H. Cultural Resources. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
40
H. Cultural Resources. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING. Walnut Grove Branch ·Line. A records search was performed by an archaeological consultant to determine if any known historical or archaeological sites l ie within the right-of-way to be utilized by the proposed project. Th ough records indicated a site about two blocks from the right-of-way, there were no finds within the right-of-way itself. The consultant also conducted walk-over surveys within the general v1c1nity of the new passing tracks and passenger 1 oading platforms that are proposed for construction as part of this project. Nothing was found that would indicate the existence of an archaeological or historical resource. ENVIRONMENTA L IMPACT . Cultural Resources. The records search and the survey of the land resulted in negative findings. It is conceivable, howe ver, that the shallow ground disturbance required for the construction of passenger load· ing platforms could uncover artifacts that indicate the presence of an archaeological resource. MITIGATION MEASURES. Cultural Resources. To prevent avoidable damage to an archaeological resources there is the remote potential of encountering dur1 ng the construction of passenger loading platforms, an experienced archaeologist would monitor any grading or trenching that would be associated with such construction. The arch aeologist would be respons ible for advis i ng the Department of Parks and Recreation on the significance of any find and recommend appropriate measures for mitigating adverse impacts. SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. Cultural Resources. T he proposed project is not expected to have any significant adverse environmental effects on cultural or hi stori cal resources. Th e project will contribute toward. the restoration of a historic railroad operation on the WGB Line. 1 09
Transcript of H. Cultural Resources. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
H. Cultural Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
Walnut Grove Branch ·Line.
A records search was performed by an archaeological consultant to determine if any known historical or archaeological sites l ie within the right-of-way to be utilized by the proposed project. Though records indicated a site about two blocks from the right-of-way, there were no finds within the right-of-way itself.
The consultant also conducted walk-over surveys within the general v1c1nity of the new passing tracks and passenger 1 oading platforms that are proposed for construction as part of this project. Nothing was found that would indicate the existence of an archaeological or historical resource.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
Cultural Resources.
The records search and the survey of the land resulted in negative findings. It is conceivable, however, that the shallow ground disturbance required for the construction of passenger load·ing platforms could uncover artifacts that indicate the presence of an archaeological resource.
MITIGATION MEASURES.
Cultural Resources.
To prevent avoidable damage to an archaeological resources there is the remote potential of encountering dur1 ng the construction of passenger loading platforms, an experienced archaeologist would monitor any grading or trenching that would be associated with such construction. The archaeologist would be responsible for advis ing the Department of Parks and Recreation on the significance of any find and recommend appropriate measures for mitigating adverse impacts.
SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
Cultural Resources.
The proposed project is not expected to have any significant adverse environmental effects on cultural or hi stori cal resources. The project will contribute toward. the restoration of a historic railroad operation on the WGB Line.
109
I. Biologic.al Resources.
ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING.
Walnut Grove Branch Line.
The setting WGB Llne consists of an existing railroad right-of-way that was constructed in the early 1900's. A large portion of the line passes through urban setti.ngs or areas converted to agricultural uses that contain only remnants of natural habitat. Some weedy and native vegetation is present in and along the edges of the right -of-way. · The most notable areas where such vegetation occurs is ·from approximately the Highway 160 crossing south of Freeport to Hood. Because this portion of the right-of-way only received minimal maintenance by the original landowner, some areas of volunteer vegetation are present on or immediately adjacent to the tracks. This vegetation consists· of young trees (val1ey oaks, black walnut, willows, etc.), bushes (blackberry, wild grape,. etc.), and gr~sses. The cooridor of the WGB Line is not reported to contain any sensitive plant or wildlife.
One area adjacent to the WGB Line does contain moderate to high va 1 ue wildlife habitat. This area extends along the east side of the railroad embankment south of the Highway 160 crossing where Morrison; Laguna, Elk Grove Creeks join to form the marshes associated with Beach-Stone Lakes complex. This extended marshy area provides a large wetland area that provides habitat for a variety of wildlife species, especially birds. This area also contains mature valley oak woodlands near the edge of farm fields and the marshes. The Beach-Stone Lakes complex is locally recognized as an important wetland habitat area for Sacramento County. Several sensitive species may or do occur in this area such as Swainson's hawk, Great Blue heron, and the state-listed threatened Giant garter snake. This is a 1 so an important marsh on the Paci f i c Flyway for migratory waterfowl. ·
Direct views of the marsh habitat of the Beach-Stone Lakes Complex are possible to varying degrees from the WGB Line right-of-way. These views range from areas whe·re no intervening mature vegetation occurs to areas where only limited views are possible through and between trees growing on the east side of the railroad embankment.
The remaining natural habitat qualities of the · southern portion of the WGB Line are considered to be an important scenic element of the pr6posed train service. The Merri son Creek area al so pro vi des an opportunity to see a t_ype of natural setting that was more common in the Sacramento Valley many years ago.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
Biological Resources.
Grass and a few shrubs may be eliminated by the construction of passing tracks and passenger loading platforms. As .a result of consultation with the staff of the Natural Diversity Data Base of the California Department of Fish and Game, it was determined that the affected area does not contain habitat for any unique threatened or endangered species of plants or animals.
110
Restoration of the trackage south of Highway 160 will require the replacement of some support timbers on two trestles . These trest1 es provide bridges over openings in the 1 evee ·that a 11 ow access for 1 oca l landowners and farmers to other parcels; these openings do not contain s1gn1f1 cant drainage channels that support wetland habitats . Accordingly, no impacts to wet1ands are anticipated as a result of repair ing these trestles.
A certain momentary disrupt 1 on of some waterfowl and other birds roosting or feeding in the marshy areas immediately adjacent to the tracks is unavoidable, but the overall impact of the excursion train's passage along the edge of thi s area on wildlife is expected to be minimal. Thi s potential impact is expected to be insignificance because of the brief, passing nat ure of the train and its restricted annual schedule. The proposed excursion train's schedule wi l l r esul t in the train operating on this portion of the line a maximum of only 100 days each year on an average of one to two times each of those days.
Other factors that suggest t he excursion trai n operat i on will not disrupt wil dl He can be seen by observing the behavior of birds and other wi 1 d1 i fe 1 n areas near major transportation cooridors. For example, many birds readily adapt to using farm fields and other hab itat close to freeways and rail lines. Disruptions are not expected from the train's whist1e since it only be used near crossings north and south of this area. In addition, the train would not be operating on a regular schedule during the period of-highest waterfowl use, the winter and early spring months. The only use of the train during thi s portion of the year would be for charter service or movement of maintenance equipment. These limi ted trips are not anticipated to· have any significant effect on .wildlife. .
