenting sprinkling, temporary paving, speed
limits, and timely revegetation of disturbed slopes as needed to minimize construction
impacts.
• Water or a dust palliative shall be applied to the site and equipment as often as
necessary to control fugitive dust emissions.
• Soil binder shall be spread on any unpaved roads used for construction purposes and on
all project construction parking areas.
• Construction equipment and vehicles shall be properly tuned and maintained. All
construction equipment shall use low sulfur fuel as required by California Code of
Regulations Title 17, Section 93114.
• Track-out reduction measures, such as gravel pads at project access points to minimize
dust and mud deposits on roads affected by construction traffic, shall be used.
• All transported loads of soils and wet materials shall be covered before transport, or
adequate freeboard (space from the top of the material to the top of the truck) shall be
provided to minimize emission of dust during transportation.
• Dust and mud that are deposited on paved, public roads due to construction activity and
traffic shall be promptly and regularly removed to reduce PM emissions.
• Trucks shall be washed as they leave the right-of-way as necessary to control fugitive
dust emissions.
• Equipment and materials storage sites shall be located as far away from residential and
park uses as practicable; construction areas shall be kept clean and orderly.
3.3 Biological Resources
Regulatory Setting
Wetlands and Other Waters

Wetlands and other waters are protected under a number of laws and regulations. At the
federal level, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, more commonly referred to as the Clean
Water Act (CWA) (33 United States Code [USC] 1344), is the primary law regulating wetlands
and surface waters. One purpose of the CWA is to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill
material into waters of the U.S., including wetlands. Waters of the U.S. include navigable
waters, interstate waters, territorial seas, and other waters that may be used in interstate or
foreign commerce. The lateral limits of jurisdiction over non-tidal water bodies extend to the
ordinary high water mark (OHWM), in the absence of adjacent wetlands. When adjacent
wetlands are present, CWA jurisdiction extends beyond the OHWM to the limits of the adjacent
wetlands. To classify wetlands for the purposes of the CWA, a three-parameter approach is
used that includes the presence of hydrophytic (water-loving) vegetation, wetland hydrology,
and hydric soils (soils formed during saturation/inundation). All three parameters must be

present, under normal circumstances, for an area to be designated as a jurisdictional wetland
under the CWA.
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a regulatory program that provides that discharge of
dredged or fill material cannot be permitted if a practicable alternative exists that is less
damaging to the aquatic environment or if the nation’s waters would be significantly degraded.
The Section 404 permit program is run by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) with
oversight by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Individual. There are two types of
General permits: Regional and Nationwide. Regional permits are issued for a general category
of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide
permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal
effects.
Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Regional or Nationwide Permit may be
permitted under one of USACE’s Individual permits. There are two types of Individual permits:
Standard permits and Letters of Permission. For Individual permits, the USACE decision to
approve is based on compliance with U.S. EPA’s Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines (40 Code of
Federal Regulations [CFR] 230), and whether permit approval is in the public interest. The
Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with
the USACE, and allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters
of the U.S.) only if there is no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects.
The Guidelines state that the USACE may not issue a permit if there is a “least environmentally
damaging practicable alternative” (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have lesser
effects on waters of the U.S., and not have any other significant adverse environmental
consequences.
The Executive Order for the Protection of Wetlands (EO 11990) also regulates the activities of
federal agencies with regard to wetlands. Essentially, EO 11990 states that a federal agency,
such as FHWA and/or the Department, as assigned, cannot undertake or provide assistance for
new construction located in wetlands unless the head of the agency finds: (1) that there is no
practicable alternative to the construction and (2) the proposed project includes all practicable
measures to minimize harm. A Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding must be made.
At the state level, wetlands and waters are regulated primarily by the State Water Resources
Control Board (SWRCB), the Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) and the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). In certain circumstances, the Coastal
Commission (or Bay Conservation and Development Commission or the Tahoe Regional
Planning Agency) may also be involved. Sections 1600-1607 of the California Fish and Game
Code require any agency that proposes a project that would substantially divert or obstruct the
natural flow of or substantially change the bed or bank of a river, stream, or lake to notify CDFW
before beginning construction. If CDFW determines that the project may substantially and
adversely affect fish or wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement would be
required. CDFW jurisdictional limits are usually defined by the tops of the stream or lake banks,
or the outer edge of riparian vegetation, whichever is wider. Wetlands under jurisdiction of the
USACE may or may not be included in the area covered by a Streambed Alteration Agreement
obtained from the CDFW.
The RWQCBs were established under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to oversee
water quality. Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge

Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or
exempt under the CWA. In compliance with Section 401 of the CWA, the RWQCBs also issue
water quality certifications for activities which may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S.
This is most frequently required in tandem with a Section 404 permit request. Please see the
Water Quality section for more details.
Plant Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) have regulatory responsibility for the protection of special-status plant species.
“Special-status” species are selected for protection because they are rare and/or subject to
population and habitat declines. Special status is a general term for species that are provided
varying levels of regulatory protection. The highest level of protection is given to threatened and
endangered species; these are species that are formally listed or proposed for listing as
endangered or threatened under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the
California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
This section of the document discusses all other special-status plant species, including CDFW
species of special concern, USFWS candidate species, and California Native Plant Society
(CNPS) rare and endangered plants.
The regulatory requirements for FESA can be found at 16 United States Code (USC) Section
1531, et seq. See also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. The regulatory
requirements for CESA can be found at California Fish and Game Code, Section 2050, et seq.
Department projects are also subject to the Native Plant Protection Act, found at California Fish
and Game Code, Section 1900-1913, and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
found at California Public Resources Code, Sections 21000-21177.
Animal Species
Many state and federal laws regulate impacts to wildlife. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries
Service (NOAA Fisheries), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) are
responsible for implementing these laws. This section discusses potential impacts and permit
requirements associated with animals not listed or proposed for listing under the federal or state
Endangered Species Act. Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered
are discussed in the Threatened and Endangered Species Section [##] below. All other special-
status animal species are discussed here, including CDFW fully protected species and species
of special concern, and USFWS or NOAA Fisheries candidate species.
Federal laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
• National Environmental Policy Act
• Migratory Bird Treaty Act
• Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
State laws and regulations relevant to wildlife include the following:
• California Environmental Quality Act
• Sections 1600 – 1603 of the California Fish and Game Code

• Sections 4150 and 4152 of the California Fish and Game Code
Threatened and Endangered Species

The primary federal law protecting threatened and endangered species is the Federal
Endangered Species Act (FESA): 16 United States Code (USC) Section 1531, et seq. See
also 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 402. This act and later amendments provide
for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and the ecosystems upon which
they depend. Under Section 7 of this act, federal agencies, such as the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) (and the Department, as assigned), are required to consult with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) to ensure that they are not undertaking,
funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed
species or destroy or adversely modify designated critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined as
geographic locations critical to the existence of a threatened or endangered species. The
outcome of consultation under Section 7 may include a Biological Opinion with an Incidental
Take Statement or a Letter of Concurrence. Section 3 of FESA defines take as “harass, harm,
pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect or any attempt at such conduct.”
California has enacted a similar law at the state level, the California Endangered Species Act
(CESA), California Fish and Game Code Section 2050, et seq. CESA emphasizes early
consultation to avoid potential impacts to rare, endangered, and threatened species and to
develop appropriate planning to offset project-caused losses of listed species populations and
their essential habitats. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) is the agency
responsible for implementing CESA. Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code
prohibits "take" of any species determined to be an endangered species or a threatened
species. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as "hunt, pursue,
catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill." CESA allows for take
incidental to otherwise lawful development projects; for these actions an incidental take permit is
issued by CDFW. For species listed under both FESA and CESA requiring a Biological Opinion
under Section 7 of FESA, the CDFW may also authorize impacts to CESA species by issuing a
Consistency Determination under Section 2080.1 of the California Fish and Game Code.
Another federal law, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of
1976, was established to conserve and manage fishery resources found off the coast, as well as
anadromous species and Continental Shelf fishery resources of the United States, by exercising
(A) sovereign rights for the purposes of exploring, exploiting, conserving, and managing all fish
within the exclusive economic zone established by Presidential Proclamation 5030, dated March
10, 1983, and (B) exclusive fishery management authority beyond the exclusive economic zone
over such anadromous species, Continental Shelf fishery resources, and fishery resources in
special areas.
Invasive Species
On February 3, 1999, President William J. Clinton signed Executive Order (EO) 13112 requiring
federal agencies to combat the introduction or spread of invasive species in the United States.
The order defines invasive species as “any species, including its seeds, eggs, spores, or other
biological material capable of propagating that species, that is not native to that ecosystem
whose introduction does or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human
health." Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidance issued August 10, 1999 directs the
use of the State’s invasive species list, maintained by the California Invasive Species Council to
define the invasive species that must be considered as part of the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) analysis for a proposed project.

Biological resources-related literature and record searches addressing the project area included
review of numerous databases, lists, and maps, as well as visits to and/or contacts with relevant
agencies (California Department of Transportation 2020c). Biological field surveys were
conducted in 2019 to evaluate the existing environment, gather information on the presence of
special-status species, and determine project level impacts regarding biological resources.
Results and findings based on the above literature searches, surveys, and analyses are
presented below.
Habitats and Natural Communities of Concern

Habitats within the project area include riverine habitat (Churn Creek). The remainder of the
project area consists of paved surfaces (e.g., roadway and shoulders). Riverine and riparian
habitats are considered habitats of special concern and regulated under federal and state laws.
A description of the onsite aquatic and riparian habitats is provided below, along with estimated
impacts to the habitat, and identification of avoidance/minimization measures and compensatory
mitigation that may be warranted.
Riverine Habitat
Churn Creek (watershed is about 35 square miles) is the only waterway that would be affected.
West of I-5, prior to Churn Creek flowing under the interstate, Buckeye Creek and Churn Creek
merge. Both Buckeye and Churn Creek are shown as intermittent streams on the USGS
topographical map (Project City quad). East of the Churn Creek bridge widening, about 0.6 mile
downstream, Salt Creek flows into Churn Creek. Churn Creek flows south under SR 299, then
SR 44, under local roadways, through the City of Redding until it flows into the Sacramento
River in North Anderson about 15 miles south.
Other water ways in the Fix 5 Shasta Gateway project include an unnamed water way and
Boulder Creek, both of which eventually flow into Churn Creek.
About 74 ft² (0.002 acres) of permanent stream bed and bank alteration would occur for the
construction of piers associated with the Churn Creek bridge widening. About 2,825 ft² (0.065
acres) of temporary impacts to stream bed and bank would occur for placement a work pad
needed to widen churn creek bridge. The work pad would be clean, spawning-sized gravel and
would be removed once construction has been completed. Additionally, small amounts of RSP
are anticipated at potential jurisdictional aquatic features to dissipate energy. At many of these
locations RSP previously exists but needs supplemental RSP to function properly. In addition,
the drainage ditch that flows north to south from Oasis road NB offramp to Churn Creek would
be filled and replaced within the project limits further to the east near the right-of-way fence.
• Work in Churn Creek shall be completed during the period between June 1 and October
15, or as otherwise specified in resource-agency permits. Upon completion of work, the
contractor shall restore temporarily disturbed streambed to near pre-construction
conditions.
• Potential direct and indirect effects on water quality and the aquatic environment shall be
avoided by implementing standard construction best management practices for erosion
control and spill prevention.

Riparian Habitat
Riparian habitat occurs at multiple locations within the ESL including adjacent to the four water
ways. Riparian vegetation is mostly cottonwood and willow species mixed with invasive
Himalayan blackberry, spearmint, and nutsedges.
261ft² (0.006 acres) of permanent and 653 ft² (0.007 acres) of temporary impacts to riparian
habitat would occur associated with the widening of Churn Creek Bridge (Table 6). Other
permanent impacts to riparian areas are not anticipated. Temporary impacts that include
trimming riparian vegetation may occur to replace drainage features.
• Removal of existing vegetation shall not exceed the minimum necessary to complete
operations.
• Upon completion of work, the contractor shall restore the topography of temporarily
disturbed riparian areas to preconstruction conditions and stabilize soils with appropriate
erosion control methods.
Wetlands
Wetland features are located within the ESL. Most of the features delineated are connected to
larger features inside the BSA. The ESL wetlands are emergent wetlands consisting soft and
poverty rush with poverty rush being the more dominant of the two. Cat-tails and water pepper
occur in the lower, inundated locations.
Implementation of this project is not anticipated to cause any temporary or permanent impacts
to wetlands with the current scope. This would be achieved through the implementation of
Avoidance and Minimization Efforts, which are listed below.
• All wetland areas not required for construction shall be protected by establishing
environmentally sensitive area fencing as a first order of work to ensure construction
activities do not impact the areas.
Permits
Waters and riparian habitat identified within the project area are protected by state laws and
regulations and Sections 401 and 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Work within the bed and
bank of Churn Creek would require a Nationwide Permit 14 from the Army Corps of Engineers,
Water Quality Certification from the CVRWQCB, and a Lake or Stream bed Alteration Agreement
from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Impacts to riparian vegetation would be
addressed in the Lake or Stream bed Alteration Agreement. In addition, a Notice of Intent would
need to be filed with the State Water Resources Control Board to obtain coverage under the
NPDES General Construction Permit.
Special-Status Plant Species

No special-status plant species were observed within and/or adjacent to the project area during
the field survey nor are any special-status plant species expected to be present. Therefore,
there would be no impact to special-status plant species.
Special-Status Animal Species

Although no special-status animal species were observed within and/or adjacent to the project
area during the field survey, the following special-status animal species have the potential to
occur within and/or adjacent to the project area: western pond turtle (state Species of Concern),
Central Valley steelhead DPS (federal Threatened), Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon
ESU (federal and state Threatened), and Central Valley winter-run Chinook salmon ESU

(federal and state Endangered). The following discussion addresses special-status animal
potentially present within and/or adjacent to the project area, as determined by the literature
review and completion of field surveys, and includes a detailed description of the species’ life
history and habitat requirements, an evaluation of the potential for the species to be affected by
the proposed work, and identification of avoidance/minimization measures that may be
warranted.
Western Pond Turtle

Western pond turtles associate with permanent or nearly permanent water in a wide variety of
habitat types, including lakes, ponds, rivers, streams, and irrigation ditches. The species is
reported from near sea level to 4,690 feet in elevation. Individuals are active all year where
climate is warm; elsewhere, individuals may hibernate in response to the onset of winter
conditions. Western pond turtles require basking sites such as partially submerged logs, rocks,
mats of floating vegetation, or open mud banks. Egg laying occurs from March to August. Along
large, slow-moving streams, eggs are deposited in nests constructed in sandy banks. Along
foothill streams, females may climb hillsides, sometimes moving up to 325 feet to find a suitable
nest site. Nests must have a relatively high internal humidity for eggs to develop and hatch
properly.
Churn Creek provides potentially suitable habitat for the western pond turtle. Although no
western pond turtles were observed during the field survey, western pond turtles could be
directly affected if present during in-channel work and harmed by construction equipment.
Potential indirect effects on western pond turtles could occur if sediments or pollutants were to
enter drainages and degrade habitat for the species. With implementation of the following
avoidance/minimization measure, project implementation would have no direct or indirect effects
on western pond turtles:
• Potential direct effects on western pond turtles shall be avoided by having a

contractor-supplied biologist conduct a pre-construction survey of in-water
work areas each day that in-water work would occur until a water diversion
is established. If present, turtles shall be relocated to suitable habitat
outside of work areas.
• Potential indirect effects on turtles shall be avoided by implementing

standard construction best management practices for erosion control and
spill prevention.
Salmonids
Central Valley Spring-Run Chinook Salmon ESU

Adult spring-run leave the ocean to begin their upstream migration in late-January to early
February. Spring-run adults generally enter rivers as sexually immature fish and must hold in
deep, freshwater pools with cold water for up to several months before spawning. Spawning
normally occurs between mid-August and early October. Adults spawn in clean, loose gravel, in
swift, relatively shallow riffles, or along the margins of deeper river reaches where suitable water
temperatures, depths, and velocities favor red construction and oxygenation of incubating eggs.
Spring-run spawn and rear in the clear, cool water. Fry emergence occurs from November
through March and seek streamside habitats containing beneficial aspects such as riparian
vegetation and associated structures that provide invertebrates for food, predator avoidance
cover, and slower water velocities for resting. Juveniles may reside in freshwater for 12 to 16
months, but some migrate downstream to the ocean as young-of-the-year in the winter or spring

months within 8 months of hatching. Most downstream migration occurs at night. Juveniles
enter the ocean where they would reside for several years before returning as adults to
freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Central Valley Winter-Run Chinook Salmon ESU

Adult winter-run begin spawning migrations from December through July. Adults are sexually
immature when upstream migration begins, and they must hold for several months in suitable
habitat prior to spawning. Spawning occurs between late-April and mid-August. Adults spawn in
clean, loose gravel, in swift, shallow riffles, or along the margins of deeper river reaches where
suitable water temperatures, depths, and velocities favor red construction and oxygenation of
incubating eggs. Fry emerge from mid-June through mid-October and seek streamside habitats
containing beneficial aspects such as riparian vegetation and associated structures that provide
invertebrates for food, predator avoidance cover, and slower water velocities for resting.
Downstream migration of juveniles may begin after almost 1 year in the river. Most of the
downstream migration activity occur at night. Juveniles enter the ocean where they would reside
for several years before returning as adults to freshwater rivers and streams to spawn.
Central Valley Steelhead Trout DPS

Steelhead are the anadromous form of rainbow trout. In the Sacramento River basin, steelhead
enter freshwater from August to April. They hold in the main-stem Sacramento River until flows
are high enough in its tributaries to enter for spawning. Steelhead adults typically spawn from
December to April, with peak spawning from January to March, in small streams and tributaries
where cool, well-oxygenated water is available year-round. Juvenile steelhead generally migrate
to the ocean in spring and early summer at 1 to 3 years of age. Juvenile steelhead would reside
in the ocean for several years before returning as adults to freshwater rivers and streams to
spawn.
Although not observed during the field survey, the onsite reach of Churn Creek provides
potentially suitable rearing habitat for Central Valley spring-run Chinook salmon, Central Valley
winter-run Chinook salmon, and Central Valley steelhead during winter and spring when water
temperatures are suitable for salmonids. By June 15, water temperatures in Churn Creek are
expected to exceed 25 °C (77 °F), which is lethal to salmonids. The presence of warm water
during the summer months would preclude the presence of salmonids. Implementation of the
following avoidance/minimization measures would ensure that salmonids would not be directly
or indirectly affected by the proposed work:
• Work in Churn Creek shall be limited to the period between June 1 and October 15, or
as otherwise specified in resource-agency permits. Upon completion of work, the
contractor shall restore temporarily disturbed streambed to pre-construction conditions.
• Potential indirect effects on salmonids shall be avoided by implementing standard

construction best management practices for erosion control and spill prevention.
Critical Habitat
No designated critical habitat exists in the project limits.
Essential Fish Habitat

Review of the NMFS EFH mapper confirmed that the project area is within a watershed
designated as EFH for Chinook salmon. The proposed work would be a temporarily and
localized disturbance of EFH for Chinook salmon. With the additional implementation of
conservation measures it is expected that the project would not adversely affect EFH.