If landscaping is provided along the ri'ght-of-way for visual improvements or to limit views of the train, the Department will give a preference to usi ng native plants such as valley oaks.
MITIGATION MEASURES.
Biological Resources.
No mitigation required.
SIGNIFICANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
Biological Resource~.
The excursion train is not expected to have any signi f icant impact on threatened or endangered plant or wildlife species, nor have a significant impact on wildlife that may use adjacent fields and marshes adjacent to the right-of-way.
111
IV. ALTERNATIVES
A. No ProJect Alternative
The No•project alternative consists of the continuation of the excursion train as it currently operates between Old Sacramento and Mil1er Park north of the I-5
· rail road bridge. If the Department selects this a 1 tern at i ve there would be no extension of excursion train service on the portion of the WGB Line south of the I-5 overcrossing and no substantial changes in the service level of the existing Miller Park Run.
With selection of the no-project alternative none of the adverse and unavoidable impacts associated with implementation of the project would occur in the immediate future. The right-of-way would continue to be available for other uses 1 ncl udi ng the extension of Sacramento's 1 i ght ra fl transit system to the southern part of the City and/or development of a bike path. The Department could also reconsider service to the Hood area as a separate project.
B. Alternative Train Routes
An alternative to the use of the Wa 1 n1,1t Grove Branch Line for excursion train service, especially for longer runs of an hour or more, is to consider using other mainline railroad tracks that would be accessible from the river fro•nt trackage in Old Sacramento. The most likely route would be the Southern Pacific's main lines that run toward Davis and Roseville since they pass in close proximity to the Old Sacramento· area.
In contrast to the existing condition of the southern portion of the· WGB Line, the main line tracks from Sacramento to Yolo County are currently in use for regular freight and passenger service. Use of these tracks would require permission by the owner of this 1 ine (Southern Pacific) and approval by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC).
These rail 1 ines pass through residential, commercial, and industria1 areas of the City of West Sacramento 1 n Yo 1 o County. However, the tracks through West Sacramento do not pass adjacent to as many residences as the WGB Line proposed for use by the excursion train •
. Train environmental impacts relating to noise and the invasion of privacy would still occur, although at lower levels because fewer sensiti ve receptors would be affected. This route would not potentially interfere with Sacramento Regional Transit District's plans for the eventual extension of light rail transit service to south Sacramento over the WGB Line.
The existing scheduled passenger and freight service on any of the commercial rail lines in Sacramento would present significant rail use compatibility problems for the proposed excursion train. The main railroad cooridor to the northeast toward Roseville and to the west toward Davis experiences high volumes of commercial rail traffic. Operation of a steam excursion train is expected to be incompatible with the other uses of this line because of the difficulty of scheduling excursion runs between regul ar traffic, the ope rat i ona 1 prob 1 ems of mixing a non-commercial train {the excursion train) with a commercial railroad, the more complicated nature of operating ori a rail line with other priority
112
traffic, and the different operat 1 ng speeds of the trains. Use of other ra i1 1; nes in Sacramento, such as t _he Uni on Pacific 1 i ne a 1 ong 20th Street would pose similar problems. Because of the importance of maintaining railroad safety, the CPUC and the line's owner would probably not coRSider anything but very limited occasional runs from Old Sacramento·. Use of this line is essential l y not a viable replacement for the proposed use of the WGB Line.
C. Devel opment Al ternatives
There are several alternatives to the proposed project are variations of the proposed project rather than entirely different projects on other stretches of right-of-way. They are similar to the proposed project except for the additions or de 1 etfons of stations, stops, and passing tracks, and a reduction in the 1 ength of the proposed excursion route. These additions and de 1 et ions are listed below along with discussions of the environmental impact that would or would not occur if one or more of the _alternatives to the proposed project is selected by the Department:
1. William Land Park Station--Option A. Option A for the William Land Pa-rk Station (WLP) consists of a passenger loading ·platform constructed beside the tracks immediately north of Sutterville Road adjacent to the zoo. The excursion trip to WLP would make ei 9ht runs per operational day from Old Sacramento. Since there is insufficient room for a passing track between I-5 and Suttervi11e Avenue, the locomotive would couple to the opposite end of the train using the proposed passing t rack. north of the I-5 railroad bridge and push the train south to the WLP Stat ion. Passengers would board or disembark at the station and the train woul d proceed back to Old Sacramento.
This alternative would essentially extend the -proposed Miller Park Run south to William Land Park. Al l passenger trips would originate at Old Sacramento. There would be up to eight trips per day, three days per week from April through September and certain other occasions during the year .
Envi ronmenta 1 Impacts . Extension of the Mi 11 er Park Run to the Wi lliam Land Park area wou1d result in the generation of some potentially significant adverse environmental impacts. The impacts incl ude noise. air quality, land use compatibility, and visual resources.
Noise impacts would increase over the existing operation since it presently does not cross the I-5 bridge. Noise impacts would probab 1 y greater in that l oca 1 i zed area west of the zoo than the proposed Hoo_d Run or Miller Park Run_ since t he frequency of train movements in this particular area would significantly incr ease and the train would stop for passenger loading between the zoo and the edge of a residential area .
There would be an increase in the concentration of emissions due to the delay at the station while passengers get on or off the train. The train would be delayed approximatel y one to fifteen mi nutes~
113
2.
Emissions in this particular area would be greater than the proposed project since no significant amount of idling 1s anticipated in this area.
The increase in excursion trips to Sutterville ·Road would possibly increase 1 and use compati bl 1 ty and visual resource problems si nee the passenger platform would be situated very near homes to the west of the tracks, The homes in this area have very little separation from the right-of-way both in overal l distance and · intervening landscaping. The proposed project would result in only an average of one to two trains passing through this area over a maximum of 100 days each year. The extension of the Mil l er Park Run would increase service to up to eight times a day over· approximately 200 days each year. ·
Depending upon the design of the light rail transit facilities that may eventually be constructed in the right-of-way, the increase in excursion train activity on the stretch of track between the I-5 rai 1 road overpass and the zoo, as well as the use of a passenger platform outside of the area proposed for a light rail station, could resut in significant operational and scheduling conflicts.
William Land -Park Station -- Option B. WLP Station B Option would consist of a passenger loading platform constructed beside the tracks within about 500 feet south of Suttervi 11 e Road. A new passing track would be constructed on the 1,OOO-foot stretch of right-of-way .commencing just south of South Land Park Drive. The locomotive would pul1 the train to the passenger loading platform for passenger on and off loading, then continue on to the passing track south of South Land Park 9rive. The locomotive would reverse ends of the train and pull the cars back to Old Sacramento.
This alternative would essenti ally extend the entire Mil l er Park Run operation south to the William Land Park area. All passenger trips would originate at Old Sacramento. There would be up to eight trips per day, three days per week from Apri l through September and certain other occasions during the year (approximately 200 operational days annua11y).
Environmental Impacts. Moving the south end of the Miller Park Run to the William Land Park area would result in certain potentially significant environmental impacts. These impacts include noise, air quality, land use compatibility, traffic circulation, light rail compatibility, and vi~ual resources.
Noise generated by the train would be more significant than the proposed project since this alternative results i n use of a new passenger station near residential uses . and the switching movements necessary to run around the locomotive for the return trip to Old Sacramento. The noise of the train would be heard eight more times per operating day by the peop 1 e who reside along the right-of-way between .1-5 and end of the passing track approximately one-quarter mile south of south Land park Drive. That would incl ude all the so~nds associated with the train including the bells, whistles, and
114
the stationary warn.ing devices. There would be an extended ~riod (approx1mately ten minutes) of . train noise in the vicinity of the passing track resulting from the 1 ocomot i ve chang1 ng ends of the train.
There would be an increase in the concentration· of emissions due to the short delay at the station while passengers get on or off the train and while the locomotive changes ends of the train. The train would be delayed approxi mately ten minutes and the increase in emissions, though individually insignificant, woul d be both more noticeable than for a passing train and occur more times per day than the proposed project •
. The increase in excursion trips to Sutterville Road is expected to increase the 1 and use comp at i bil ity problems associated with the train for people residing on property adjacent to the right-of-way from the I-5 railroad bridge to approximately one-quarter mile south of South Land Park Drive. The proposed project would result in only an average of one to two trains (round trips) bound for Hood traveling past these particular residences each operational day. The number of operational days on this portion of the 1 ine would also increase from approximatel y 100 to 200 annually.
Since the train would be in this area mor·e often and be involved in switching, it may more impact on visual resources . The would be seen more times each year and on each operational day. Landscape buffers would probably only marginally reduce the significance of this potential impact .
Oependi ng upon the design of the 1 i ght ra i1 faci 1 it i es that may eventua_lly be constructed in the right-of-way, it is anticipated that the increase in excursion · train activity on the stretch of t rack between the 1-5 rai l road overpass and the additional passing track that would be constructed south of South Land Park Drive would result in in scheduling and operational conflicts between the two rail systems.
The traffic circulation impacts of this particular alternative were analyzed in a backgound traffic report prepared for this EIR. The potential traffic impacts of thi s alternative are expected to be significant because of the congestion caused by swi tching and the additional train crossing of the local roadways.
Implementation of this alternative would result in 16 trains crossing Sutterville Road and . South Land Park Drive during the 10:00 a.m . to 6:00 p.m. operating hours on each service day. Since the station would be very close to these streets the t rain would be moving slowly and it is estimated that the crossing gates would be closed for two minutes. In addition to delaying traffic, this would produce long queues which, on Sutterville Road, would periodically back up to the adjacent intersections creating traffic flow probl ems and decreasing safety at those i ntersections.
115
The.total change in traffic delays is expected to be significant because of the need to repeatedly cross Sutterville Avenue and South Land Park Or ive as the train arrives and departs and as the run around of the locomotive occurs on each trip.
The effect of the addi tional del ays result in a reduction in the levels of service at the adjacent intersection and on the two cross streets. . Leve 1 of service ls genera 11 y ·eva 1 uated for the peak 15 minute traffic flow. Averaging crossing del ays over a 15 minute period, the additional delay per vehicle, caused by one train crossing one street, would be about ten seconds per vehicle. During periods of l i~ht traffic, this woul d result tn the level of service being reduced by one level (from A to B, or B to C), During periods of heavy traffic, level of service would be reduced by one half a 1evel (from D to 0/E to E).
In summary, traffic impacts of full excursion train service to the William Land Park area are expected to be significant if the station is si~µate~ between Sutterville Road and South Land Park Drive. Grade crossing queues long enough to contribute to deterioration of the safety and the flow of traffic at adjacent intersections would occur frequently. Mitigation measures would be necessary to ensure that street intersection queues would not extend back to the tracks. Total addit ional delay to traffic would be about one-half of the delay at the Sutterville Road - South Land Park Drive intersection, and this would reduce the level of service by one-half to one level.
3. Frui trj dge ·Road Area Passi nq Track Del et 1 on. An a 1 terat ion to the proposed project is to delete the planned parallel siding north of Jensen Field (Fruitridge Road and 35th Avenue) . This proposed siding has been included in the project to . facilitate passage of trains operating on the WGB- Line south of the I-5 overcrossing. This siding would not be used as a ·temporary destination for the Hood Run until the tracks are 1n service a 11 the way to Freeport. This siding is proposed for construction in a
· wide portion of the right-of-way south of 35th Avenue. Residential 1 and uses are located adjacent to this area.
Envi ronmenta 1 Impacts. El i mi nation of the Fru i tri dge Road area passi ng track would result in an incremental reduction in the environmental impacts associated with passage of trains through this area. This j ncl udes a mi nor reduction in noi se and air qua 1 i ty impacts associated with trains idl ing on the siding while anottier train passes. Del etion of this siding may also incrementally reduce the impacts associated with the total amount of time that passengers may be able to view the backyards of residential properties.
While deletion of this s iding woul d incremental l y reduce . some impacts, it would not result in a substanti al reduction of any significant or unavoidable impacts under the proposed project. The proposed siding would on 1 y be used on a vary limited basis so there should not be frequent or lengthy periods ~hen passenger or M/W tra ins must wait on this siding. As noted above, this siding will not be used to provide shorter interim passenger runs on the Hood 1 i ne while reconstr uction of other areas is proceeding farther south on the r ight-of-way.
116
Deletion of this siding would a1so pose pot~ntially significant operational problems for the use of the 1-5 bridge to Hood portion of the WGB Line.
4. Freeport Station Deletion. A second al teration to the proposed project is the elimination of al l development of railroad improvements at Freeport except for t he upgrading of the existing track. The pas senger loading platform would not be constructed, t he passing track would not be repaired, and the excursion train would not stop 1n Freeport.