Nesting Migratory Birds
A variety of migratory bird species could potentially nest in vegetation within and/or adjacent to
the project area. If present, nesting birds could be directly and indirectly affected by the
proposed work. Potential direct effects on nesting birds could include mortality resulting from
destruction of nests during vegetation removal. Potential indirect effects on nesting birds could
include disruption of feeding patterns or nest abandonment due to construction related noise.
With implementation of the following measure, vegetation removal and construction activities
would have no direct or indirect effects on nesting birds.
• To avoid disturbing nesting birds, tree and shrub removal shall be restricted to the period
between October 1 and January 31. If this is not practicable, a contractor-supplied
biologist shall conduct a preconstruction survey for nesting birds within 3 days prior to
removing trees and shrubs. If an active nest is discovered, the resident engineer shall be
notified immediately and all work within 100 feet of the nest shall cease.
• Prior to construction, the contractor shall install bird exclusionary material on the Churn
Creek Bridge outside the nesting season to prevent birds from nesting on the structure.
Invasive Species
The project area contains ruderal species that include non-native, invasive, and noxious weeds.
Noxious weeds are considered widespread in California and subject to regulations to stop their
spread. Implementation of the following avoidance/minimization measures would prevent the
introduction/spread of invasive and/or noxious weed species and reduce any impacts on native
plant communities to levels less than significant.
• In accordance with Caltrans’ non-standard specification 14-6.05, prior to beginning work,

the contractor shall prepare an invasive species control plan that identifies measures to
be implemented to prevent the introduction and/or spread of invasive species (e.g.,
noxious weeds). The invasive species control plan shall be approved by Caltrans
environmental staff and implemented prior to beginning work.
Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites

Under current conditions, while difficult, medium to large wildlife such as deer, raccoons, and
fox can cross the interstate. The median barrier is either an earth berm or a high-tension cable
barrier , both simple for an adult deer, fawn or medium mammal to navigate. Additionally,
existing conditions only have wildlife crossing two lanes of traffic at a time. The median is wide
enough for wildlife to pause without being harmed before either turning around or proceeding
across the next two lanes. With the addition of an additional lane, that is another 12 feet of
active roadway wildlife would have to navigate. Reducing the medium width also would reduce
the area wildlife have to recuperate and prepare to cross another three to four lanes of active
traffic. Moreover, the reduction in median width is exacerbated with the addition of standard
concrete barriers. The addition of the barrier would eliminate all wildlife but adult deer from
being able to cross the interstate. Medium to small wildlife would attempt to cross, be stopped
by the concrete barrier, and would have to turn around. While adult deer would be able to cross
the concrete median and additional lane, the median may affect their line of sight and the
additional lane would require deer to continue across the entire Interstate instead of being able
to stop in the median. With a sprint across the interstate wildlife may cross one side safely only
to jump into oncoming traffic, making the travel way dangerous for wildlife and drivers alike.
Therefore, with the increase of 48 feet of additional active lanes, reduction in median size, and
construction of high concrete median barrier, a total widening of 84 feet at the widest segment,

impact to wildlife movement across I-5 would be substantial. The proposed project would
interfere with the movement of native resident or migratory wildlife species, but not fishes (a
water diversion would be installed to allow aquatic organisms to move freely around the in-
channel work area). The proposed project would not impede any established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites.
Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans

The United States Fish and Wildlife Service has approved two habitat conservation plans in
Shasta County (United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2020). One to the Fruit Growers Supply
Company (Corporation) for Northern spotted owl, Yreka phlox and coho salmon – Southern
Oregon- Northern California Coast ESU and one to Ox Yoke Road (private Individual) for valley
elderberry beetle. These landowners are not adjacent to the project. No natural community
conservation plans have been designated in Shasta County (California Department of Fish and
Wildlife 2020). Given the above findings, there would be no impact on habitat conservation
plans or natural community conservation plans.
CEQA Determination
The proposed project would have no impacts to on special status plants, local policies or
ordinance, or adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan or
other approved conservation plan.
The project would have a less than significant impact to habitats and natural communities of
concern, species protection (including nesting migratory birds), and animal species of special
concern.
Without mitigation, the addition of two new active travel lanes, two auxiliary lanes, reduction in
median, and addition of sections of high concrete median barriers, the proposed project would
substantially interfere with the movement of wildlife species which would be a significant impact.
However, the project would include mitigation for impacts to the movement of wildlife species
which would mitigate impacts below the level of significance
Two options, or a combination of the two, are proposed. First, the fifth worst hot spot for mule
deer collisions in the entire state would be remedied. This section of roadway, also along
Interstate 5 is in Tehama county is about 1.5 miles from Dibble Creek to the Antelope Boulevard
intersection (Post miles R28.2 – R26.5). Caltrans proposes to attach outriggers to the top of the
existing 4 -foot tall fence to discourage wildlife from jumping the fence, or in some areas
replacing the existing fence with a six-foot-tall fence. Wildlife would be channeled to multiple
existing waterway bridge locations to cross underneath the Interstate.
A second alternative to mitigate for impacts would be to fund a Department of Fish and Wildlife
program to purchase collars for use on deer herds around the City of Redding. This would help
understand the ecology and movement of urban deer so that treatments can be properly
implemented in the future.
The final alternative would be a combination of the two above scenarios. Collars on a small
number of individuals would have a large impact in understanding the movement of urban deer
in the City of Redding. This option would be based on CDFW staff availability to conduct the
research. Because the collars auto-drop and can be refurbished, a combination of the two

alternatives would lead to multiple years of important data, while addressing the existing known
critical vehicle-wildlife incident hotspot.
It is anticipated that the 401 Water Quality Certification, 404 Army Corps of Engineers permit,
and 1602 Streambed Alteration agreement would require compensatory mitigation which would
be determined in the next phase of the project.
Additionally, avoidance/minimization measures for habitats and natural communities of concern,

species protection (including nesting migratory birds), animal species of special concern, and
invasive species control, would be implemented.
3.4 Energy
Regulatory Setting
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332)
requires the identification of all potentially significant impacts to the environment, including
energy impacts.
Energy Policy Act
The federal Energy Policy Act (EPA) addresses energy production in the United States,
including: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil and gas; (4) coal; (5) Tribal energy;
(6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels, including ethanol; (8) hydrogen;
(9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and geothermal energy; and (12)
climate change technology. For example, the Act provides loan guarantees for entities that
develop or use innovative technologies that avoid the by-production of greenhouse gases.
Another provision of the Act increases the amount of biofuel that must be mixed with gasoline
sold in the United States.
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines section 15126.2(b) and Appendix
F, Energy Conservation, require an analysis of a project’s energy use to determine if the project
may result in significant environmental effects due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary use of
energy, or wasteful use of energy resources.
CEQA applies to most California transportation projects (certain projects are statutorily exempt).
For CEQA analyses, estimation data were compared from the future year Build scenarios to
energy consumption from the Baseline (existing conditions). The following analysis and
determinations are for CEQA only.
The topography of a region can substantially impact air flow and resulting pollutant
concentrations. California is divided into 15 air basins with similar topography and meteorology
to better manage air quality throughout the state. Each air basin has a local air district that is

responsible for identifying and implementing air quality strategies to comply with ambient air
quality standards.
The North Redding 6 Lanes project site is located at City of Redding in Shasta County, an area
within the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB), which includes Sacramento, Shasta, Tehama,
Butte, Glenn, Colusa, Sutter, Yuba, Yolo, and parts of Solano and Placer Counties. Air quality
regulation in this project location is administered by Shasta County Air Quality Management
District. Current and forecasted population for Shasta County is 180,040 as of July 1, 2018 U.S.
Census, and the county’s economy is largely driven by City of Redding.
Existing Roadway Conditions
The existing roadway segment of I-5 was planned, designed, and built in the 1960’s. The
existing freeway median narrows between SR 273 and Oasis Road, and at the same time, it
expands from 4lanes to 6-lanes. The 4-lane segment has an 84-foot median while the existing
6-lane segment has a 36-foot median. The existing third northbound lane was added to the
outside of the original 4-lanes and begins at the on-ramp from SR 273 and continues to SR 151
at Exit 685.
Direct Energy Consumption (Construction)
Site preparation and roadway construction would land clearing/grubbing, roadway excavation/
removal, structural excavation/removal, base/subbase/imported borrow, structure concrete,
paving, drainage/environment/landscaping, and traffic signalization/signage/stripping/painting.
During construction, short-term fuel consumption is expected by various operation. Fuels for
construction equipment would be largely powered by gasoline and diesel. Construction activities
are expected to increase traffic congestion in the area, resulting in increases in fuel
consumption from traffic during the delays. This consumption would be temporary and limited to
the immediate area surrounding the construction site.
The basic procedure for analyzing direct energy consumption from construction activities is to
obtain fuel consumption projections in gallons from the Caltrans Construction Emission Tool
(CAL-CET). Construction energy consumption was estimated using the Caltrans’ Model, CAL-
CET2018 (version 1.3). Construction-related fuel consumption by operation and annual for the
proposed project were calculated in an Energy Analysis Report (Caltrans 2020) completed for
the project. The energy consumption presented is based on the best information available at the
time of calculations. The energy represents the construction fuel consumption.
The proposed project construction would primarily consume diesel and gasoline through
operation of heavy-duty construction equipment, material deliveries, and debris hauling. Energy
use associated with proposed project construction is estimated to result in the short-term
consumption of 120,414 gallons for the build alternative from diesel-powered equipment and
72,271 gallons for the build alternative from gasoline-powered equipment. These represent
small demands (approximately diesel: 0.5%; gasoline: 0.08%) on Shasta County’s gasoline and
diesel sales estimates (i.e. 24 million of diesel gallons and 87 million of gasoline gallons in
2018) that would be easily accommodated, and this demand would cease once construction is
complete.

Direct Energy Consumption (Mobile Sources)
The basic procedure for analyzing direct energy consumption from mobile sources was
conducted by calculating fuel consumption using CT-EMFAC2017. Operational energy
considers long-term changes in fuel consumption due to the project that would increase
capacity (excluding the construction phase). The operational fuel consumption analysis
compares forecasted consumption for baseline, no-build, and build alternatives during existing,
opening, and design years.
The added lanes on both directions of the freeway proposed as an alternative would affect
traffic operations and increase vehicle capacity along I-5 in the project area. Although the
annual diesel fuel consumption under the alternatives for opening and design year is higher
than that under the existing condition due to increases in truck AADT volumes, the annual
gasoline consumption for future build scenario would decrease in comparison with the baseline
condition due to the improvement of emission factors by zero-emission vehicles as well as
increases in carsharing programs and development of mass transit. No substantial differences
between the build and the no build alternatives during the opening and design years would be
anticipated due to no appreciable changes in traffic volumes.
Indirect Energy
The proposed project does not include additional maintenance activities which would result in
long-term indirect energy consumption by equipment required to operate and maintain in the
roadway. It would reconstruct and widen mainline I-5 from 4 lanes to 6 lanes, including widening
to the median with 12 feet lanes and 10 feet inside shoulders and structures. As such, it is
unlikely to increase indirect energy consumption though increased fuel usage above baseline
fuel usage.
CEQA Determination
Once constructed, the project may contribute to roadway improvement that would improve the
fuel economy of vehicles. Construction-related energy consumption would be temporary and is
unlikely to substantially increase direct energy consumption through increased fuel usage.
Therefore, the proposed project would not result in potentially significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources during project
construction or operation.
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. Therefore, there would be no impact.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on
energy resources
Energy Saving Measures (Construction)

The guidance in section 15126.2(b) and Appendix F of the CEQA Guidelines, Energy
Conservation provide feasible conservation measures during construction. While construction
would result in a short-term increase in energy use, construction design features would help
conserve energy. The following measures shall be implemented when practical:
▪ Reduce grades and curvatures in construction of the project.

▪ Use recycled and energy-efficient building materials, energy-efficient tools and
construction equipment, and renewable energy sources in construction and operation of
the project.
▪ Improve operations and maintenance practices by regularly checking and maintaining
equipment to ensure its functioning efficiently.
▪ Optimize start-up time, power-down time, and equipment sequencing.
▪ Educate employees about how their behaviors affect energy use.
▪ Ensure that team members are trained in the importance of energy management and
basic energy-saving practices. Hold staff meetings on energy use, costs, objectives, and
employee responsibilities.
3.5 Geology and Soils
Regulatory Setting
For geologic and topographic features, the key federal law is the Historic Sites Act of 1935,
which establishes a national registry of natural landmarks and protects “outstanding examples
of major geological features.” Topographic and geologic features are also protected under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
This section also discusses geology, soils, and seismic concerns as they relate to public safety
and project design. Earthquakes are prime considerations in the design and retrofit of
structures. Structures are designed using the Department’s Seismic Design Criteria (SDC).
The SDC provides the minimum seismic requirements for highway bridges designed in
California. A bridge’s category and classification would determine its seismic performance level
and which methods are used for estimating the seismic demands and structural capabilities.
For more information, please see the Department’s Division of Engineering Services, Office of
Earthquake Engineering, Seismic Design Criteria.
The proposed project is located within the northern portion of the Central Valley, which is
generally characterized relatively flat topography. Landslides are uncommon on the valley floor.
Review of aerial photographs found no evidence of large landslides within or adjacent to the
project limits. Given that that the topography within the project area is relatively level and there
is no history of highway repairs due to landslides or subsidence within the project area, the soils
are presumed to be relatively stable. Most of the underlying geology in the project area consists
of nonmarine sedimentary rocks from the Pliocene-Pleistocene with insertions of marine
sedimentary and metasedimentary rocks (California Department of Conservation 2020c). The
northern limits consist of Metavolcanic rocks (California Department of Conservation 2020c).
The proposed project is not located in an area that has a known active earthquake fault, as
delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo earthquake fault zoning map (California
Department of Conservation 2020d). The project location is subject to moderate seismic ground
shaking from earthquakes (California Department of Conservation 2020e). The project area is
not in an area characterized by seismic-related ground failure and/or liquefaction (California
Department of Conservation 2020f).
Predominant soil types throughout the project area include Redding, Clough, Churn, Gaviota,
and Newtown (Natural Resources Conservation Service 2020). All these soils have low
infiltration rates. Potential for erosion does occur.