Environmental Impacts. El imi nation of the Freeport station would _result in a minor reduction in the environmental impacts associated with this e1ement of the project.
Deletion of the Freeport station would reduce construction impacts associated with the instal l ation of the passenger pl atform and the walkways off the ·1evee, it would incrementally reduce noise and air quality impacts resulting from .l ayovers at this station. and it would magina1ly reduce any perceived land use compatibili ty 1mpa·cts of the passenger stati on and the adjacent uses .
While deletion of this siding would incremental ly reduce some impacts, it would not result in a substantial reduction · of any significant or unavoidable impacts under the proposed project. The Freeport station requires only minor. construction activities in the right-of-way and it will not result in the alteration or removal of any existing structures or mature vegetation. The reduction in noise and air quality is expected to be a minor benefit since the layov_ers will be short and the train will still serve this area.
Eli mi nat ion of the Freeport station · would prevent the Department from having an interim station along the line to allow passenger access to this community. Unl ess another site was identified just north of Freeport for a passing siding, the loss of this station could result in the Department being unable to use the WGB Li ne for any excursion train service until the remaining trackage to Hood is restored.
5, Terminating Excursion Train Service at Freeport. This alternative would limit the extension of excursion train service to Freeport rather than Hood. None of the proposed improvements and new construction between Freeport and Hood would occur, incl ud ing track and train crossing improvements and wye and passenger loading platform construction.
Environmental Impacts. Termination of excursion train service at or near Freeport would result in minor reductions to impacts associated with the proposed project. These include the elimination of noise, air quality, traffic circulation, and visual . resource. impacts that would occur if the train uses the part of the line south of Freeport.
While deletion of this siding woul d incremental ly reduce some impacts, it would not result in a substantial reduction of any significant or unavoidable impacts under the proposed project. Use of this porti on line is not expected to have any signi fi cant adverse environmental i mpacts.
117
Deletion of this portion of the line may substantially reduce the recreational experience offered by the proposed excursion train since this is one of the most visually appealing portions of the line.
6. Deletion of Hood Station. This al ternative would eliminate much of the construction and reconstruction of railroad improvements at Hood; specifically the track to the passenger loading p1atform and shelter, and bus and administrative vehicle parking facilities . The existing track to Hood would be upgraded to meet or exceed Feder a 1 Railroad Administration Cl ass 3 standards, the existing passing track would be .reconstruct ed, a wye built and the Hood-Frankl in Road train crossing would be improved. The excursion train route would extend to Hood, but passengers would not disembark or board there.
Envi ronmenta 1 Impacts. Selection of tM s a 1 teration to the proposed project would result 1n the incremental reduct i on of project-related impacts at Hood, Elimination of the proposed passenger station would result in the train only stopping for the switchi ng of the locomotive to the re_ar c;,f :the train for the re.turn run, which_ would reduce waiting Ume at the end of the tracks. This change would incrementally reduce impacts associated with noise and air quality. The elimination of the station would also mean passengers could not visit Hood or wait for the return run l ater in the day (Saturdays only) .
While deletion of the Hood station would incrementally reduce some· impacts, it would not result in a substantial reducti on of any si gnificant or unavoidable impacts under the proposed project. Use of this station is not expected to have any significant adverse environmental impacts.
D. Operational Alternatives
The proposed excursion train schedule provided in Chapter 2 of this report represents the highest amount of service the Department plans to offer on both the Miller Park Run and the Hood Run. The schedule includes the maximum levels for all types of train service--regular scheduled runs , charter/special runs, and maintenance train trips--that the Department anticipates occurring in any one year. For the Miller Park .Run, train service may occur at some level up to approximately 200 days annually. Dependirrg on the time of year and the day of the week, the number of daily roundtrips will range from one to about fifteen on the Miller Park portion of the WGB line. Service on the remaining portion of the 1 ine between Interstate 5 and Hood could occur up to approxi.mately 100 days each year. Service levels would average between one and two trips on those operational days.
There are several ind 1 vi dua 1 issues that can be addressed or included in the development of an operational alternative. These issues include the following items:
1. Reduction in the number of excursion trips per day on either or both runs;
2. Reduction i n the·number of days of operations per week;
3. Shortening of the season of operation;
118
4: Reduction in the maximum number of cars making up each train;
5. Limitations on the number of passengers;
6. Limitations on the number of non-passenger trips;
7. Restrictions on the hours of operation during the day; and
8. Restriction on the type of passenger car, e.g., use of only enclosed passenger cars to reduce . passenger vi si b1 l i ty from adjacent residences. _
As can be seen by the above list of items, an infinite number of operational alternatives are potentially available for the excursion train service. Many of these items also could be selectively implemented (and, in fact, are discussed 1n individual impact analyses in Chapter 3) as either mitigation measures or changes to the proposed project to reduce the degree and/or frequency of certain potentially significant impacts. Since potentially significant and unavoidable environmental impacts genera 11 y occur to the greatest extent on the Hood Run portion of the proposed project, an operatjonal alternative has been selected for evaluation in this ElR that mainly addresses changing the proposed service levels on this portion of the run. A minor change is also included in the Miller Park Run to reduce overall traffi c impacts on Capitol Mall. This operational alternative consists of the following changes and restrictions to the proposed Hood Run schedule:
1. Reduction i ~ Dai 1 Y Runs. Restrict the number of tra 1 n movements that can occur on the Hood Run portion of the line to a maximum of two each day except in unusual circumstances (special maintenance trips, train breakdowns, etc,) when additional runs are necessary. This reduces the potential maximum number of run& that could occur on the Hood Run from four, which under the proposed project has the possibility of occurring on Saturdays if both scheduled runs operated, there was one charter train, and one maintenance train.
2.
A second reduction from the proposed project is to limit service on the Mi 11 er Park Run to six roundt rips on Fri days instead of the planned eight runs. This would change would reduce the number of train crossings of Capitol Mall during afternoons when traffic is generally higher that mid-day . No changes are proposed for the weekend servi_ce of eight runs since t raffic on Capitol Mall is lighter a11 day.
Restr ict/Change Hours of Operation. In general, do not allow trips to Hood to leave Old Sacramento any later than 5:00 p.m. in contrast to the two summer season Hood Runs proposed for departure at 6 :00 p.m.
·specifically, change the proposed evening run to Hood on the sunwner season weekday (Friday or Monday) to be either a mid-afternoon run (2:00 p.m.) or late afternoon run (5:00 p.m.),
119
A1so, change the Saturday schedule to 12:00 noon and 5:00 p.m. departures instead of the proposed 2:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. departures. This schedule allows the early train to miss the peak traffic period on Suttervil le Avenue (approximately l :00 p.m.) and to meet the early "evening" run departure time.
3. Reduce Operational Days. Reduce the total number of days trains may operate on the Hood Run portion of the WGB Line by about 20 percent. This change results in operation occurring on · the line a total of approximately 80 days each year. The reduction would be achieved by reducing the number of trips offered on charter and special runs, which is projected to comprise approximately 30 operational days annually (charter service is available - approximately 60 days annually but half of these trips would be on days when regular service is· already planned).
Reduction 1n Environmental Impacts . Selection of the proposed operational alternative would no.t eliminate any potentially si gnificant adverse or µn_~yoi clabJ e environmental impacts , but it would .reduce the frequency -of their occurrance. These reductions would principally affect impacts associated with l and use compatibility, noise, air quality~ and traffic.
Implementation of the proposed alternative schedule would reduce the maximum number of times an excursion train would pass through residential settings each day from a total of four to two. Other schedule changes woul d result in the evening train respecti vely depart ing and returning earlier 1n the evening. These changes in schedule would reduce the number of times per day when disruption caused in the neighborhood would occur and it would result in the evening trains passing by earl ier than t he proposed schedule.
While the net effect of tnis reduction on the disturbing qualities the tra1n presents as it passes (noise, stack emissions, views of passengers, crossing delays) is difficult to quantify, i t is acknowledged that some incremental changes would result from the selection of this alternative. For example, individuals who find the passage of the train annoying, disruptive, or an invasion of their privacy, will have know this event can onl y occur a maximum of tw1ce per day and during slightly earlier evening hours that may be incrementa11y more acceptable. However , it is still anticipated t hat the train will cause significant adverse disruptions as i t passes and these impacts, whi le bri ef 1 are unavoidable.
In regard to the other associated impacts, there would be proporti onal decreases in the number of times each day individuals would hear the train pass, the community noise level of 50 dBA Ldn would not be "technically" exceeded (due to fewer the averaging of fewer noise events and these events occurring earlier in the evening), there would be less t otal emissions, and a fewer number of potential traffic del ays on Saturdays. The reduction iii the number of Miller Park Runs on Fridays would i ncrementall y reduce potenttal traffic del ays d~ring the peak p.m. traffic per iods on Capitol Mall. However, the weekday evening trip on the Hood Run woul d possi bly result in an incremental increase in traffic delays at major street crossi ngs since the train would pass earlier in the evening on the outbound run.
120
In summary, the proposed operationa1 alternative would incrementally reduce the occurance of some potentially significant adverse and unavoidable impacts since the train would pass res idential areas fewer times and the total number of annua 1 opera ti ona l hours and days would decrease from the proposed project. This alternative would not completely eliminate the occurance of brief significant adverse or unavoidable impacts. ·
E. Othe.r lndivi dual Operational Al ternatives .
As noted in the section above on 0perat i ona 1 Alternatives, there are sever a 1 individual operational changes that could be instituted that would change the level or frequency of potentially significant environmental impacts that may result from approval of the proposed project. For purposes of this alternatives chapter, the fo 11 owing are some specific ind i vi dua 1 measures or options that could also be selected by the Department:
1. Eliminate Weekday Scheduled Service. To lessen impacts associate with evening weekday service , the Department could chose to ind i vi dua 11 y el i mi nate the scheduled summer season service on the weekday (Friday or Monday) since it is presently proposed as an even1ng run. Movement of the train between 6:00 to 8:00 p.m. is expected to generate slightly greater levels of disturbances than the daytime weekend runs.
While still not eliminating the potentially significant adverse and unavoidable impacts that may occur f rom operation of the train through resident i a 1 settings on the Hood Run 1 this option would incrementally l ower the number of times they occur each year.
2. Reduction in Train Capacity. The Department could choose to user fewer cars on both runs to shorten the length of the train and to reduce the number of passengers on each trip. The Department present 1 y p 1 ans to run a maxi mum of seven ca rs on the Mil 1 er Park Run and five cars on the Hood Run.
3.
Se 1 ect ion of this a 1 tern at i ve would 1 ncrementa 11 y reduce the tot a 1 amount of noise generated by the passing of a train, it would 1ncrementally reduce the duration of the noise created by passing of the train, and i t would incrementally shorten delays at road crossings .
While feasible, shorteni ng of trains would only result i s extremely mini ma 1 changes in the degree and frequency of imp acts associated with noise generation and traffic delays. For example, the difference in the de lay caused by a three car train over a five car train would be very minor.
Reduction in Length of Summer Season. The highest period of annua 1 use for both the Hood Run and Miller Park Run is during the summer season. The Hood Run would operate on all weekends and holidays from May through early September whi 1 e the Mil 1 er Park Run would operate on the same days of the week from April through t he end of September. These seasons were selected because they coinci de with J onger day length, the periods of the year when there . is more interest in outdoor activiti es, and because t hese months are
121
assochted with tourist travel peri.ods. Limited Christmas, Thanksgiving, and Easter holiday service is also being proposed because of the presence of more tourists and because many chi 1 dren are on vacations from school.
A reduction in the number of weekends and other periods of the year when excursion train service would be offered would result in an
· equivalent number of days when the train may be in operation on the WGB Line. Each reduction means local residents would have fewer days dµring which the potentially adverse and unavoidable impacts of the project may occur. Thi s option does not change the degree of t he impacts generated by each passing train. Accordingly, a reduction in the train schedule would incrementally reduce the potential frequency of the impacts generated by the excursion t rain .
122
V. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES
A. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects.
Implementation of the proposed project by the California Department of Parks and Recreation will result in the generation of significant, unavoidable environmental impacts -on the days when the train operates on certain portions of the Walnut Grove Branch Line. These significant environmental impacts are · associated with the passage of the excursion train through port1ons of the right-of-way that are bordered by residential land uses. This generally includes the portion of the line from south of the Interstate· 5 railroad bridge to approximately the Pocket Road/Meadowview Road area, as well as other smaller urbanized areas along the right-of-way near the communities of Freeport and Hood .
1. Land Use Compatibility. Trye Hoed Run portion of the proposed project is expected to generate brief periods w1thi-n which significant unavoidable environmental impacts on land use comp at i bi l i ty occur. Si nee the WGB Line has not been used for rail service in approximately ten years1 it is anticipated that some residents whose homes are ·situated near or direct1y adjacent to the tracks will find the noise, vibrations, exhaust emissions, and traffic delays caused by passing trains to be disruptive, annoying, and/or a nuisance. Whi le it is di ffi cult to accurately quantify the individual intensity of this di~turbance, this event has · been identified as a s ignificant adverse impact of the project.