Expansive soils present hazards for development because they expand and shrink depending
on water content. A hydrologic soil group is a group of soils having similar runoff potential under
similar storm and cover conditions. The Natural Resource Conservation Service recognizes four
hydrologic soil groups (A through D). Group D soils have a high shrink-swell potential due to
their high clay content. All fall in the Hydrologic Group D except Newton, which falls in Group C.
However, the current roadway is on fill from soil groups outside of Group D.
Although the new structures and roadway could be subjected to moderate seismic ground
shaking in the event of a strong earthquake, any such limitations can be overcome through
proper planning, design, and/or construction. The proposed work includes grading and
excavation, which would disturb approximately 26.8 acres of ground surface. The widening of
Churn Creek bridge and the activities associated with it have the potential to cause soil erosion
and may result in the loss of a small amounts of soil until the slopes, banks, and temporary
access roads are fully stabilized.
CEQA Determination
The proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault,
seismic-related ground failure (including liquefaction), and landslides. The proposed project is
not located on a soil that is unstable or that would become unstable because of the project and
potentially result in onsite/offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or
collapse. There are expansive soils present within the project area, however, the proposed
project would not create substantial direct or indirect risks to life and/or property. The proposed
project does not include the use of septic tanks and/or alternative waste water disposal systems
and would not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource/site or unique
geologic feature. The project may result in the loss of a very small amount of soil, but this
quantity would not constitute a substantial loss of soil. By designing the additional lanes in
accordance with current seismic safety standards and implementation of standard BMPs for
erosion control during construction, the proposed project would have a less than significant
impact on geology and soils.
The following measures shall be implemented to overcome the effects of strong seismic ground
shaking and to minimize the potential for erosion:
• The new roadway lanes and bridge widening shall be designed in accordance with
current seismic safety standards.
• Standard construction best management practices for erosion control and spill
prevention shall be implemented.
3.6 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Climate change refers to long-term changes in temperature, precipitation, wind patterns, and
other elements of the earth's climate system. An ever-increasing body of scientific research

attributes these climatological changes to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, particularly those
generated from the production and use of fossil fuels.
While climate change has been a concern for several decades, the establishment of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) by the United Nations and World
Meteorological Organization in 1988 led to increased efforts devoted to GHG emissions
reduction and climate change research and policy. These efforts are primarily concerned with
the emissions of GHGs generated by human activity, including carbon dioxide (CO2), methane
(CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and
various hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). CO2 is the most abundant GHG; while it is a naturally
occurring component of Earth’s atmosphere, fossil-fuel combustion is the main source of
additional, human-generated CO2.
Two terms are typically used when discussing how we address the impacts of climate change:
“greenhouse gas mitigation” and “adaptation.” Greenhouse gas mitigation covers the activities
and policies aimed at reducing GHG emissions to limit or “mitigate” the impacts of climate
change. Adaptation, on the other hand, is concerned with planning for and responding to
impacts resulting from climate change (such as adjusting transportation design standards to
withstand more intense storms and higher sea levels). This analysis includes a discussion of
both.
Regulatory Setting
This section outlines federal and state efforts to comprehensively reduce GHG emissions from
transportation sources.
Federal
To date, no national standards have been established for nationwide mobile-source GHG
reduction targets, nor have any regulations or legislation been enacted specifically to address
climate change and GHG emissions reduction at the project level.
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 United States Code [USC] Part 4332)
requires federal agencies to assess the environmental effects of their proposed actions prior to
deciding on the action or project.
The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) recognizes the threats that extreme weather, sea-
level change, and other changes in environmental conditions pose to valuable transportation
infrastructure and those who depend on it. FHWA therefore supports a sustainability approach
that assesses vulnerability to climate risks and incorporates resilience into planning, asset
management, project development and design, and operations and maintenance practices
(FHWA 2019). This approach encourages planning for sustainable highways by addressing
climate risks while balancing environmental, economic, and social values—“the triple bottom
line of sustainability” (FHWA n.d.). Program and project elements that foster sustainability and
resilience also support economic vitality and global efficiency, increase safety and mobility,
enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve the quality of life.
Various efforts have been promulgated at the federal level to improve fuel economy and energy
efficiency to address climate change and its associated effects. The most important of these
was the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42 USC Section 6201) and Corporate
Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards. This act establishes fuel economy standards for on-

road motor vehicles sold in the United States. Compliance with federal fuel economy standards
is determined through the CAFE program based on each manufacturer’s average fuel economy
for the portion of its vehicles produced for sale in the United States.
Energy Policy Act of 2005, 109th Congress H.R.6 (2005–2006): This act sets forth an energy
research and development program covering: (1) energy efficiency; (2) renewable energy; (3) oil
and gas; (4) coal; (5) the establishment of the Office of Indian Energy Policy and Programs
within the Department of Energy; (6) nuclear matters and security; (7) vehicles and motor fuels,
including ethanol; (8) hydrogen; (9) electricity; (10) energy tax incentives; (11) hydropower and
geothermal energy; and (12) climate change technology.
The U.S. EPA in conjunction with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) is
responsible for setting GHG emission standards for new cars and light-duty vehicles to
significantly increase the fuel economy of all new passenger cars and light trucks sold in the
United States. Fuel efficiency standards directly influence GHG emissions.
State
California has been innovative and proactive in addressing GHG emissions and climate change
by passing multiple Senate and Assembly bills and executive orders (EOs) including, but not
limited to, the following:
EO S-3-05 (June 1, 2005): The goal of this EO is to reduce California’s GHG emissions to: (1)
year 2000 levels by 2010, (2) year 1990 levels by 2020, and (3) 80 percent below year 1990
levels by 2050. This goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill (AB) 32 in
2006 and Senate Bill (SB) 32 in 2016.
Assembly Bill (AB) 32, Chapter 488, 2006, Núñez and Pavley, The Global Warming Solutions
Act of 2006: AB 32 codified the 2020 GHG emissions reduction goals outlined in EO S-3-05,
while further mandating that the California Air Resources Board (ARB) create a scoping plan
and implement rules to achieve “real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse
gases.” The Legislature also intended that the statewide GHG emissions limit continue in
existence and be used to maintain and continue reductions in emissions of GHGs beyond 2020
(Health and Safety Code [H&SC] Section 38551(b)). The law requires ARB to adopt rules and
regulations in an open public process to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and
cost-effective GHG reductions.
EO S-01-07 (January 18, 2007): This order sets forth the low carbon fuel standard (LCFS) for
California. Under this EO, the carbon intensity of California’s transportation fuels is to be
reduced by at least 10 percent by the year 2020. ARB re-adopted the LCFS regulation in
September 2015, and the changes went into effect on January 1, 2016. The program
establishes a strong framework to promote the low-carbon fuel adoption necessary to achieve
the Governor's 2030 and 2050 GHG reduction goals.
Senate Bill (SB) 375, Chapter 728, 2008, Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection:
This bill requires ARB to set regional emissions reduction targets for passenger vehicles. The
Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for each region must then develop a "Sustainable
Communities Strategy" (SCS) that integrates transportation, land-use, and housing policies to
plan how it achieves the emissions target for its region.

SB 391, Chapter 585, 2009, California Transportation Plan: This bill requires the State’s long-
range transportation plan to identify strategies to address California’s climate change goals
under AB 32.
EO B-16-12 (March 2012) orders State entities under the direction of the Governor, including
ARB, the California Energy Commission, and the Public Utilities Commission, to support the
rapid commercialization of zero-emission vehicles. It directs these entities to achieve various
benchmarks related to zero-emission vehicles.
EO B-30-15 (April 2015) establishes an interim statewide GHG emission reduction target of 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030 to ensure California meets its target of reducing GHG
emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. It further orders all state agencies with
jurisdiction over sources of GHG emissions to implement measures, pursuant to statutory
authority, to achieve reductions of GHG emissions to meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions
reductions targets. It also directs ARB to update the Climate Change Scoping Plan to express
the 2030 target in terms of million metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO 2e).2 Finally,
it requires the Natural Resources Agency to update the state’s climate adaptation strategy,
Safeguarding California, every 3 years, and to ensure that its provisions are fully implemented.
SB 32, Chapter 249, 2016, codifies the GHG reduction targets established in EO B-30-15 to
achieve a mid-range goal of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
SB 1386, Chapter 545, 2016, declared “it to be the policy of the state that the protection and
management of natural and working lands … is an important strategy in meeting the state’s
greenhouse gas reduction goals, and would require all state agencies, departments, boards,
and commissions to consider this policy when revising, adopting, or establishing policies,
regulations, expenditures, or grant criteria relating to the protection and management of natural
and working lands.”
AB 134, Chapter 254, 2017, allocates Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds and other sources to
various clean vehicle programs, demonstration/pilot projects, clean vehicle rebates and projects,
and other emissions-reduction programs statewide.
SB 743, Chapter 386 (September 2013): This bill changes the metric of consideration for
transportation impacts pursuant to CEQA from a focus on automobile delay to alternative
methods focused on vehicle miles travelled, to promote the state’s goals of reducing
greenhouse gas emissions and traffic related air pollution and promoting multimodal
transportation while balancing the needs of congestion management and safety.
SB 150, Chapter 150, 2017, Regional Transportation Plans: This bill requires ARB to prepare a
report that assesses progress made by each metropolitan planning organization in meeting their
established regional greenhouse gas emission reduction targets.
2 GHGs differ in how much heat each trap in the atmosphere (global warming potential, or GWP). CO 2 is
the most important GHG, so amounts of other gases are expressed relative to CO 2, using a metric
called “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e). The global warming potential of CO2 is assigned a value of
1, and the GWP of other gases is assessed as multiples of CO 2.

EO B-55-18 (September 2018) sets a new statewide goal to achieve and maintain carbon
neutrality no later than 2045. This goal is in addition to existing statewide targets of reducing
GHG emissions.
EO N-19-19 (September 2019) advances California’s climate goals in part by directing the
California State Transportation Agency to leverage annual transportation spending to reverse
the trend of increased fuel consumption and reduce GHG emissions from the transportation
sector. It orders a focus on transportation investments near housing, managing congestion, and
encouraging alternatives to driving. This EO also directs ARB to encourage automakers to
produce more clean vehicles, formulate ways to help Californians purchase them, and propose
strategies to increase demand for zero-emission vehicles.
Environmental Setting
The proposed project is in a rural area, with a primarily natural resources-based agricultural and
tourism economy. Interstate 5 is the main transportation route to and through the area for both
passenger and commercial vehicles. There are no alternative northbound/southbound routes,
other than local roads. Traffic counts for this section of I-5 are high. The proposed project is
within the jurisdiction of the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency (SRTA), which is the
federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) and state-designated Regional
Transportation Planning Agency (RTPA) for Shasta County, and guides transportation
development within the County.
A GHG emissions inventory estimates the amount of GHGs discharged into the atmosphere by
specific sources over a period, such as a calendar year. Tracking annual GHG emissions allows
countries, states, and smaller jurisdictions to understand how emissions are changing and what
actions may be needed to attain emission reduction goals. U.S. EPA is responsible for
documenting GHG emissions nationwide, and the ARB does so for the state, as required by
H&SC Section 39607.4.
National GHG Inventory
The U.S. EPA prepares a national GHG inventory every year and submits it to the United
Nations in accordance with the Framework Convention on Climate Change. The inventory
provides a comprehensive accounting of all human-produced sources of GHGs in the United
States, reporting emissions of CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs, perfluorocarbons, SF6, and nitrogen
trifluoride. It also accounts for emissions of CO2 that are removed from the atmosphere by
“sinks” such as forests, vegetation, and soils that uptake and store CO2 (carbon sequestration).
The 1990–2016 inventory found that of 6,511 MMTCO2e GHG emissions in 2016, 81% consist
of CO2, 10% are CH4, and 6% are N2O; the balance consists of fluorinated gases (EPA 2018a).
In 2016, GHG emissions from the transportation sector accounted for nearly 28.5% of U.S.
GHG emissions.

Figure 2. U.S. 2016 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
State GHG Inventory
ARB collects GHG emissions data for transportation, electricity, commercial/residential,

industrial, agricultural, and waste management sectors each year. It then summarizes and
highlights major annual changes and trends to demonstrate the state’s progress in meeting its
GHG reduction goals. The 2019 edition of the GHG emissions inventory found total California
emissions of 424.1 MMTCO2e for 2017, with the transportation sector responsible for 41% of
total GHGs. It also found that overall statewide GHG emissions declined from 2000 to 2017
despite growth in population and state economic output (ARB 2019a).
Figure 3. California 2017 Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Figure 4. Change in California GDP, Population, and GHG Emissions since 2000
(Source: ARB 2019b)
AB 32 required ARB to develop a Scoping Plan that describes the approach California plans to
take to achieve the goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, and to update it
every 5 years. ARB adopted the first scoping plan in 2008. The second updated plan,
California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan, adopted on December 14, 2017, reflects the
2030 target established in EO B-30-15 and SB 32. The AB 32 Scoping Plan and the subsequent
updates contain the main strategies California plans to use to reduce GHG emissions.
Regional Plans
ARB sets regional targets for California’s 18 MPOs to use in their Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS) to plan future projects that cumulatively
achieve GHG reduction goals. Targets are set at a percent reduction of passenger vehicle GHG
emissions per person from 2005 levels.
The proposed project is in Shasta County and is within the jurisdiction of the SRTA, which is the
federally designated MPO and state-designated RTPA for Shasta County, and guides
transportation development within the County. The 2018 Regional Transportation Plan &
Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region (SRTA 2019) identifies strategies for
GHG reduction within the County. The following strategies, if implemented, are believed to offer
the highest greenhouse gas emission reduction benefit-per-dollar and greatest community
support due to their direct and collateral benefits, including economic development, public
health and safety, and quality of life benefits:
• Expansion of SRTA’s Infill and Redevelopment Incentive Program combined with first-
and last-mile strategies.
o Utilizing SB 1 formula funds, SRTA may increase incentives available for infill
and redevelopment projects inside strategic growth areas and along high-
frequency transit corridors and designated active transportation trunk lines.

o SRTA plans to also lead and participate in complementary projects and programs
that address the crucial first- and last-mile between transit stops and trip origins
and destinations.
• Enhanced management of interregional corridors during exceptional events.
o Intelligent transportation systems (ITS) traffic operations.
o Advanced vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-to-infrastructure technologies.
o Other such strategies are planned to reduce the scale and duration of traffic
congestion as a result of winter storm and collision-related closures and lane
restrictions, thereby minimizing idling and low-speed stop-and-go travel.
Project Analysis
GHG emissions from transportation projects can be divided into those produced during
operation of the SHS and those produced during construction. The primary GHGs produced by
the transportation sector are CO2, CH4, N2O, and HFCs. CO2 emissions are a product of the
combustion of petroleum-based products, like gasoline, in internal combustion engines.
Relatively small amounts of CH4 and N2O are emitted during fuel combustion. In addition, a
small amount of HFC emissions are included in the transportation sector.
The CEQA Guidelines generally address greenhouse gas emissions as a cumulative impact
due to the global nature of climate change (Pub. Resources Code, § 21083(b)(2)). As the
California Supreme Court explained, “because of the global scale of climate change, any one
project's contribution is unlikely to be significant by itself.” (Cleveland National Forest
Foundation v. San Diego Assn. of Governments (2017) 3 Cal.5th 497, 512.) In assessing
cumulative impacts, it must be determined if a project’s incremental effect is “cumulatively
considerable” (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064(h)(1) and 15130).
To make this determination, the incremental impacts of the project must be compared with the
effects of past, current, and probable future projects. Although climate change is ultimately a
cumulative impact, not every individual project that emits greenhouse gases must necessarily
be found to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on the environment.
Operational Emissions for Capacity-Increasing Projects
Capacity-increasing projects require a quantitative analysis, using CT-EMFAC to estimate

operational GHG emissions. ARB developed the EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model to facilitate
preparation of statewide and regional mobile source emissions inventories. The model
generates emissions rates that can be multiplied by vehicle activity data from all motor vehicles,
including passenger cars to heavy-duty trucks, operating on highways, freeways, and local
roads in California. Caltrans’ CT-EMFAC model uses data derived from EMFAC to streamline
project-level emissions analyses. Caltrans recommends using the CT-EMFAC model for
quantifying mobile source emissions from transportation projects on the California State
Highway System. The EMFAC2017/CT-EMFAC2017 model has been approved by U.S. EPA
and meets the FHWA’s transportation planning requirements.
CO2 accounts for 95 percent of transportation GHG emissions in the U.S. The largest sources of
transportation-related GHG emissions are passenger cars and light-duty trucks, including sport

utility vehicles, pickup trucks, and minivans. These sources account for over half of the
emissions from the sector. The remainder of GHG emissions comes from other modes of
transportation, including freight trucks, commercial aircraft, ships, boats, and trains, as well as
pipelines and lubricants. Because CO2 emissions represent the greatest percentage of GHG
emissions it has been selected as a proxy within the following analysis for potential climate
change impacts generally expected to occur.
The highest levels of CO2 from mobile sources such as automobiles occur at stop-and-go
speeds (0–25 miles per hour) and speeds over 55 miles per hour; the most severe emissions
occur from 0–25 miles per hour (Figure 5). To the extent that a project relieves congestion by
enhancing operations and improving travel times in high-congestion travel corridors, GHG
emissions, particularly CO2, may be reduced.
Four primary strategies can reduce GHG emissions from transportation sources: (1) improving
the transportation system and operational efficiencies, (2) reducing travel activity, (3)
transitioning to lower GHG-emitting fuels, and (4) improving vehicle technologies/efficiency. To
be most effective, all four strategies should be pursued concurrently.
Figure 5. Possible Use of Traffic Operation Strategies in Reducing On-road CO2

Emissions (Source: Barth and Boriboonsomsin 2010)
As discussed previously, the proposed project is subject to the 2018 Regional Transportation
Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy for the Shasta Region (SRTA 2019). Because the
project includes design features that would improve traffic flow and would not result in a
substantial increase in construction GHG emissions or operational GHG emissions, the project
is generally consistent with the 2018 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities
Strategy for the Shasta Region (SRTA 2019).