Although it is not possible to eliminate this impact there are some factors that lessen or 1 imit the extent of this d.isruption. These factors include t hat the proposed Hood Run schedule will only result in trains being present on the portion of the trackage south of the Interstate 5 overcrossing a total of approximately 100 days annually, the t rain will operate an average of one to two roundtr ips on those days, and the subject disruption will on1 y occur at each house for a few minutes per trip~
The poss i b 1 e perception that there will be a certain brief loss of privacy for residents with backyards or windows that are visible to passengers on the excursion trai n is al so an unavoi dable significant impact of the project in t he areas where the train passes close to resident i a 1 1 and uses. Factors that lessen, but do not el i mi nate this impact, include that views into many adj a cent properties are limited by existing mature landscaping, the at grade nature of the right-of-way setting, and separation provided in some areas (approximately 100 feet) between t he centerli ne of the trackage and the subject homes. This potential impact is expected to be the most not i ceab 1 e along the west side of the portion of the 1 i ne between 35th Avenue and approximately Florin Road because the tracks are often under 100 feet from the homes on the adjacent lots.
2. Noise. The project would also have unavo idabl e adverse noise effects. These effects are due to the passage of the train and most predominantly, t he train's whist l e. The train's whistle is
123
necessary for safety reasons. Existfog landscaping a long the rightof-way, while valuable for reducing direct views of passing trains, is not expected to significantly reduce noise impacts.
Factors that limit the significance of this impact include that train-related noise will onl y occur for a total of a few minutes each time the train passes, the frequency of the excursion train on the Hood Run wi 11 result in an average of oril y one to two roundtri ps per day, and the noise will occur only during daytime and early evening hours.
B. Short Term Use vs. Long Term Productivity.
The proposed project is not expected to resul t in a short-term use of the environment that wil l narrow the long term uses and productivity of the environment. The WGB Line has been in place for over eighty years; freight service occurred on the line up to approximately ten years ago. The subject right-of-way, while not in recent active rail use, has been continuously maintained by a combination of its origi nal and present owners in an open, usable conaition that would allow the potential re~initiat.ion of rail service. This effort includes both the long term plans of the California Department of Parks and Recreation to consider using this l i ne for excursion train service and the Sacramento Regional Transi t Di strict plans for use of part of this corridor for extension of light rail commuter transit service .
The only other presently anticipated use of this right-of-way is for development of regional bike trai ls by both the City and County of Sacramento. While access i n some area~ will necessitate proper trail selection and design, the proposed project will not el iminate this planned use. However, should both excursion train and light rail service be developed in this right-of-way, there could be conflicts with the present plans f or bike trails in this corridor.
The proposed project should not prevent any other proposed project from being implemented since there are no known conflicting plans for conversion of the 1 and in the WGB Line right-of-way to non-rail uses. Based on the results of a compatibility study prepar ed as part of this EIR, it is also not expected ·that the proposed project wi 11 conflict or prevent extension of light r ail servi ce through this corridor. While additional construction and operational changes would be necessary, it is ant i cipated t hat co-use of the WGB Line woul d be practical.
C. · Significant Irreversible Environmental Changes.
Implementati on of the proposed project is not expected to result in any s·ignificant irreversible environmental changes s i nce only minimal construction improvements are involved and _the project consists of the operation of a train over an existing railroad right-of-way. The project will not result i n major physical changes to the setting or l and use i n the WGB Li ne right-of-way. Shou1d it become necessary, operation of the excursion train can cease for certain periods to accommodate completion of other local projects or the installation of public utilities. The proposed project will also not require major relocation of any public utilit i es now located in the right-of-way.
124
Co-operation of the proposed excursion train and tentatively planned light rail commuter system would result in varying degrees of i rrevers i b 1 e changes s i nee certain modifications would be necessary to accommodate the individual requirements of the commuter transit equipment and to allow continuation of the Department's trains. The·se changes generally include grading and construction of wider railroad trackage right-of-ways, installation of electrical equipment, construction of passenger stations and parking lots, construction of new bridges at certai.n road crossings, and relocation of the excursion train tracks closer to the edge of the right-of-way.
-_ It should be noted, however, that the Sacramento Regional Transit District has not made any definite decision to proceed wit~ the extension of commuter service over the northern portion of the WGB Line right-of-way. Such a decision would only be made after other planning studies of Sacramento's rail commuter service needs are completed and · routes have been selected. While RT continues to have an interest in usi_ng this corridor, it could be several years before any final decision is made on extending service over the WGB Line.
D. Growth Inducement.
Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to generate any significant growth inducement impacts in the Sacramento area. The project would only require a small increase in the number of employees and docents to operate the additional trai~ service. The proposed excursion train service would offer additional an recreational opportunity in the Sacramento area that may lead in a slight to moderate increase in. the number of visitors in 01 d Sacramento on certain days when excursion runs are scheduled, especially during times when the Hood Run is operating. However, these increases are not expected to be significant either in terms of peak daily or annual visitation for the Old Sacramento area.
No substantial increases in numbers of employees would be required to construct or operate the proposed additional runs on the excursion train. Many of the employees and docent volunteers that would operate these new services are already involved in the existing excursion train operation. There is also adequate housing stock in the Sacramento area to accomodate any new staff that are hired by the Department and move to this area. Construct 1 on staff would t_nclude some existing Department personnel and docent volunteers already living in the Sacramento area. Emp1 oyees of contractors hired to preform res tor at ion work on the trackage and other associated right-of-way improvements would probably be from the Sacramento reg1 on, . so no - there would be no significant increase in the demand for housi"ng. There is also adequate short-term housing available in the Sacramento area for construction personnel.
In addition to not requiring any new housi ng, the project will also not require the construction of any buildings or railroad faci l ities in Old Sacramento to allow operation of this expanded service. All major infrastructure requirements for this operation, such as a passenger station in Old Sacramento, a locomotive turntable, equipment support and storage areas, visitor access and support facilities, and administrative offices are already available and adequate to serve this project.
125
Implementation of the proposed project wil l result in more frequent runs being available on the Miller Park Run. The number of days servi ce is offered each year would also be expanded to include .a s1 ightly longer spring/sunaner season and holiday periods. Initiation of the Hood Run would result in a new railroad service being available to visitors in during t he summer season and for limited special or charter runs throughout the year. While the expansi on of excursion train service will lead to an increase in the total number of visitors to Old Sacramento annually, this change is not expected to be significant when compared with the total -number of tourist visits to this historic 'district or will it cause the capacity of any visitor serving faci l ity to be exceeded . The Department anticipates that a l arge portion of the increase in service will simply provide more recreational opportunities for visitors already in the area. For example, adding more daily trips to the Miller Park Run will ·probably result in better utilization of that train's capacity over the course of a day, rather than the peak usage it now rece1ves during certain afternoon runs .
The initiation of the Hood Run is expected to both divert some visitors to this run from the shorter Miller Park Run and to increase overall visitation to Old Sacramento. However, peak periods of use of both trains, which would be Saturday when two runs are scheduled in addition t o the eight Miller Park runs, would still not exceed the visitor serving infrastructure of Old Sacramento. This includes the capacity of the passenger station and local parking. Accordingly, when considered with othe~ at tractions, the project may be expected to result in onTy incremental general growth of visitors to the •Sacramento area .
E. Cumulative Effects .
The proposed project will not .generate any significant c~mulative effects either individually or in combination with other proposed projects but it will cause incremental changes in local air quality, community noise levels, traffic delays, and land use compatibility.
For example, emissions f rom the operation of the l ocomot 1 ves on the WGB . Line will contribute to the overall air quality problems in t he Sacramento area. This contribution is not i ndividual ly si gni ficant, but does represent an increase to the total amount of emissions in this basin .
Noise l evels generated by passing t rains will cause momentary significant individual increases to sensiti ve receptors along the right-of-way. Noise generated by the train wi11 also incrementally add to the existing average ambient community noise levels. Although the ambient noise l evel is expected to change by a very minor degree, the train may re·present an individual sound within that ambient level that some residents in this general area may note and possibly find annoying. The use of the train' s warning whi stle will probably be the most noticeable new noise element since it is expected to carry farther into the neighborhood that does the mechanical noise generated by the movement of the trai n. This noticeable quali ty of t he train out of the ambi ent noise background is similar to that hearing other individual noises such as loud trucks, passing aircraft, lawn .mowers, and barking dogs. In contrast to many i ncreases in community noise levels, ·however, noise generated by the excursion trai n will only occur during daytime and early evening hours .
126
The crossing of surface streets will not result in any significant changes in the· existing or projected levels of roadway service, but this activity w111 cause minor delays to traffi c f1ow every time a train crosses a street that cumulatively add to regional traffic congestion. If Florin Road and Pocket Road eventually reach the predicted level of service of "Fa, then the crossing of an excursion train wil l further contribute to the existing (at that time) roadway congestion. Additional congestion may also occur because of the passage of the excursion train close to the peak weekend traffic period at the intersection of Land Park Drive and Sutterv11 1e Avenue. However, this additional congestion only has the potential of occurring once each afternoon on weekend periods in the late spring and early summer when park usage is the hi ghest .
Incremental cumulative impacts can also be expected in the area of land use compatibility since the excursion train . may be viewed by some as an additional incompatible use i n certain portions of the right-of-way. The general disruption caused by the passing of a train could be perceived by some community members as 1 ncrementa 11 y adding to other regi ona 1 changes (increased traffic, noise, community growth, reductions in air quality, , etc.) that reduce the overall quality of life in an area. However, the train's contribution should be very minor since it will only operate on a limited schedule and it will use an established railroad right-of-way.
A large portion of the lands adjacent to the portion of the right-of-way in the City of Sacramento are already developed for various urban uses. However, there a re a few projects either · 1 n the p 1 ann i ng stages or that have been recent 1 y approved, that when combi ned with the train will contribute to regional cumulative impacts. The following i s a brief summary of these projects.
As noted in the EIR, the area just south of the Capitol Mall along Front Street is planned for a hotel and a new State railroad museum. These projects have been planned so that excurs ion train service can be accommodated within its existing right-of-way. Implementation of these two projects (an EIR has been completed on the waterfront hotel) will or could be expected to contribute to 1 oca 1 traffic increases, changes in vi sua 1 qua 1 it i es, incremental increases in region.al air emi ssions , increases in community noise levels, and changes in existing land uses . ·
Farther south on the right-of-way near the crossing of Suttervil le Avenue, the City of Sacramento has recent ly considered and approved modifications to William Land Park to provide for an expansion of the zoo and its visitor serving capacity. When combined with the excursion train service, these projects would be expected to cause incremental changes in traffic congestion (mitigation has been provided in the zoo project for the Land Park Drive and Suttervi lle Avenue intersecti on) , community noise level s, regional air emissions, . land use compatibility. · ·
At the southern end of the urbani zed area of the WGB Line near Pocket Road, Meadowview Road, and east of Freeport it is anticipated that some 1 eve 1 of residential/commerical development will occur. Existing or proposed developments in this area i nclude the primarily residential development that is nearing completion in the Pocket area , the continuing residential and commercial developments east of the 1 ine in the Meadowview area, and the large proposed developments east of Freeport . The majority of these devel opments are or would occur away from the immediate proximity of the WGB Line except for the proposed Huntington Lake resident i a 1 deve 1 oprnent near Beach Lake. While not a 1 ways
127
directly adjacent to the line, this regional urbanization can be expected to cumulatively contribute to impacts such as traffic congestion (especi a11y on Meadowview Road and Florin Road), changes in land use compati bil i ty, increases in community noise levels, loss of agricultural lands, and 'increases in regional air emissions. Operation of the proposed excursion train would represent a very minor individual contribution to these regional cumulative impacts ,
128
VI. MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN
Introduction. The California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento is the lead agency for the proposed extension of the steam excursion train to the Hood/Freeport area and for the proposed changes to the Miller Park service. The office within the Department that is direc~ly responsible for t he ·operation of the excursion train is the Sacramento Di strict State Parks. This office, in coordination with the Sacramento District Operation Division, will be responsible for the final civil engineering r.equired for the restoration and improvement of the Walnut Grove Branch Line right-of-way, the construction or installation of all necessary improvements to allow the restoration of service over this li~e. and the on-going operation of the existing and new train services. These two offices are also re~ponsible for the implementation of all mitigation measures that are adopted by the Department of Parks and Recreation to reduce or eliminate potentially significant effects of t he project.