Quantitative Analysis
The ARB released EMFAC2017 in March 2018 and Caltrans released CT-EMFAC2017, which
incorporates the EMFAC2017 database, in January 2019. The U.S. EPA approved the
EMFAC2017 model for transportation conformity purposes on August 15, 2019. Caltrans
recommends using CT-EMFAC2017 to quantify GHG emissions because it incorporates the
latest planning assumptions and quantification methods.
Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is the primary metric utilized by Caltrans to evaluate impacts of
greenhouse gases to the state highway system. As part of the traffic modeling analysis to
analyze/estimate daily VMT, three years were considered: the base year (2016), which is the
year that environmental studies were initiated); the opening year (2026), which is the year the
project would be completed and open to traffic); and the design year (2046), which is the
conclusion of a 20-year planning period after the project has been constructed and open to the
public). In 2016, daily VMT was estimated at 330,400. Although the proposed project would
increase the structural capacity of the Interstate, traffic modeling analysis predicted no
difference in daily VMT between the no-build and build alternatives for the opening year (daily
VMT is estimated at 369,600 in each scenario) and design year (daily VMT is estimated at
481,600 in each scenario).
Using the latest approved version of the EMFAC model to evaluate annual CO2 emissions in
relation to annual VMT, a separate model run was conducted for the base year, the opening
year, and the design-year for both the no-build and build alternatives (Table 3). For the opening
year (2026), CO2 emissions associated with the build alternative are expected to increase
slightly (but not substantially) compared to the no-build alternative. For the design year (2046),
CO2 emissions associated with the build alternative are expected to increase slightly (but not
substantially) compared to the no-build alternative. Under the future build conditions, CO2
emissions are expected to decrease compared to existing conditions probably due to
improvements in speeds and emission factors.
It should be noted that while these emissions numbers are useful for comparing alternatives,
they do not necessarily accurately reflect what the true CO2 emissions would be because CO2
emissions are dependent on other factors that are not part of the CT-EMFAC model such as
fuel mix, rate of acceleration, and the aerodynamics and efficiency of vehicles.

Table 3. Modeled Annual CO2 Emissions and Vehicle Miles
Traveled, by Alternative
CO2 Emissions Annual Vehicle Miles

Alternative
(U.S. Tons/Year)1 Traveled2
Existing/Baseline 2016 57,230.905 114,648,800
Open to Traffic 2026

No Build Alternative 49,751.325 128,251,200
Build Alternative 49,970.690 128,251,200
20-Year Horizon/Design-Year 2046

No Build Alternative 52,796.520 167,115,200
Build Alternative 53,968.900 167,115,200
CO2 = carbon dioxide

Source: EMFAC 2014
1
Annual CO2 emissions derived from daily CO2 values multiplied by 365.
2
Annual vehicle miles traveled (VMT) values derived from Daily VMT values multiplied by 347, per ARB
methodology (ARB 2008).
A summary of operational emissions of CO and NOx by alternative is shown in Table 4. The

overall operational emissions of CO and NOx within the proposed project area under the future
build alternatives is not expected to increase in comparison with those under the baseline year
(2016) or be substantially higher than those under the no-build alternative.
Table 4. Summary of Operational Emissions of CO and NOx

by Alternative
Scenario/ Segment/ CO NOx

Analysis Year Location (US Tons/Day) (US Tons/Day)
Existing
0.455 0.192
Baseline 4-Lanes
Year (2016) Existing
0.166 0.070
6-Lanes
No Build Existing
0.166 0.075
Alternative 4-Lanes
Opening Year Existing
(2026) 0.061 0.028
6-Lanes
No Build Existing
0.126 0.058
Alternative 4-Lanes
Design Year Existing
(2046) 0.046 0.021
6-Lanes

Table 4. Summary of Operational Emissions of CO and NOx
by Alternative
Scenario/ Segment/ CO NOx

Analysis Year Location (US Tons/Day) (US Tons/Day)
Build
Alternative
Full Project 0.226 0.104
Opening Year
(2026)
Build
Alternative
Full Project 0.170 0.084
Design Year
(2046)
While CT-EMFAC has a rigorous scientific foundation and has been vetted through multiple
stakeholder reviews, its GHG emission rates are based on tailpipe emission test data.3
Moreover, the model does not account for factors such as the rate of acceleration and vehicle
aerodynamics, which influence the amount of emissions generated by a vehicle. GHG
emissions quantified using CT-EMFAC are therefore estimates and may not reflect actual
physical emissions. Though CT-EMFAC is currently the best available tool for calculating GHG
emissions from mobile sources, it is important to note that the GHG results are only useful for a
comparison among alternatives.
Construction Emissions
Construction GHG emissions would result from material processing, on-site construction
equipment, and traffic delays due to construction. These emissions would be produced at
different levels throughout the construction phase; their frequency and occurrence can be
reduced through innovations in plans and specifications and by implementing better traffic
management during construction phases.
In addition, with innovations such as longer pavement lives, improved traffic management plans,
and changes in materials, the GHG emissions produced during construction can be offset to
some degree by longer intervals between maintenance and rehabilitation activities.
GHG emissions would occur during construction. Estimates of various GHG including carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and hydroflourocarbons (HFCs) were made
3 This analysis does not currently account for the effects of the US National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration and Environmental Protection Agency SAFE (Safer Affordable Fuel-Efficient) Vehicles
Rule. Part One revoking California’s authority to set its own greenhouse gas emissions standards was
published on September 27, 2019 and effective November 26, 2019. The SAFE Vehicles Rule Part 2
would amend existing Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) and tailpipe carbon dioxide
emissions standards for passenger cars and light trucks and establish new standards covering model
years 2021 through 2026. The proposal would retain the model year 2020 standards for both programs
through model year 2026. Although CARB has not yet provided adjustment factors for greenhouse gas
emissions to be utilized in light of the SAFE Rule, modeling these estimates with EMFAC2017 or CT-
EMFAC2017 remains the most precise means of estimating future greenhouse gas emissions.

for each year of construction using Cal-CET2018. As shown in Table 5, the primary GHG
released during construction is CO2. Table 6 shows projected CO2 emissions by alternative.
Table 5. Estimates of GHG Emissions During Construction (in U.S. Tons)
Construction Year CO2 CO NOx ROGs
2026/2027 1,144 4.67 6.41 <1
Table 6. Modeled CO2 Emissions by Alternatives (in U.S. Tons)
Scenario/ Segment/
CO2 Emissions (U.S. Tons/Day) Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled
Analysis Year Location
Existing
114.798 241,900
Baseline 4-Lanes
41.999 88,500
6-Lanes
No Build Existing
99.795 270,600
Alternative 4-Lanes
(2026) 36.510 99,000
6-Lanes
No Build Existing
105.903 352,600
Alternative 4-Lanes
(2046) 38.745 129,000
6-Lanes
Build
Alternative
Full Project 136.906 369,600
Opening Year
(2026)
Build
Alternative
Full Project 147.860 481,600
Design Year
(2046)
All construction contracts include Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 7-1.02A and
7-1.02C, Emissions Reduction, which require contractors to comply with all laws applicable to
the project and to certify they are aware of and would comply with all ARB emission reduction
regulations; and Section 14-9.02, Air Pollution Control, which requires contractors to comply
with all air pollution control rules, regulations, ordinances, and statutes. Certain common
regulations, such as equipment idling restrictions, that reduce construction vehicle emissions
also help reduce GHG emissions.
CEQA Determination
While the proposed project would result in direct and indirect GHG emissions during
construction, it is anticipated that the project would not result in a substantial increase in

operational GHG emissions. The proposed project would not conflict substantially with any
applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
With implementation of construction GHG-reduction measures, construction-related impacts on
the environment would be less than significant. Operational GHG emissions would increase
minimally but would have a less than significant impact on the environment.
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategies
Statewide Efforts
Major sectors of the California economy, including transportation, need to reduce emissions to
meet the 2030 and 2050 GHG emissions targets. Former Governor Edmund G. Brown
promoted GHG reduction goals that involved (1) reducing today’s petroleum use in cars and
trucks by up to 50 percent; (2) increasing from one-third to 50 percent our electricity derived
from renewable sources; (3) doubling the energy efficiency savings achieved at existing
buildings and making heating fuels cleaner; (4) reducing the release of methane, black carbon,
and other short-lived climate pollutants; (5) managing farms and rangelands, forests, and
wetlands so they can store carbon; and (6) periodically updating the state's climate adaptation
strategy, Safeguarding California.
Figure 6. California Climate Strategy
The transportation sector is integral to the people and economy of California. To achieve GHG
emission reduction goals, it is vital that the state build on past successes in reducing criteria and
toxic air pollutants from transportation and goods movement. GHG emission reductions would
come from cleaner vehicle technologies, lower-carbon fuels, and reduction of vehicle miles
traveled (VMT). A key state goal for reducing greenhouse gas emissions is to reduce today's
petroleum use in cars and trucks by up to 50 percent by 2030 (State of California 2019).

In addition, SB 1386 (Wolk 2016) established as state policy the protection and management of
natural and working lands and requires state agencies to consider that policy in their own
decision making. Trees and vegetation on forests, rangelands, farms, and wetlands remove
carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through biological processes and sequester the carbon in
above- and below-ground matter.
Caltrans Activities
Caltrans continues to be involved on the Governor’s Climate Action Team as the ARB works to
implement EOs S-3-05 and S-01-07 and help achieve the targets set forth in AB 32. EO B-30-
15, issued in April 2015, and SB 32 (2016), set an interim target to cut GHG emissions to 40
percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The following major initiatives are underway at Caltrans to
help meet these targets.
CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (CTP 2040)

The California Transportation Plan (CTP) is a statewide, long-range transportation plan to meet
our future mobility needs and reduce GHG emissions. In 2016, Caltrans completed the
California Transportation Plan 2040, which establishes a new model for developing ground
transportation systems, consistent with CO2 reduction goals. It serves as an umbrella document
for all the other statewide transportation planning documents. Over the next 25 years, California
will be working to improve transit and reduce long-run repair and maintenance costs of
roadways and developing a comprehensive assessment of climate-related transportation
demand management and new technologies rather than continuing to expand capacity on
existing roadways.
SB 391 (Liu 2009) requires the CTP to meet California’s climate change goals under AB 32.
Accordingly, the CTP 2040 identifies the statewide transportation system needed to achieve
maximum feasible GHG emission reductions while meeting the state’s transportation needs.
While MPOs have primary responsibility for identifying land use patterns to help reduce GHG
emissions, CTP 2040 identifies additional strategies in Pricing, Transportation Alternatives,
Mode Shift, and Operational Efficiency.
CALTRANS STRATEGIC MANAGEMENT PLAN

The Strategic Management Plan, released in 2015, creates a performance-based framework to
preserve the environment and reduce GHG emissions, among other goals. Specific
performance targets in the plan that help to reduce GHG emissions include:
• Increasing percentage of non-auto mode share
• Reducing VMT
• Reducing Caltrans’ internal operational (buildings, facilities, and fuel) GHG emissions
FUNDING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS

In addition to developing plans and performance targets to reduce GHG emissions, Caltrans
also administers several sustainable transportation planning grants. These grants encourage
local and regional multimodal transportation, housing, and land use planning that furthers the
region’s RTP/SCS; contribute to the State’s GHG reduction targets and advance transportation-
related GHG emission reduction project types/strategies; and support other climate adaptation
goals (e.g., Safeguarding California).

CALTRANS POLICY DIRECTIVES AND OTHER INITIATIVES
Caltrans Director’s Policy 30 (DP-30) Climate Change (June 22, 2012) is intended to establish a
Department policy that ensures coordinated efforts to incorporate climate change into
Departmental decisions and activities. Caltrans Activities to Address Climate Change (April
2013) provides a comprehensive overview of Caltrans’ statewide activities to reduce GHG
emissions resulting from agency operations.
Project-Level GHG Reduction Strategies
The following measures shall be implemented to reduce GHG emissions and potential climate
change impacts:
• The construction contractor shall comply with the 2018 Caltrans Standard Specifications
in Section 14-9. Section 14-9.02 specifically requires compliance by the contractor with
all applicable laws and regulations related to air quality, including the Shasta County Air
Pollution Control District regulations and local ordinances.
• Compliance with Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations, which includes idling
restrictions on construction vehicles and equipment to no more than 5 minutes.
• Compliance with Caltrans Standard Specifications 7-1.02A and 7-1.02C “Emissions

Reduction.”
• Utilize a traffic management plan to minimize vehicle delays.
• To the extent feasible, construction traffic shall be scheduled and routed to reduce
congestion and related air quality impacts caused by idling vehicles along local roads
during peak travel times.
Adaptation
Reducing GHG emissions is only one part of an approach to addressing climate change.
Caltrans must plan for the effects of climate change on the state’s transportation infrastructure
and strengthen or protect the facilities from damage. Climate change is expected to produce
increased variability in precipitation, rising temperatures, rising sea levels, variability in storm
surges and their intensity, and in the frequency and intensity of wildfires. Flooding and erosion
can damage or wash out roads; longer periods of intense heat can buckle pavement and
railroad tracks; storm surges combined with a rising sea level can inundate highways. Wildfire
can directly burn facilities and indirectly cause damage when rain falls on denuded slopes that
landslide after a fire. Effects vary by location and may, in the most extreme cases, require that a
facility be relocated or redesigned. Accordingly, Caltrans must consider these types of climate
stressors in how highways are planned, designed, built, operated, and maintained.
Federal Efforts
Under NEPA assignment, Caltrans is obligated to comply with all applicable federal
environmental laws and FHWA NEPA regulations, policies, and guidance.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) delivers a report to Congress and the
president every 4 years, in accordance with the Global Change Research Act of 1990 (15
U.S.C. ch. 56A § 2921 et seq). The Fourth National Climate Assessment, published in 2018,

presents the foundational science and the “human welfare, societal, and environmental
elements of climate change and variability for 10 regions and 18 national topics, with particular
attention paid to observed and projected risks, impacts, consideration of risk reduction, and
implications under different mitigation pathways.” Chapter 12, “Transportation,” presents a key
discussion of vulnerability assessments. It notes that “asset owners and operators have
increasingly conducted more focused studies of particular assets that consider multiple climate
hazards and scenarios in the context of asset-specific information, such as design lifetime”
(USGCRP 2018).
The U.S. DOT Policy Statement on Climate Adaptation in June 2011 committed the federal
Department of Transportation to “integrate consideration of climate change impacts and
adaptation into the planning, operations, policies, and programs of DOT in order to ensure that
taxpayer resources are invested wisely, and that transportation infrastructure, services and
operations remain effective in current and future climate conditions” (U.S. DOT 2011).
FHWA order 5520 (Transportation System Preparedness and Resilience to Climate Change
and Extreme Weather Events, December 15, 2014) established FHWA policy to strive to identify
the risks of climate change and extreme weather events to current and planned transportation
systems. FHWA has developed guidance and tools for transportation planning that foster
resilience to climate effects and sustainability at the federal, state, and local levels (FHWA
2019).
State Efforts
Climate change adaptation for transportation infrastructure involves long-term planning and risk
management to address vulnerabilities in the transportation system. California’s Fourth Climate
Change Assessment (2018) is the state’s effort to “translate the state of climate science into
useful information for action” in a variety of sectors at both statewide and local scales. It adopts
the following key terms used widely in climate change analysis and policy documents:
• Adaptation to climate change refers to adjustment in natural or human systems in

response to actual or expected climatic stimuli or their effects, which moderates harm or
exploits beneficial opportunities.
• Adaptive capacity is the “combination of the strengths, attributes, and resources

available to an individual, community, society, or organization that can be used to
prepare for and undertake actions to reduce adverse impacts, moderate harm, or exploit
beneficial opportunities.”
• Exposure is the presence of people, infrastructure, natural systems, and economic,

cultural, and social resources in areas that are subject to harm.
• Resilience is the “capacity of any entity – an individual, a community, an organization, or

a natural system – to prepare for disruptions, to recover from shocks and stresses, and
to adapt and grow from a disruptive experience”. Adaptation actions contribute to
increasing resilience, which is a desired outcome or state of being.
• Sensitivity is the level to which a species, natural system, or community, government,

etc., would be affected by changing climate conditions.

• Vulnerability is the “susceptibility to harm from exposure to stresses associated with
environmental and social change and from the absence of capacity to adapt.”
Vulnerability can increase because of physical (built and environmental), social, political,
and/or economic factor(s). These factors include, but are not limited to: ethnicity, class,
sexual orientation and identification, national origin, and income inequality.2 Vulnerability
is often defined as the combination of sensitivity and adaptive capacity as affected by
the level of exposure to changing climate.
Several key state policies have guided climate change adaptation efforts to date. Recent state
publications produced in response to these policies draw on these definitions.
EO S-13-08, issued by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in November 2008, focused on

sea-level rise and resulted in the California Climate Adaptation Strategy (2009), updated in 2014
as Safeguarding California: Reducing Climate Risk (Safeguarding California Plan). The
Safeguarding California Plan offers policy principles and recommendations and continues to be
revised and augmented with sector-specific adaptation strategies, ongoing actions, and next
steps for agencies.
EO S-13-08 also led to the publication of a series of sea-level rise assessment reports and
associated guidance and policies. These reports formed the foundation of an interim State of
California Sea-Level Rise Interim Guidance Document (SLR Guidance) in 2010, with
instructions for how state agencies could incorporate “sea-level rise (SLR) projections into
planning and decision making for projects in California” in a consistent way across agencies.
The guidance was revised and augmented in 2013. Rising Seas in California – An Update on
Sea-Level Rise Science was published in 2017 and its updated projections of sea-level rise and
new understanding of processes and potential impacts in California were incorporated into the
State of California Sea-Level Rise Guidance Update in 2018.
EO B-30-15, signed in April 2015, requires state agencies to factor climate change into all
planning and investment decisions. This EO recognizes that effects of climate change other
than sea-level rise also threaten California’s infrastructure. At the direction of EO B-30-15, the
Office of Planning and Research published Planning and Investing for a Resilient California: A
Guidebook for State Agencies in 2017, to encourage a uniform and systematic approach.
Representatives of Caltrans participated in the multi-agency, multidisciplinary technical advisory
group that developed this guidance on how to integrate climate change into planning and
investment.
AB 2800 (Quirk 2016) created the multidisciplinary Climate-Safe Infrastructure Working Group,
which in 2018 released its report, Paying it Forward: The Path Toward Climate-Safe
Infrastructure in California. The report provides guidance to agencies on how to address the
challenges of assessing risk in the face of inherent uncertainties still posed by the best available
science on climate change. It also examines how state agencies can use infrastructure
planning, design, and implementation processes to address the observed and anticipated
climate change impacts.
Caltrans Adaptation Efforts
CALTRANS VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS

Caltrans is conducting climate change vulnerability assessments to identify segments of the
State Highway System vulnerable to climate change effects including precipitation, temperature,
wildfire, storm surge, and sea-level rise. The approach to the vulnerability assessments was

tailored to the practices of a transportation agency, and involves the following concepts and
actions:
• Exposure – Identify Caltrans assets exposed to damage or reduced service life from
expected future conditions.
• Consequence – Determine what might occur to system assets in terms of loss of use or
costs of repair.
• Prioritization – Develop a method for making capital programming decisions to address

identified risks, including considerations of system use and/or timing of expected
exposure.
The climate change data in the assessments were developed in coordination with climate
change scientists and experts at federal, state, and regional organizations at the forefront of
climate science. The findings of the vulnerability assessments guide analysis of at-risk assets
and development of adaptation plans to reduce the likelihood of damage to the State Highway
System, allowing Caltrans to both reduce the costs of storm damage and to provide and
maintain transportation that meets the needs of all Californians.
Project Adaptation Analysis
SEA LEVEL RISE

The proposed project is outside the coastal zone and not in an area subject to sea-level rise.
Accordingly, direct impacts to transportation facilities due to projected sea-level rise are not
expected.
FLOODPLAINS
The proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in short-term or operational
emissions of greenhouse gases that would cause climate change, which could affect
floodplains.
WILDFIRE
Most of the project area is not within an area that is designated as “Very High”, “High”, or
“Moderate” for wildfire hazard; a small portion of the project area near Twin View Boulevard is
rated as “High” for wildfire hazard (Cal fire 2020). Further, the proposed project would not result
in a substantial increase in short-term or operational emissions of greenhouse gases that would
cause climate change, which could exacerbate the hazard of wildfire.
3.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Regulatory Setting
Hazardous materials, including hazardous substances and wastes, are regulated by many state
and federal laws. Statutes govern the generation, treatment, storage and disposal of hazardous
materials, substances, and waste, and also the investigation and mitigation of waste releases,
air and water quality, human health, and land use.
The primary federal laws regulating hazardous wastes/materials are the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976. The purpose of CERCLA, often referred to as

“Superfund,” is to identify and cleanup abandoned contaminated sites so that public health and
welfare are not compromised. The RCRA provides for “cradle to grave” regulation of hazardous
waste generated by operating entities. Other federal laws include:
• Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) of 1992
• Clean Water Act
• Clean Air Act
• Safe Drinking Water Act
• Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
• Atomic Energy Act
• Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
• Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
In addition to the acts listed above, Executive Order (EO) 12088, Federal Compliance with
Pollution Control Standards, mandates that necessary actions be taken to prevent and control
environmental pollution when federal activities or federal facilities are involved.
California regulates hazardous materials, waste, and substances under the authority of the CA
Health and Safety Code and is also authorized by the federal government to implement RCRA
in the state. California law also addresses specific handling, storage, transportation, disposal,
treatment, reduction, cleanup, and emergency planning of hazardous waste. The Porter-
Cologne Water Quality Control Act also restricts disposal of wastes and requires cleanup of
wastes that are below hazardous waste concentrations but could impact ground and surface
water quality. California regulations that address waste management and prevention and
cleanup of contamination include Title 22 Division 4.5 Environmental Health Standards for the
Management of Hazardous Waste, Title 23 Waters, and Title 27 Environmental Protection.
Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that
may affect human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous
material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction.
Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences
A Hazardous Waste Initial Site Assessment was completed for the PA&ED Phase of the project
in March 2019.
Worker and public health and safety are key issues when addressing hazardous materials that
may affect human health and the environment. Proper management and disposal of hazardous
material is vital if it is found, disturbed, or generated during project construction.
1. Aerially deposited lead (ADL) from the historical use of leaded gasoline, exists
along roadways throughout California. There is the likely presence of soils with
elevated concentrations of lead as a result of ADL on the state highway system right

of way within the limits of the project alternatives. Soil determined to contain lead
concentrations exceeding stipulated thresholds must be managed under the July 1,
2016, ADL Agreement between Caltrans and the California Department of Toxic
Substances Control. This ADL Agreement allows such soils to be safely reused
within the project limits as long as all requirements of the ADL Agreement are met. It
would be determined in Phase 1 whether an ADL site investigation with soil testing
would be required. If it is determined that aerially deposited lead exists within the
project limits and would be disturbed during construction, a Caltrans contract
specification(s) related to excavation, management, and disposal of ADL soils would
be included in the construction contract. Lead Containing Paint (LCP)--LCP may be
present on the structures that would be widened/demolished. As a result, this office
may conduct a structural survey with sampling and testing of existing paint in Phase
1 (approximately six months prior to PS&E) to access the presence and extent of
LCP so that specifications can be provided. The specifications, if necessary, would
address health and safety, removal, handling, containment, and disposal of LCP.
2. Asbestos Containing Material (ACM)—ACM may be present on the structures that

would be widened/demolished. As a result, a structural survey with sampling and
testing of suspect bridge components would be conducted in Phase 1 to access the
presence and extent of ACM so that specifications can be included in the
construction contract to ensure proper handling. The specifications, if necessary,
would address health and safety, notification, removal, handling, containment, and
disposal of ACM.
3. Paint and Thermoplastic Striping Containing Lead- The project would likely
involve cold planning and grinding pavement, the residue would likely have non-
hazardous levels of lead from the paint and thermoplastic striping that is removed
with the pavement. In addition, the project may also involve striping removal
separate from pavement cold planning and grinding. Specification(s) o be included
in the construction contract for handling and disposing traffic paint and striping.
The contractor would be required to prepare a lead compliance plan.
4. Treated Wood Waste - Since the project would likely remove and dispose of treated
wood waste (TWW) from existing guardrail and roadside sign wood posts, the project
would require specifications to address disposal of these items. These wood
products are typically treated with preserving chemicals that may be hazardous
(carcinogenic) and include, but are not limited to arsenic, chromium, copper,
creosote, and pentachlorophenol. The contract specification provides requirements
for handling, storing, transporting, and disposing of treated wood waste.
5. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA)- There is no known NOA within the project
limits based upon geologic mapping and previous hazardous waste studies carried
out within project area.
6. Cortese List - The project should not be considered a listed hazardous waste site
(not on the Cortese List).

CEQA Determination
The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, nor would it create a
significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. The
project construction would require use of materials that could be considered hazardous.
The project would not expose construction workers at the project site to a safety hazard or
excessive noise.
The proposed project would not impair implementation or physically interfere with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. In the event of an emergency during
construction, Caltrans would coordinate with the California Highway Patrol to resolve any traffic-
related concerns. Once constructed, the project would improve conditions during emergency
response and emergency evacuations in the project area.
The proposed project does not expose people or structures to additional risk of loss, injury, or
death as a result of wildfire by using the existing highway.
Given the above findings, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on
hazards and hazardous materials.
▪ Grindings associated with removal of yellow and white traffic striping would be removed
and disposed of in accordance with Caltrans SSP 36-4. Any treated wood sign posts that
would be removed would be disposed of in accordance with Caltrans SSP 14-11.14.
▪ A site investigation for aerially deposited lead and asbestos would be conducted in the
Design phase to determine whether hazardous soils/asbestos are present and what
actions, if any, would be required.
▪ The project contract would include SSP 14-11.14. The SSP provides requirements for
handling, storing, transporting, and disposing of treated wood waste.
▪ The contract would require that the contractor prepare a lead compliance plan.
▪ A specification(s) related to excavation, management, and disposal of ADL soils would

be included in the contract if needed.
▪ If asbestos containing materials are identified in the 1 Phase, specifications would be

included in the construction contract to address health and safety, notification, removal,
handling, containment, and disposal of ACM.

3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
Regulatory Setting
Federal Requirements: Clean Water Act
In 1972, Congress amended the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, making the addition of
pollutants to the waters of the United States (U.S.) from any point source4 unlawful unless the
discharge is in compliance with a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit. This act and its amendments are known today as the Clean Water Act (CWA).
Congress has amended the act several times. In the 1987 amendments, Congress directed
dischargers of storm water from municipal and industrial/construction point sources to comply
with the NPDES permit scheme. The following are important CWA sections:
• Sections 303 and 304 require states to issue water quality standards, criteria, and
guidelines.
• Section 401 requires an applicant for a federal license or permit to conduct any activity that
may result in a discharge to waters of the U.S. to obtain certification from the state that the
discharge would comply with other provisions of the act. This is most frequently required in
tandem with a Section 404 permit request (see below).
• Section 402 establishes the NPDES, a permitting system for the discharges (except for
dredge or fill material) of any pollutant into waters of the U.S. Regional Water Quality
Control Boards (RWQCBs) administer this permitting program in California. Section 402(p)
requires permits for discharges of storm water from industrial/construction and municipal
separate storm sewer systems (MS4s).
• Section 404 establishes a permit program for the discharge of dredge or fill material into
waters of the U.S. This permit program is administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE).
The goal of the CWA is “to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the Nation’s waters.”
The USACE issues two types of 404 permits: General and Individual. There are two types of
General permits: Regional and Nationwide. Regional permits are issued for a general category
of activities when they are similar in nature and cause minimal environmental effect. Nationwide
permits are issued to allow a variety of minor project activities with no more than minimal
effects.
Ordinarily, projects that do not meet the criteria for a Regional or Nationwide Permit may be
permitted under one of the USACE’s Individual permits. There are two types of Individual
permits: Standard permits and Letters of Permission. For Individual permits, the USACE
decision to approve is based on compliance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S.
EPA) Section 404 (b)(1) Guidelines (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 230), and
whether the permit approval is in the public interest. The Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines
(Guidelines) were developed by the U.S. EPA in conjunction with the USACE, and allow the
4 A point source is any discrete conveyance such as a pipe or a man-made ditch.

discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system (waters of the U.S.) only if there is
no practicable alternative which would have less adverse effects. The Guidelines state that the
USACE may not issue a permit if there is a least environmentally damaging practicable
alternative (LEDPA) to the proposed discharge that would have lesser effects on waters of the
U.S. and not have any other significant adverse environmental consequences. According to the
Guidelines, documentation is needed that a sequence of avoidance, minimization, and
compensation measures has been followed, in that order. The Guidelines also restrict
permitting activities that violate water quality or toxic effluent5 standards, jeopardize the
continued existence of listed species, violate marine sanctuary protections, or cause “significant
degradation” to waters of the U.S. In addition, every permit from the USACE, even if not subject
to the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, must meet general requirements. See 33 CFR 320.4. A
discussion of the LEDPA determination, if any, for the document is included in the Wetlands and
Other Waters section.
State Requirements: Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s Porter-Cologne Act, enacted in 1969, provides the legal basis for water quality
regulation within California. This act requires a “Report of Waste Discharge” for any discharge
of waste (liquid, solid, or gaseous) to land or surface waters that may impair beneficial uses for
surface and/or groundwater of the state. It predates the CWA and regulates discharges to
waters of the state. Waters of the state include more than just waters of the U.S., like
groundwater and surface waters not considered waters of the U.S. Additionally, it prohibits
discharges of “waste” as defined, and this definition is broader than the CWA definition of
“pollutant.” Discharges under the Porter-Cologne Act are permitted by Waste Discharge
Requirements (WDRs) and may be required even when the discharge is already permitted or
exempt under the CWA.
The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and RWQCBs are responsible for
establishing the water quality standards (objectives and beneficial uses) required by the CWA
and regulating discharges to ensure compliance with the water quality standards. Details about
water quality standards in a project area are included in the applicable RWQCB Basin Plan. In
California, RWQCBs designate beneficial uses for all water body segments in their jurisdictions
and then set criteria necessary to protect those uses. As a result, the water quality standards
developed for particular water segments are based on the designated use and vary depending
on that use. In addition, the SWRCB identifies waters failing to meet standards for specific
pollutants. These waters are then state-listed in accordance with CWA Section 303(d). If a
state determines that waters are impaired for one or more constituents and the standards
cannot be met through point source or non-point source controls (NPDES permits or WDRs),
the CWA requires the establishment of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs). TMDLs specify
allowable pollutant loads from all sources (point, non-point, and natural) for a given watershed.
State Water Resources Control Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards
The SWRCB administers water rights, sets water pollution control policy, and issues water
board orders on matters of statewide application, and oversees water quality functions
throughout the state by approving Basin Plans, TMDLs, and NPDES permits. RWCQBs are
5The U.S. EPA defines “effluent” as “wastewater, treated or untreated, that flows out of a treatment plant,
sewer, or industrial outfall.”

responsible for protecting beneficial uses of water resources within their regional jurisdiction
using planning, permitting, and enforcement authorities to meet this responsibility.
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program
Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4)
Section 402(p) of the CWA requires the issuance of NPDES permits for five categories of
storm water discharges, including Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s). An
MS4 is defined as “any conveyance or system of conveyances (roads with drainage
systems, municipal streets, catch basins, curbs, gutters, ditches, human-made channels,
and storm drains) owned or operated by a state, city, town, county, or other public body
having jurisdiction over storm water, that is designed or used for collecting or conveying
storm water.” The SWRCB has identified the Department as an owner/operator of an MS4
under federal regulations. The Department’s MS4 permit covers all Department rights-of-
way, properties, facilities, and activities in the state. The SWRCB or the RWQCB issues
NPDES permits for five years, and permit requirements remain active until a new permit has
been adopted.
The Department’s MS4 Permit, Order No. 2012-0011-DWQ (adopted on September 19,
2012 and effective on July 1, 2013), as amended by Order No. 2014-0006-EXEC (effective
January 17, 2014), Order No. 2014-0077-DWQ (effective May 20, 2014) and Order No.
2015-0036-EXEC (conformed and effective April 7, 2015) has three basic requirements:
1. The Department must comply with the requirements of the Construction General Permit
(see below);
2. The Department must implement a year-round program in all parts of the State to
effectively control storm water and non-storm water discharges; and
3. The Department storm water discharges must meet water quality standards through
implementation of permanent and temporary (construction) Best Management Practices
(BMPs), to the maximum extent practicable, and other measures as the SWRCB
determines to be necessary to meet the water quality standards.
To comply with the permit, the Department developed the Statewide Storm Water
Management Plan (SWMP) to address storm water pollution controls related to highway
planning, design, construction, and maintenance activities throughout California. The
SWMP assigns responsibilities within the Department for implementing storm water
management procedures and practices as well as training, public education and
participation, monitoring and research, program evaluation, and reporting activities. The
SWMP describes the minimum procedures and practices the Department uses to reduce
pollutants in storm water and non-storm water discharges. It outlines procedures and
responsibilities for protecting water quality, including the selection and implementation of
BMPs. The proposed project would be programmed to follow the guidelines and procedures
outlined in the latest SWMP to address storm water runoff.
Construction General Permit
Construction General Permit, Order No. 2009-0009-DWQ (adopted on September 2, 2009 and
effective on July 1, 2010), as amended by Order No. 2010-0014-DWQ (effective February 14,

2011) and Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ (effective on July 17, 2012). The permit regulates storm
water discharges from construction sites that result in a Disturbed Soil Area (DSA) of one acre
or greater, and/or are smaller sites that are part of a larger common plan of development. By
law, all storm water discharges associated with construction activity where clearing, grading,
and excavation result in soil disturbance of at least one acre must comply with the provisions of
the General Construction Permit. Construction activity that results in soil disturbances of less
than one acre is subject to this Construction General Permit if there is potential for significant
water quality impairment resulting from the activity as determined by the RWQCB. Operators of
regulated construction sites are required to develop Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
(SWPPPs); to implement sediment, erosion, and pollution prevention control measures; and to
obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit.
The Construction General Permit separates projects into Risk Levels 1, 2, or 3. Risk levels are
determined during the planning and design phases, and are based on potential erosion and
transport to receiving waters. Requirements apply according to the Risk Level determined. For
example, a Risk Level 3 (highest risk) project would require compulsory storm water runoff pH
and turbidity monitoring, and before construction and after construction aquatic biological
assessments during specified seasonal windows. For all projects subject to the permit,
applicants are required to develop and implement an effective SWPPP. In accordance with the
Department’s SWMP and Standard Specifications, a Water Pollution Control Program (WPCP)
is necessary for projects with DSA less than one acre.
Section 401 Permitting
Under Section 401 of the CWA, any project requiring a federal license or permit that may result
in a discharge to a water of the U.S. must obtain a 401 Certification, which certifies that the
project would be in compliance with state water quality standards. The most common federal
permits triggering 401 Certification are CWA Section 404 permits issued by the USACE. The
401 permit certifications are obtained from the appropriate RWQCB, dependent on the project
location, and are required before the USACE issues a 404 permit.
In some cases, the RWQCB may have specific concerns with discharges associated with a
project. As a result, the RWQCB may issue a set of requirements known as WDRs under the
State Water Code (Porter-Cologne Act) that define activities, such as the inclusion of specific
features, effluent limitations, monitoring, and plan submittals that are to be implemented for
protecting or benefiting water quality. WDRs can be issued to address both permanent and
temporary discharges of a project.
Executive Order (EO) 11988 (Floodplain Management) directs all federal agencies to refrain
from conducting, supporting, or allowing actions in floodplains unless it is the only practicable
alternative. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requirements for compliance are
outlined in 23 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 650 Subpart A.
To comply, the following must be analyzed:
• The practicability of alternatives to any longitudinal encroachments.
• Risks of the action.
• Impacts on natural and beneficial floodplain values.

• Support of incompatible floodplain development.
• Measures to minimize floodplain impacts and to preserve/restore any beneficial floodplain

values affected by the project.
The base floodplain is defined as “the area subject to flooding by the flood or tide having a one
percent chance of being exceeded in any given year.” An encroachment is defined as “an action
within the limits of the base floodplain.”
The project area is located within the Sacramento River watershed. This watershed is a part of
the Redding Groundwater Basin Planning Area, which is managed by the Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control Board. The project is in the Redding and Enterprise Flat
hydrologic Unit and Area, respectively. Stormwater runoff from the project area discharges to
the Keswick Dam to Cottonwood Creek reach of the Sacramento River. Two named
watercourses traverse the project area, Boulder Creek and Churn Creek. Boulder Creek flows
into a Churn Creek, a Sacramento River tributary. There are no direct discharges to either
watercourse from the project area. An exception being where these streams cross the project
area. Stormwater runoff from the project site is conveyed by roadside ditches, inlets and
culverts.
Earthwork would entail relatively minor excavation, except at a median segment where higher
ground currently exists. The soil from these areas would be removed and used as embankment
for leveling depressions and low-lying ground. Structural work includes widening the bridge that
spans Churn Creek. Associated work includes extending three existing piers and replacing the
westside wingwall. Pier work includes modifying the spread footing. This would entail excavating
below Ordinary High Water and removing some riparian vegetation. Instream work may require
installing a clear water diversion if flow is present and dewatering excavations. Structure work at
other locations does not involve being near water or stream channels. Construction activities
that may impact hydrology and water quality include dewatering the in-channel work area or
diverting water around the in-channel work area and widening of the existing bridge (including
piers and abutments). This work, which includes in-channel work and earthwork, has the
potential to degrade water quality onsite and offsite due to erosion and siltation. This project
includes new impervious surface of approximately 21.87 ac, which may increase if auxiliary
lanes are added. Hence, providing post-construction treatment BMPs is a requirement.
Potential treatment BMPs that are practical for this project would be evaluated during the design
phase. Post-construction stormwater flows would not exceed pre-construction stormwater flows
and would not increase the amount of pollutants in surface runoff above existing levels.
The Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary (California Department of Transportation 2020e)

determined that the proposed project is located within a mapped 100-year flood hazard area.
However, the project would only minimally alter surface elevations within the mapped 100-year
floodplain and would not result in a significant floodplain encroachment as defined in 23 CFR,
Section 650.105(q).

CEQA Determination
The proposed project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Specifically, the project would not
deplete groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge such that the project may
impeded sustainable groundwater management of the basin. As described above, work would
include dewatering the in-channel work area, potential installation of a temporary water
diversion, and performing earthwork. There is a potential for limited erosion/siltation to occur
during construction, which could temporarily degrade surface water quality. However, the
proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,
including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river. The project would increase
impervious surfaces; however, it would be treated in a manner that would not substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff such that it would result in flooding onsite/offsite;
impede or redirect flows; create or contribute stormwater runoff which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems; or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would not risk release of pollutants due to
inundation by flood, tsunami (California Department of Conservation 2020g), or seiche. With
implementation of measures to control erosion and siltation, the proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on hydrology and water quality.
The following measures identified in the Water Quality Assessment Report (California
Department of Transportation 2020f) would be implemented to avoid/minimize impacts to water
quality during construction:
• All construction site BMPs shall follow the most current edition of the Construction
Site Best Management Practices (BMPs) Manual (California Department of
Transportation 2017). For this project, these are likely to include erosion and
sediment control BMPs such as ground cover, fiber rolls, gravel bag check dams, and
other listed methods.
• Prior to any ground-disturbing activities, the contractor shall prepare a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies measures to be implemented for
erosion control, spill prevention, and construction waste containment. These measures
shall be implemented during construction to minimize impacts on water quality and the
aquatic environment.
• Environmentally sensitive areas (ESAs) shall be designated and clearly delineated with
high-visibility fence on the contract plans during the design phase to avoid potential
discharges and unauthorized disturbance to riparian habitat.
In addition to the above measures, the following measure identified in the Natural
Environment Study (California Department of Transportation 2020d) shall be implemented to
avoid/minimize impacts to water quality during construction:
• Work in Churn Creek would be limited to the period between June 1 and October 15, or
as otherwise specified in resource-agency permits. Upon completion of work, the
contractor shall restore temporarily disturbed streambed to as close as possible to pre-
construction conditions.

3.9 Noise
Regulatory Setting
The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 and the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) provide the broad basis for analyzing and abating highway traffic noise effects. The
intent of these laws is to promote the general welfare and to foster a healthy environment. The
requirements for noise analysis and consideration of noise abatement and/or mitigation,
however, differ between NEPA and CEQA.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
CEQA requires a strictly baseline versus build analysis to assess whether a proposed project
would have a noise impact. If a proposed project is determined to have a significant noise
impact under CEQA, then CEQA dictates that mitigation measures must be incorporated into
the project unless those measures are not feasible. The rest of this section would focus on the
NEPA/Title 23 Part 772 of the Code of Federal Regulations (23 CFR 772) noise analysis; please
see the Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences, and CEQA Conclusion sections
of this document for further information on noise analysis under CEQA.
NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT AND 23 CFR 772
For highway transportation projects with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) involvement
(and the Department, as assigned), the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970 and its implementing
regulations (23 CFR 772) govern the analysis and abatement of traffic noise impacts. The
regulations require that potential noise impacts in areas of frequent human use be identified
during the planning and design of a highway project. The regulations include noise abatement
criteria (NAC) that are used to determine when a noise impact would occur. The NAC differ
depending on the type of land use under analysis. For example, the NAC for residences (67
dBA) is lower than the NAC for commercial areas (72 dBA). Table 7 lists the noise abatement
criteria for use in the NEPA/23 CFR 772 analysis.

Table 7. Noise Abatement Criteria
NAC, Hourly
A- Weighted
Activity Noise Level,
Category Leq(h) Description of activity category
A 57 (Exterior) Lands on which serenity and quiet are of extraordinary
significance and serve an important public need and
where the preservation of those qualities is essential if the
area is to continue to serve its intended purpose.
B1 67 (Exterior) Residential.
C1 67 (Exterior) Active sport areas, amphitheaters, auditoriums,
campgrounds, cemeteries, day care centers, hospitals,
libraries, medical facilities, parks, picnic areas, places of
worship, playgrounds, public meeting rooms, public or
nonprofit institutional structures, radio studios, recording
studios, recreation areas, Section 4(f) sites, schools,
television studios, trails, and trail crossings.
D 52 (Interior) Auditoriums, day care centers, hospitals, libraries,
medical facilities, places of worship, public meeting
rooms, public or nonprofit institutional structures, radio
studios, recording studios, schools, and television
studios.
E 72 (Exterior) Hotels, motels, offices, restaurants/bars, and other
developed lands, properties, or activities not included in
A–D or F.
F No NAC— Agriculture, airports, bus yards, emergency services,
reporting only industrial, logging, maintenance facilities,
manufacturing, mining, rail yards, retail facilities,
shipyards, utilities (water resources, water treatment,
electrical, etc.), and warehousing.
G No NAC— Undeveloped lands that are not permitted.
reporting only
1
Includes undeveloped lands permitted for this activity category.

Figure 7 lists the noise levels of common activities to enable readers to compare the actual and
predicted highway noise levels discussed in this section with common activities.
Figure 7. Noise Levels of Common Activities
According to the Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol for New Highway Construction
and Reconstruction Projects, May 2011, a noise impact occurs when the predicted future noise
level with the project substantially exceeds the existing noise level (defined as a 12 dBA or
more) or when the future noise level with the project approaches or exceeds the NAC. A noise
level is considered to approach the NAC if it is within 1 dBA of the NAC.
If it is determined that the project would have noise impacts, then potential abatement measures
must be considered. Noise abatement measures that are determined to be reasonable and
feasible at the time of final design are incorporated into the project plans and specifications.
This document discusses noise abatement measures that would likely be incorporated in the
project.
The Department’s Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol sets forth the criteria for determining when an
abatement measure is reasonable and feasible. Feasibility of noise abatement is basically an

engineering concern. Noise abatement must be predicted to reduce noise by at least 5 dB at an
impacted receptor to be considered feasible from an acoustical perspective. It must also be
possible to design and construct the noise abatement measure for it to be considered
feasible. Factors that affect the design and constructability of noise abatement include, but are
not limited to, safety, barrier height, topography, drainage, access requirements for driveways,
presence of local cross streets, underground utilities, other noise sources in the area, and
maintenance of the abatement measure. The overall reasonableness of noise abatement is
determined by the following three factors: 1) the noise reduction design goal of 7 dB at one or
more impacted receptors; 2) the cost of noise abatement; and 3) the viewpoints of benefited
receptors (including property owners and residents of the benefited receptors).
The project area includes Single-family residences, hotels, commercial retail and undeveloped
areas adjacent to Interstate 5 just North of Redding. Noise measurements were performed at
various locations in the project area to determine existing background noise levels and to
validate the traffic noise model. The measured noise levels at these locations currently range
from 56 to 65 A-weighted decibels hourly equivalent sound level (dBA Leq[h]).
A Noise Study Report was completed for this project in March 2020 which included research of
land uses, measuring existing noise levels at a number of locations in the project study area,
modeling existing noise levels in areas that could not be measured due to restrictions during
field measurements (e.g. such as barking dogs, receiver exposure limitations), and modeling
future noise levels to predict what noise levels would be if the project is constructed.
Under controlled conditions, the trained healthy human ear is able to discern a one decibel
change in noise levels. In typical noisy environments, a change in noise levels of one to two
decibels is generally not perceptible. It is generally accepted that people are able to begin to
detect sound level increases of three decibels in typical noisy environments and that a five-
decibel increase is perceived as a distinctly noticeable increase. A ten-decibel increase is
generally perceived as a doubling of loudness. Therefore, a doubling of sound energy, such as
doubling the volume of traffic on a highway that would result in a three decibel increase in sound
would generally be perceived as barely detectable. The general consideration for a community
noise environment would be that a change in noise levels over five decibels would be a
noticeable change and a change of less than three decibels would not be noticeable.
Due to the complexity of the project area traffic noise modeling was broken down into the 3
areas identified in the table below to determine noise level impacts.
Area ID Location
A Begin Project Limit (PM 14.8) to Route 44 (PM 15.45)
B Route 44 (PM 154.45) to Route 299 (PM 17.32)
C Route 299 (PM 17.32) to End Project Limit (PM 20.0)
Area A
The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at residences in Area A are
predicted to be in the range of 64 to 73 dBA Leq(h) in the design-year, and that the increase in
noise be 2 dB in the design-year. Because the predicted noise level in the design-year exceeds

67 dBA Leq (h), traffic noise impacts are predicted at residences in this area, and noise
abatement must be considered in this area. The predicted noise levels at two hotels ranges
from 64 to 66 dBA Leq(h), this is below the noise abatement criteria of 72 dBA, therefore, no
traffic noise impact is predicted to occur.
Area B
The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at residences in Area B are
noise would be 2 dB in the design-year. Because the predicted noise level in the design-year
exceeds 67 dBA Leq (h), traffic noise impacts are predicted at residences in this area, and noise
abatement must be considered in this area.
The traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C would be 73 dBA Leq(h) in the design-year.
The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design-
year is 2 dB. Because there is no noise abatement criterion for this category of use and
because the project would not result in a substantial increase in noise, noise abatement does
not need to be considered.
Area C
The traffic noise modeling results indicate traffic noise levels at residences in Area C are
noise would be 2 dB in the design-year. Because the predicted noise level in the design-year
exceeds 67 dBA Leq (h), traffic noise impacts are predicted at residences in this area, and noise
abatement must be considered in this area.
The traffic noise levels at commercial uses in Area C would be 70 dBA Leq(h) in the design-year.
The results also indicate that the increase in noise between existing conditions and the design-
year is 2 dB. The predicted noise levels at hotels ranges from 66 to 70 dBA Leq(h), this is below
the noise abatement criteria of 72 dBA, therefore, no traffic noise impact is predicted to occur,
and abatement is not considered.
Table 8 (below) compares measured sound levels and summarizes the traffic noise modeling
results for existing conditions and design-year conditions with and without the project including
noise barrier analysis.

Table 8. I-5 Future worst hour noise levels
I-5 Future Worst Hour Noise Levels - Leq(h), dBA
Noise Prediction with Barrier, Barrier Insertion Loss (I.L.), and

Number of Benefited Receptors (NBR)
Minus No Project Conditions Leq(h), dBA

Design Year Noise Level without Project
Design Year Noise Level without Project

minus Existing Conditions Leq(h), dBA
6 feet 8 feet 10 feet 12 feet 14 feet 16 feet
Design Year Noise Level with Project
Design Year Noise Level with Project

Existing Noise Level Leq(h), dBA
Activity Category (NAC)

Receptor I.D.
Impact Type
Leq(h), dBA
Leq(h), dBA
Land Use
Leq(h)
Leq(h)
Leq(h)
Leq(h)
Leq(h)
Leq(h)
NBR
NBR
NBR
NBR
NBR
NBR
I.L.
I.L.
I.L.
I.L.
I.L.
I.L.
ST-1 Residential 70 71 71 1 0 B A/E 67 4 0 65 6 3 63 8 3 62 -9 3 61 -10 3 61 -10 3
(67)
ST-1A Residential 61 63 64 2 1 B None 63 1 0 63 1 0 63 1 0 61 2 0 60 4 0 60 4 0
(67)
R-1 Residential 71 73 73 2 0 B A/E 69 4 0 66 6 2 64 9 2 63 10 2 63 10 2 62 11 2
(67)
R-1A Residential 64 65 66 1 1 B A/E 65 1 0 63 3 0 61 5 4 60 6 4 60 6 4 59 7 4
(67)
R-2 Hotel 64 65 66 1 1 E None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(72)
R-2A Hotel 62 63 64 1 1 E None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(72)
ST-2 Residential 69 70 71 1 1 B A/E 67 4 0 65 6 3 63 8 3 61 10 3 61 10 3 61 10 3
(67)
(67)
(67)
ST-3A Residential 61 62 62 1 0 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
R-5 Commercial 71 73 73 2 0 F N/A None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R-5A Commercial 70 71 71 1 0 F N/A None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ST-3 Residential 63 65 65 2 0 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(67)
R-6A Residential 63 64 64 1 0 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
R-6B Residential 63 64 65 1 1 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
R-7 Residential 58 60 60 2 0 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
R-7B Residential 59 60 60 1 0 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
ST-4 RV Park 62 64 65 2 1 C None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
ST-5 Residential 63 65 65 2 0 B None 65 0 0 65 0 0 64 1 0 63 2 0 63 2 0 62 3 0
(67)
ST-5A Residential 62 63 64 1 1 B None 63 1 0 62 2 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 59 5 5 59 5 5
(67)
(67)
(67)
R-8A Residential 67 68 69 1 1 B A/E 67 2 0 66 3 0 65 4 0 65 4 0 63 6 4 61 8 4
(67)
(67)
(67)
(67)
(67)
(67)
R-11A Residential 64 65 65 1 0 B None 63 2 0 62 3 0 60 5 4 59 6 4 59 6 4 59 6 4
(67)
R-9A Residential 63 64 64 1 0 B None 62 3 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 61 3 0 60 4 0 60 4 0
(67)
R-9B Residential 60 61 61 1 0 B None 59 2 0 59 2 0 58 3 0 58 3 0 58 3 0 57 4 0
(67)

R-12 Residential 62 64 65 2 1 B None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
R-13 Commercial 63 65 66 2 1 F N/A None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
R-15 Hotel 69 70 71 2 1 E None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

(72)
R-15A Hotel 70 71 73 1 2 E A/E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(72)
R-16 Hotel 68 69 70 1 1 E None - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(67)
R-17 Commercial 69 70 72 1 2 F N/A None
R-20 CHP Center 67 69 70 2 1 F NA None
R-21 Fun Center 62 64 65 2 1 F None

N/A
CEQA Determination
The proposed project would not have a significant effect under the California Environmental
Quality Act for the following reasons: increase in noise levels would occur over an approximate
twenty-year timeframe, and traffic increases are anticipated at the same levels with either the
Build or No Build Alternatives. The maximum modeled increase in decibel level with the project
is 2 decibels.
During construction of the project, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate
the noise environment in the immediate area of construction. Construction noise is regulated by
Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 7-1.01I “Sound Control Requirements,” which states
that noise levels generated during construction shall comply with applicable local, state, and
federal regulations, and that all equipment shall be fitted with adequate mufflers according to the
manufacturers’ specifications. Construction noise would be temporary, intermittent, and
overshadowed by local traffic noise. Because construction would be conducted following
Caltrans’ Standard Specifications, no adverse noise impacts from construction are anticipated.
Though not required for CEQA mitigation, Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part
772 of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards (23 CFR 772) and the Protocol
require that noise abatement be considered for projects that are predicted to result in traffic
noise impacts. A traffic noise impact is considered to occur when future predicted design-year
noise levels with the project “approach or exceed” Noise Abatement Criteria (NAC) defined in 23
CFR 772 or when the predicted design-year noise levels with the project substantially exceed
existing noise levels. A predicted design-year noise level is considered to “approach” the NAC
when it is within 1 decibel (dB) of the NAC. A substantial increase is defined as being a 12-dB
increase above existing conditions.
23 CFR 772 requires that noise abatement measures that are reasonable and feasible and are
likely to be incorporated into the project be identified before adoption of the final environmental
document.
The Protocol establishes a process for assessing the reasonableness and feasibility of noise
abatement. Before publication of the draft environmental document, a preliminary noise
abatement decision is made. The preliminary noise abatement decision is based on the

feasibility of evaluated abatement and the preliminary reasonableness determination. Noise
abatement is considered to be acoustically feasible if it provides noise reduction of at least 5
dBA at receivers subject to noise impacts. Other non-acoustical factors relating to geometric
standards (e.g., sight distances), safety, maintenance, and security can also affect feasibility.
The preliminary reasonableness determination is made by calculating an allowance that is

considered to be a reasonable amount of money, per benefited residence, to spend on
abatement. This reasonable allowance is then compared to the engineer’s cost estimate for the
abatement. If the engineer’s cost estimate is less than the allowance, the preliminary
determination is that the abatement is reasonable. If the cost estimate is higher than the
allowance, the preliminary determination is that abatement is not reasonable.
A Draft Noise Abatement Decision Report was completed for the project in April of 2020. The
potential traffic noise impacts to the local receptors within the project limits were studied. All
sound walls studied were for abatement, not mitigation. Sound wall locations identified in the
project noise study report (NSR) were considered for economic effectiveness. All sound walls
studied were accoustically feasible and would provide a minimum of 5-dBA attenuation. All four
accoustically feasible sound walls, did not meet the reasonable allowance criterion (i.e.,
construction cost are greater than estimated benefit value). The project as currently proposed,
does not include sound attenuation walls.
3.10 Transportation/Traffic
Regulatory Setting
The Department, as assigned by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), directs that full
consideration should be given to the safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists during
the development of Federal-aid highway projects (see 23 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR]
652). It further directs that the special needs of the elderly and the disabled must be considered
in all Federal-aid projects that include pedestrian facilities. When current or anticipated
pedestrian and/or bicycle traffic presents a potential conflict with motor vehicle traffic, every
effort must be made to minimize the detrimental effects on all highway users who share the
facility.
In July 1999, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT) issued an Accessibility Policy
Statement pledging a fully accessible multimodal transportation system. Accessibility in federally
assisted programs is governed by the USDOT regulations (49 CFR 27) implementing Section
504 of the Rehabilitation Act (29 United States Code [USC] 794). The FHWA has enacted
regulations for the implementation of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), including a
commitment to build transportation facilities that provide equal access for all persons. These
regulations require application of the ADA requirements to federal-aid projects, including
Transportation Enhancement Activities.
Interstate 5 serves a mix of interregional traffic, as well as regional and local traffic. The
Interstate 5 corridor in Shasta County has the highest traffic volumes in California north of
Sacramento and interregional traffic is projected to continue to grow over time. Recent projects
on the Interstate 5 corridor from the Tehama/Shasta County line to the City of Redding have

added a third lane in each direction to reduce traffic congestion. The currently proposed project
is a capacity-increasing project, which would widen Interstate 5 from four to six lanes from 0.3
miles north of the Cypress Avenue Overcrossing (post mile R14.8) in Redding to 0.6 miles north
of the Oasis Road Overcrossing (post mile R20.0) near Shasta Lake City. Work includes
widening almost exclusively to the median with limited outside widening as needed to provide a
12-foot-wide lane and 10-foot median shoulder in each direction. Currently, there is not a need
to improve capacity within the project area (Redding’s population has grown minimally from
89,861 in 2010 to an estimated 91,772 in 2018), but there is a need to improve operations within
the project area. This need is most evident during regular winter storms and multiple recent
wildfire events. During winter weather events, traffic backs up from highway closures or chain
control check points north of Redding creating backups south through the City Redding. This
segment was identified as a bottleneck during mass evacuations from the City of Redding and
surrounding areas that occurred during the Carr Fire in 2018. This four lane gap section of
freeway is the only bottleneck point on I-5 in Shasta County from the Tehama County line to
Shasta Lake City, restricting freeway operations and interregional goods movement. Once
completed, the project would improve traffic circulation and improve system resiliency on this
portion of I-5.
The proposed project is consistent with state and local transportation plans and programs.
Operational improvements to enhance interregional connectivity for motorized travel on
Interstate 5 is consistent with the corridor vision described in the 2008 Interstate 5
Transportation Concept Report (California Department of Transportation 2008) and is shared
with the Shasta Regional Transportation Agency. The 2008 Interstate 5 Transportation Concept
Report stated that the twenty-year facility concept at this location is a six-lane freeway and the
post-twenty-year concept is an eight-lane freeway. The Shasta County Regional Transportation
Agency identified the Interstate 5 corridor from the Tehama/Shasta County line north to the
Mountain Gate near Lake Shasta as a top priority. The 2018 Shasta County Regional
Transportation Plan (Shasta County Regional Transportation Agency 2018) identified the
currently proposed project as a high priority to alleviate forecasted congestion and bottlenecks
on Interstate 5 between Redding and Shasta Lake City.
Existing freeway features in the project area include five freeway interchanges and 12 bridges in
each direction of traffic. The five interchanges within the project area consist of four full
interchanges and one partial interchange (Table 9). The southern portion of the project area
includes the City of Redding’s Sacramento River Trail, which links downtown with Hilltop
Avenue.
Table 9. Freeway Interchanges
Ramp Post Distance Between Local Government

Exit Number Road Served Movements Mile Interchanges Jurisdiction and
Provided (PM) (miles) Comments
• NB Off
State Facility
• NB On
678 15.45 Weaving conflicts SB 5
• SB Off
and EB 44
• SB On
1.9
• NB Off
• NB On State Facility
680 17.32
• SB Off
• SB On

0.8
• NB Off
681 Twin View Boulevard 18.07
• NB On City of Redding
• SB Off
681A Twin View Boulevard 18.07
• SB On
0.4
• NB On
681B 18.48 State Facility
• SB Off
0.9
• NB Off
• NB On
682 Oasis Road 19.40 City of Redding
• SB Off
• SB On
Level of Service (LOS) is a qualitative measure of traffic operating conditions as perceived by

drivers, which varies from LOS “A” (un-congested conditions) to LOS “F” (congested
conditions). Figure 8 illustrates and describes the LOS thresholds from the Highway Capacity
Manual for freeway sections.

Figure 8. Levels of Service for Freeways
Caltrans District 2 seeks to implement improvements on Interstate 5 when LOS is projected to

fall below LOS “C”. This improvement standard is commonly referred to as the “C/D Threshold.”
When projections show a segment would fall to LOS “D” under average monthly conditions,
improvements should be pursued. Without the proposed improvements to this section of
Interstate 5, traffic congestion that reduces the LOS below the “C/D” Threshold is anticipated by
2035.

Projected vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for the project area was calculated utilizing three
different models: Caltrans District 2 Traffic Operations Unit modeling, the National Center for
Sustainable Transportation’s (NCST) Induced Travel Calculator, and the Shasta Regional
Transportation Agency’s (SRTA) ShastaSIM regional traffic model. The results of each model
are discussed below.
Caltrans VMT Modeling

Traffic data for this project is based on and compared to the existing traffic counts and
classifications determined by the Caltrans District 2 Traffic Operations Unit as well as projected
data provided by the Caltrans District 2 Office of System Planning. The Caltrans volumes are
based on two data sources:
1. Historical traffic counts collected by Caltrans Traffic Census and corresponding growth
trends.
2. The Shasta Regional Travel Demand Model (ShastaSim 1.2).
Growth was calculated based on historical growth and adjusted with consideration of the
Regional model data and anticipated development in the area. Shasta Regional Transportation
Agency, an MPO, uses their traffic model for the Regional Transportation Plan and it is
accepted by FHWA.
Table 10. Existing and Projected Traffic Volumes and Other Metrics in the Project Area
Average Average Speed

Scenario/ Vehicle Corridor
Annual (mph)
1Segment/ Miles Time Saved Travel Level of
Daily
Analysis Year Location Traveled (Hours/Day) Time Off- Service
Traffic Peak
(Daily) Peak
(AADT) (Hours/Day) Travel
Travel
Existing
241,900 — — 59 60 C
Baseline 4-Lanes
59,000
88,500 — — 60 60 B
6-Lanes
No Build Existing
270,600 50 57 D
Alternative 4-Lanes
66,000 — 6,397
(2026) 99,000 59 60 B
6-Lanes
No Build Existing
352,600 43 50 E
Alternative 4-Lanes
86,000 — 9,202
(2046) 129,000 58 60 C
6-Lanes
Build
Alternative
Full Project 66,000 369,600 237 6,160 60 60 B
Opening Year
(2026)
Build
Alternative
Full Project 86,000 481,600 1,125 8,027 59 60 C
Design Year
(2046)

1 Segment/Location
Existing 4-lane section (Post Miles R14.4–R18.5)

Existing 6-lane section (Post Miles R18.5–R20.0)
Full Project: 6-lanes throughout entire project area (Post Miles R14.4–R20.0)
Using 2016 as the base year, AADT in the project area was estimated at 59,000. Traffic
modeling predicts no difference in AADT between the no-build and build alternative for the
opening year (2026) and design year (2046). The AADT is predicted to be 66,000 and 86,000
for the no-build and build alternative in 2026 and 2046, respectively. Without the proposed
improvements, congestion that reduces LOS below the “C/D” Threshold is anticipated for the
existing 4-lane section of roadway by 2024; the existing 6-lane section of roadway is anticipated
to remain above the “C/D” Threshold until approximately 2064. With the proposed
improvements, the addition of a third lane in each direction of travel would increase the
structural capacity of the Interstate and the LOS for the entire project area would remain above
the “C/D” Threshold until approximately 2054. However, because the proposed improvements
would not increase vehicles on the Interstate, an induced travel analysis is not required for the
build alternative.
Time saved, expressed as time saved by comparing VMT and vehicle hours traveled (VHT),
and corridor travel time are shown in Table 10 for each scenario. No time is saved in the
baseline year and the no build scenarios. When compared to the baseline year (2016), the time
saved for the build alternative is 237 hours in the opening year (2026) and 1,125 hours in the
design year (2046).
NCST VMT Modeling

The NCST at the University of California at Davis developed the Induced Travel Calculator,
which allows users to estimate the VMT induced annually because of adding general-purpose or
high-occupancy-vehicle lane miles to roadways managed by Caltrans in urbanized counties
(counties within a metropolitan statistical area). The calculator applies only to Caltrans-managed
facilities with FHWA functional classifications of 1, 2 or 3. That corresponds to interstate
highways (class 1), other freeways and expressways (class 2), and other principal arterials
(class 3). The Induced Travel Calculator, when factored to include the Redding geographic area
and 9 miles of new lanes added (this includes 3.33 miles of new auxiliary lanes), projects an
increase in 18.8 million VMT per year. However, given that Shasta County is not an urbanized
county, this model may not be an accurate predictor of VMT for the project area.
Shasta Regional Transportation Agency VMT Modeling

According to SRTA’s ShastaSIM regional traffic model, without changes resulting from
implementation of the 2015 RTP, total daily VMT in Shasta County would increase by
approximately 32% between 2005 and 2035 (Table 11). Daily per capita VMT would remain
relatively steady, increasing by only 6% over the same 30-year period. However, given that
SRTA’s ShastaSim regional traffic model is most useful for modeling VMT at a regional level
and not at the project-level, this model may not be an accurate predictor of VMT for the project
area.

Table 11. Total Daily VMT and VMT Per Capita1
Year Total Daily VMT VMT/Capita
2005 5,606,121 26.81
2020 6,171,441 26.88
2035 7,390,629 28.51
1 Results from the Shasta SIM travel model reflect the current growth trend of the region without changes resulting
from implementation of the 2015 RTP. Includes all trip types (inter-regional, intra-regional, and through trips).
Comparison of VMT Model Results

As described previously, the Caltrans model shows no change in VMT between the build and
the no build alternative for 2026 and 2046; the NCST Induced Travel Calculator shows an
increase of 18 million VMT because of the lane additions; and SRTA’S ShastaSIM regional
traffic model shows a 32% increase in total daily VMT between 2005 and 2035 and a 6%
increase in daily per capita VMT over that same period. Given the results of the three models
and considering their applicability to the specific project location, it was determined that the
most accurate model to predict VMT for the project area is the Caltrans model. As such, the
results of Caltrans model are the basis for the CEQA significance determination regarding VMT.
Impacts
Construction of the proposed project would require day and night work, lane and ramp closures,
reducing the posted speed limit in construction zones, periodic closure of the City of Redding’s
Sacramento River Trail beneath Interstate 5 at the SR 44 interchange, and periodic closure of a
paved pedestrian/bicycle trail beneath Interstate 5 at the SR 299 interchange. The proposed
project would not result in long-term/operational impacts. Short-term impacts during construction
would include a slightly longer travel time for motorists to transit through construction zones
because the posted speed limit in the available lane(s) would be reduced from 65 miles per hour
to 55 miles per hour or lower. However, no substantial delays in travel time are expected. Cross
traffic on roadways beneath Interstate 5 would be minimally impacted during placement of
girders for new bridges because full roadway closures at night would be required periodically.
Bicyclists and pedestrians who utilize the Sacramento River Trail beneath Interstate 5 at the SR
44 interchange and the trail beneath Interstate 5 at the SR 299 interchange would be minimally
impacted by work at these locations, which would require periodic closure to allow for
installation of falsework and shoring or placement of girders to widen the roadway. The project
would have minimal to no impact on local roads. The addition of an auxiliary lane to the SR
44/Interstate 5 connector is considered a connector improvement. However, given that the
proposed project would not induce vehicle traffic on the interstate, freeway connector volumes
are not expected to change.
CEQA Determination
The proposed project would not substantially conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy
addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible

uses; would not conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision
(b), based on VMT traffic modeling; and would not result in inadequate emergency access. With
implementation of the measures to minimize impacts to traffic, bicyclists, and pedestrians during
construction, the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on transportation.
A Traffic Management Plan (TMP) was prepared for the proposed project (California
Department of Transportation 2020b). The TMP identified various traffic/transportation impacts
that would occur during construction of the project. In addition, the TMP identified measures to
be implemented during construction to minimize traffic/transportation impacts. The following
measures shall be implemented to minimize potential impacts on traffic, bicyclists, and
pedestrians:
Public Outreach
Prior to construction, the following public outreach efforts shall be made:
• Inform the public about the proposed project.
• Notify adjacent homeowners, property owners, and businesses about the

proposed project.
• Coordinate with local bicycle/pedestrian trail user groups that use the
Sacramento River Trail.
• Coordinate with the City, County, and local hospitals to ensure that emergency
response personnel and public transportation personnel are aware of the
proposed project.
• Coordinate with local school districts to ensure that the proposed project would
have minimal disruption on transporting students to and from schools.
• Implement a public information campaign (e.g., news releases and worker safety
media campaign).
Vehicle Traffic
• Lane Closures: No lane closures on Interstate 5 shall occur when traffic volumes
exceed the carrying capacity of the remaining open lane (for this segment of
Interstate 5, the carrying capacity is estimated at 1,200 vehicles per lane). Based
on review of traffic volumes for this segment of Interstate 5, 2 lanes of traffic in
each direction of travel shall remain open during daytime and after 3:00 p.m. on
Fridays, on weekends, on designated legal holidays, and on special days/special
events. Lane closures that reduce the traveled way to 1 lane shall be allowed only
at night. During night work, at least one 12-foot-wide paved lane with a shoulder
to provide a 16-foot horizontal clearance shall be provided at all times. Standard
Plan T10 shall be used for lane and shoulder closures.
• Ramp Closures: Ramps shall remain open after 3:00 p.m. on Fridays, on
weekends, designated legal holidays, and on special days/special events. One
ramp closure is allowed in each direction of travel at any one time. Night closures

shall be allowed for a limited number of times at each ramp. Standard Plan T14
shall be used for ramp closures.
• Motorist Information: A portable changeable message sign (PCMS) shall be placed

before the first traffic control sign for each approach. Additional PCMSs be required
to inform motorists of ramp and highway closures and speed zone reductions.
Bicyclists and Pedestrians

• Cyclists and pedestrians are prohibited on this section of I-5. When preparatory
work on bridge columns would encroach onto trails, the contractor shall provide a
temporary detour for pedestrians and bicyclists. When temporary closure of trails
is required, closures shall be kept to a minimum, restricted to night time, and the
contractor shall transport trail users around the construction zone as needed.
3.11 Utilities and Service Systems
Various utilities are present within the project area. These include overhead electrical lines
mounted on utility poles, underground telephone cables, and underground fiber optic cables. In
addition, solid waste collection service providers transit through the project area as part of solid
waste collection.
Construction of the project would not disrupt solid waste collection services nor result in any
planned loss of telephone services. Construction of the project would require the relocation of
underground telephone cables located east of the existing bridge. The earthwork associated
with the relocation of underground telephone cables (as well as other construction-related
activities) has the potential to impact water quality and the aquatic environment. The contractor
would need water for implementing palliative dust control, and a municipal supply location would
be identified prior to awarding the contract.
CEQA Determination
The proposed project would use a municipal water supply location and would not need a
wastewater treatment provider to service the project. The project would not generate solid waste
exceeding state or local standards, or exceeding the capacity of local infrastructure, or
otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals. As such, the proposed project
would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. With
implementation of standard BMPs for erosion control and spill prevention during utilities work,
the proposed project would have a less than significant impact on utilities and service systems.
No avoidance, minimization, or mitigation measures are included for utilities and service
systems.

3.12 Wildfire
Regulatory Setting
Senate Bill 1241 required the Office of Planning and Research, the Natural Resources Agency,
and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection to develop amendments to the
“CEQA Checklist” for the inclusion of questions related to fire hazard impacts for projects
located on lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones. The 2018 updates to the
CEQA Guidelines expanded this to include projects “near” these very high fire hazard severity
zones.
Most of the project area is located within the City limits of Redding, which is classified as a Local
Responsibility Area by the California State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection’s Office
of the State Fire Marshal Fire Assessment Mapping program (FRAP). The City of Redding is
responsible for providing fire protection in this area. FRAP classifications in the project area
include Very High Fire Severity zones, High Fire Severity zones, Moderate Fire Severity zones,
as well as un-zoned areas. The majority of land outside the City limits of Redding within Shasta
County is classified by FRAP as State Responsibility Area meaning the State of California
through Cal Fire is responsible for providing fire protection. Other lands within California are
Federally owned and not mapped by the FRAP program. Figures 9 and 10 below illustrate the
Shasta County mapped Fire Severity Zones provided by the FRAP program.

Figure 9. Draft fire hazard severity zones in Local Responsibility Area

Figure 10. Fire hazard severity zones in State Responsibility Area
Caltrans is one of two primary State Agencies tasked with the Essential Function of
Transportation within the Shasta County Emergency Operations Plan. According to the Plan,
the immediate use of transportation systems for emergency operational activities may exceed
local capabilities thus requiring assistance from the Mutual Aid system. With multiple large
wildfires impacting Interstate-5 within the last three years, including the Carr fire, Delta fire, and
Hirtz fire, improved system resiliency is needed.
The project would improve the existing 4-lane highway into a 6-lane highway. Currently the
facility within the project limits has 2 lanes of traffic in each direction (north and south). Outside
of the project limits, to the north and south, the highway has 3 lanes of traffic in each direction.
The proposed project would fill in the last gap of 6-lane highway, creating over 22 miles of
continuous 6-lane highway serving the entire corridor between Shasta Lake City to the north
and Cottonwood to the south. During construction, work would be staged to maintain 2 lanes of
traffic in each direction through the project area which would not impede emergency response
or potential evacuations.

Project construction could require lane reductions for items of work such as lifting bridge girders
into place for bridge widening. If needed, lane reductions and traffic closures would be closely
coordinated and approved by the Caltrans Traffic Management Branch. Coordination and
outreach with the California Highway Patrol, local law enforcement and emergency response
agencies would occur prior to the closures and a public information campaign would be
implemented. The proposed project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
After construction is complete, the project would improve the ability of traffic to move through
the area, which would improve the ability of the highway to serve the public during wildfire
emergencies (emergency response times, congestion relief, evacuation plans and capacity,
etc.).
The proposed project would improve existing transportation infrastructure by adding a multi-use
lane and widening the paved shoulders on both sides of the road, in each direction.
The proposed project would not construct a new highway on a new alignment that would
introduce the public to a different environment. The project does not include facilities for human
occupation, shelter or storage such as housing, habitable structures or gathering areas.
The proposed project does not exacerbate wildfire risks and thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
The proposed project is an infrastructure improvement project. Materials used to construct the
project are non-combustible. All sources of electrical power would either be underground or
contained in conduit and meet current electrical, building, and fire code, standards.
The proposed project does not require the installation or maintenance of additional associated
infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary ongoing impacts to
the environment. Therefore, there would be no impact.
The proposed project does not include facilities for human occupation, shelter or storage such
as housing, habitable structures or gathering areas. The project does not include facilities that
would delay, hold, or limit movement of the traveling public such as, an intersection, tunnel, or a
long bridge high off the ground, which could expose the public to increased risk in the event of a
wildfire.
Therefore, the project as proposed does not expose people or structures to significant risks,
including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope
instability, or drainage changes. There would be no impact to people or structures.
Project Benefits
The project increases the width of the road which improves its function as a firebreak, reducing
vegetation adjacent to the roadside, and provides additional paved areas for emergency
response vehicle staging. The bioswales and detention basins would function improve firebreak
function. If wildfire burned within the project limits, the project would reduce exposure to the
public by increasing the distance between the travelling public and combustible material.
The project would improve travel time which can decrease emergency response time.

Changeable Message Signs would be available to provide critical information during an
emergency and would be used to alert the public during times of high fire danger.
This portion of I-5 was identified as a bottleneck segment during the evacuation of over 40,000
people during the Carr fire in 2018. Improving the segment would increase system resiliency for
future emergency events.
CEQA Determination
The project could have short term temporary impacts during construction, but once completed,
the project would have beneficial impacts to wildfire associated issues. The project would have
a less than significant impact to wildfire.
It is Caltrans District 2 standard practice to require the contractor to produce an Emergency

Evacuation Plan for projects located within elevated fire danger areas mapped by the Cal Fire
FRA program. Standard Special Provision 12-4.02A(3)(c) would be included in contract
specifications to require the contractor prepare an EEP.

Chapter 4. List of Preparers
This Initial Study was prepared by the California Department of Transportation, North Region
Office of Environmental Management, with input from the following staff:
Russell Adamson, Archaeologist

Contribution: Cultural Resource Report
Joe Baltazar, Transportation Engineer

Contribution: Traffic Management Plan
André Benoist, Environmental Planner

Contribution: Wildfire section writer
Rajive Chadha, Hazardous Waste Specialist

Contribution: Initial Site Assessment Report
Yongil Cho, Transportation Engineer

Contribution: Air Quality/Greenhouse Gas Analysis and Energy Analysis Report
Cabe Cornelius, Environmental Planner

Contribution: Noise section writer
Darrin Doyle, Environmental Planner

Contribution: Air Quality, Greenhouse Gas, and Traffic section writer
Travis Gurney, Engineer

Contribution: Project design, Noise Abatement Decision Report
Steve Mintz, Hydraulic Engineer

Contribution: Location Hydraulic Study Report
Eric L. Rulison, Biologist

Contribution: Natural Environment Study, Document Editor
Sean Shepard, Project Manager

Contribution: Project management
Carolyn Sullivan, Environmental Branch Chief

Contribution: Document oversight
Miguel Villicana, NPDES Coordinator

Contribution: Water Quality Assessment Report
Saeid Zandian, Transportation Engineer

Contribution: Noise Study Report
`
02-0H920 Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 102
Initial Study with Proposed Negative Declaration
References
Barth, Matthew and Kanok Boriboonsomsin. 2010. Real-world carbon dioxide impacts of traffic
congestion. Berkeley, CA: University of California Transportation Center. UCTC-FR-2010-
11. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46438207.
Calfire. 2020. Fire hazard severity zone mapping tool. Accessed February 21, 2020.
https://egis.fire.ca.gov/FHSZ/
California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2019a. California greenhouse gas emissions inventory–
2019 edition. Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/data/data.htm.
———. 2019b. California greenhouse gas emissions for 2000 to 2017. Trends of emissions and
other indicators. Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/inventory/pubs/reports/2000_2017/ghg_inventory_trends_00-
17.pdf.
———. 2019c. SB 375 regional plan climate targets. Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/our-work/programs/sustainable-communities-program/regional-plan-
targets.
———. 2008. Climate change scoping plan appendices. Volume II: analysis and
documentation. Appendix I, p. I-19. December. Accessed October 31, 2019.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/document/scopingplandocument.htm.
California Department of Conservation. 2020a. California important farmland finder. Accessed

March 16, 2020. https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/ciff/
———. 2020b. Williamson Act maps. Accessed March 16, 2020.

https://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/wa/Pages/stats_reports.aspx
———. 2020c. Geologic map of California. Accessed April 8, 2020.

https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/planning/
———. 2020d. Alquist-Priolo faults. Accessed April 8, 2020.

———. 2020e. Earthquake shaking potential for California. Accessed April 8, 2020.
———. 2020f. Liquefaction zones. Accessed April 8, 2020.

———. 2020g. Tsunami inundation zones. Accessed April 8, 2020.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. NCCP plan summaries. Accessed April 8,
2020. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Planning/NCCP/Plans

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2020. California noxious weeds.
https://www.cdfa.ca.gov/plant/ipc/encycloweedia/weedinfo/winfo_table-sciname.html
California Department of Transportation. 2008. 2008 Interstate 5 transportation concept report.
California Department of Transportation. 2020a. Cultural resources report, Fix 5 Shasta

Gateway.
———. 2020b. Initial site assessment report, Fix 5 Shasta Gateway.
———. 2020c. Air quality analysis report, Fix 5 Shasta Gateway.
———. 2020d. Natural environment study, Fix 5 Shasta Gateway.
———. 2020e. Floodplain Evaluation Report Summary, Fix 5 Shasta Gateway.
———. 2020f. Water quality assessment report, North Redding 6 Lane Project.
———. 2020g. Traffic management plan data sheet, Fix 5 Shasta Gateway.
———. 2018. Standard specifications.
———. 2017. Construction site best management practices (BMPs) manual.

https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dot-media/programs/construction/documents/environmental-
compliance/csbmp-may-2017-final.pdf
Cal-IPC. 2020. The Cal-IPC inventory. https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/inventory/
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2019. Sustainability. Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/. Last updated February 7,
2019.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). No date. Sustainable highways initiative. Accessed

August 21, 2019. https://www.sustainablehighways.dot.gov/overview.aspx
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020. Web soil survey. Accessed April 8, 2020.
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm
Shasta County. 2019. Shasta County general plan.

https://www.co.shasta.ca.us/index/drm_index/planning_index/plng_general_plan.aspx
Shasta Regional Transportation Agency. 2018. 2018 Shasta County regional transportation
plan. https://www.srta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/1881
State of California. 2018. California’s fourth climate change assessment. Accessed August 21,
2019. http://www.climateassessment.ca.gov/.
———. 2019. California climate strategy. Accessed August 21, 2019.

https://www.climatechange.ca.gov/.

U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 2018. National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration corporate average fuel economy. Accessed August 21,2019.
https://www.nhtsa.gov/laws-regulations/corporate-average-fuel-economy.
———. 2011. Policy statement on climate change adaptation. June. Accessed August 21,
2019.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usdot.
cfm.
U.S. Department of Transportation (U.S. DOT). 2011. Policy statement on climate change
adaptation. June.
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sustainability/resilience/policy_and_guidance/usdot.
cfm. Accessed August 21, 2019.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA). 2018. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas
emissions and sinks. Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/inventory-us-greenhouse-gas-emissions-and-sinks.
———. 2009. Endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under the
Section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act. Accessed August 21, 2019.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/endangerment-and-cause-or-contribute-findings-
greenhouse-gases-under-section-202a-clean
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. Environmental conservation online system.
Accessed February 4, 2020.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/conservationPlan/region/summary?region=8&type=HCP
U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). 2018. Fourth national climate assessment.
Accessed August 21, 2019. https://nca2018.globalchange.gov/.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2019. Redding municipal airport (047304).

https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7304


Environmental Impact Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Impact Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Environmental Impact Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Fix 5 Cascade Gateway

Initial Study with Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration

April 20, 2020

What’s in this document:

What you should do:

o Shasta County Library at 1100 Parkview Avenue, Redding CA

California Department of Transportation

• You may also submit comments via email to:

Fix 5 Cascade Gateway

Approved By: Date: 5/7/20

PROPOSED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

Approved By: Date:

Figure 1. Project Location ......................................................................................................... 3

Lead Agency Name and Address

Contact Person and Phone Number

Purpose and Need

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 1

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 2

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 3

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 4

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 5

Construction staging for NB I-5 to WB SR 44 Connector UC requires multiple stages and

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 6

Permits and Approvals Needed

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 7

CDFW Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement

CVRWQCB Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification

NOAA Fisheries Letter of Concurrence – Informal Section 7 Consultation

Because more than one acre of ground disturbance would

US Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 14 (linear transportation projects)

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 8

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 9

a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not

c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would

See Section 3.1: Aesthetics

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 10

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land

e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 11

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air

b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any

c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant

d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)

See Section 3.2: Air Quality

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 12

IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project:

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through

b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat

See Section 3.3: Biological Resources

02-0H920_Fix 5 Cascade Gateway 13