Mitigation measures that may serve to reduce · or eliminate potentially significant effects of the project, where feasible, are l jsted in each respective resource section of this d.raft EIR. The actual mitigation measures that are finally selected by the Department as part of this project wi11 be identified in the Statement of Fi ndings that will be prepared upon ~pproval of the project. Jhe project and any of its respective alternatives will not be approved until the EIR has been completed and certified. A schedule of the timing of the implementation of all mitigation measures w111 be provided in that final document. The Statement of Findings will be available to the public upon request.
Once the project is approved, the Department will maintain a project file in the Sacramento District ·state Parks office at 111 11 111 Street in Old Sacramento that will contain copies of the f inal engineering plans for all improvements being carried out as part of this project, copies of the draft and final environmental impact reports, copies of any letters or memoranda describing the implementation of measures being undertaken as part of the project, and a complete li st of all of the mitigation measures adopted as part of the project. This file wi 11 always be available for public inspection during regular business hours. The Department may charge a reasonable fee for providing copies of materials from this file.
Unless otherwise indicated, t he Superintendent of t he Sacramento Di strict State Parks will be the person with the primary responsibility for overseeing that all mitigation measures are implemented and the excursion train schedule identified in the Statement of Fi ndings i s followed by excursi on train operators. Appeals to the Department that mitigation measures are not being fol l owed or implemented as identified in the Statement of Findings or questions about the project should be directed to the Superintendent. Such appea 1 s or questions may a 1 so be sent to the Director of the Department of Parks and Recreation.
129
VII. REFERENCES
1. City of Sacramento, September 1988 , Draft and Fi nal Envi ronmental Impact Reports, Zoo~ 2002: Master Plan for the Sacramento Zoo and Surrounding Area .
2. California Department of Parks and Recreati on, California State Rai l road Museum Excursion Railroad Project Description, December 1, 1986, Richard E. Troy, Superintendent, Sacramento District State Parks.
3. ,Sacramento · Area Council of Governments, May 1, 1986, Final Report, Sacramento Li qht Ra i 1 Transit Extensi on Study. OKS Associ ates .
4. City of Sacramento and Sacramento Area Council of Governments, November 23, 1987 1 Final Report, Docks Area Li ght Rail Alternatives Study.
5.
6.
Sacramento County Plan~ing Environmental Impact Section, Reports for Huntington Lake Amendment and Rezone .
Sacramento County Planning Envi ronmenta 1 Impact Section, Reports for Hunti ngton Lake Amendment and Rezone .
and Community Deve 1 opment .Depa.r.tment, August 1988, Draft Environmental Impact General Pl an Amendment. ·community Pl an
and Communjty Development Department, January 1989, Final Environmental Impact General Plan Amendment, Community, Plan
7. City of Sacramento, September 1987, Draft Environmental Impact Report 111 Capitol Mall Office Complex.
8. City of Sacramento, Department of Parks and Community Services, Executive Summary, 1984 Master Plan for Park Facili t ies and Recreation Services.
9. Sacramento Regional Transit Distri ct , April 1982, Draft Environmental Impact Report , Meadowview Light Rail Transit Right-Of-Way Acqui sition , Gruen Associates.
10. State of California Department of Parks and Recreati on, June 1979, Walnut Grove Branch l ine Rehabilitation Study, Int ernational Engi neering Campany,
11.
Inc. ·
Sacramento Housi ng Environmental Impact Update.
and Redevelopment Agency, August 1985, Final Report , Sacramento Downtown Redevelopment Pl an
12. Sacramento City-County Bi keway Task Force , January 1977 , Sacramento Bi keways •1aster Pl an.
13. City of Sacramento, March 1987, Draft Environmental Impact Report, General Plan Update, Department of Planning and Development .
130
14. Mc Ivers , Kenneth J. , """A""'n_._..:.A.:.:.r~c~h e;::.;o'"='l~o:..;:ig~i.eec ca,::,.1.____~S-"::u r:...,;v~e::.,y--'o"-f~"""Th=-'"e"--:---=E~x':-'cu::::.:r""'=s,....,i..,.o'='"n------::T:-:-r ..... a--';"""'i n -=E=xt .... e=n~sc...ai-=-o=n~P~r-=-o .... j .... ec ..... t ..... ,.__ __ sa .... c __ r-=a=m=e~n t ..... o~ ..... Co ..... u=n~t=y~, _c ___ a"""'l~i .... f...,or ... n ..... i ..... a , Arch eo l o g i cal Study Center, Department of · Anthropology, California State University, Sacramento, October 1987.
15. A1-Kaz11y, Joan, Traffic Impacts From The Extens ion Of Excursion Train Service To Land Park, Freeport, and Hood, Department of Civil Engi neering, California State University, Sacramento, July 1987.
16. California Department of General Services, Excursion Train/Light Rail Feasibility Study, September 1988, Parsons Br1nkerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.
17 . Olishisiki , Julian, Fundamentals of Industri al Hygiene, National Safety and Health Council Series, 1979. ·
18. Harris, R. A., Vegetative Barriers: An Alternative Highway Noise Abatement Measure, Department of Engi neering, University of Loui svi 11 e, Louisville , KY.
19. Quadrangle Resource Maps, Natural Diversity Data Base, Cal i fornia Department of Fish and Game.
131
VIII. PERSONS CONSULTED DURING PREPARATION OF THE E1R
The following persons were consulted during the preparation of this EIR:
1. Bruce Nixon, Sacramento County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento, CA.
2. Aleta Kennard, Sacramento County Air Pollut ion · Control District, Sacramento, CA .
3. Kit Wagner, Air Quality Modeling Section, Technical Support Division , Californi-a Air Resources Board, Sacramento. CA.
4. Karen Magliano, Air Quality Mode11ng Section, Technical Support Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
5. Andrew ~an~ie,ri _, t'1anager, Air Quality Modeling Se.c.tion, Technical Support · ·o; vis 1 on, Ca 1 i forn i a Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA . .
6. Dean .C. Simeroth, Chief, Criteria Pollutants Branch , Stationary Source Division, California Air Resources Board, Sacramento, CA.
7. Kevin A. Leonard, Air Pollution Control Specialist, Sacramento County Air Pollution Control District, Sacramento, CA. ·
B. Hugh Ricci, P.E., Environmental Specialist, State of Nevada Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Protection, Carson City, Nevada.
9. Robert Scully, Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc . , Sacr~mento, CA.
10. Don Smith, Sacramento Pl anning and DeYelopment Department , Sacramento, CA.
11. Steve Taylor , Director , Sacramento Zoo, Sacramento, CA.
12. Wendy Hoyt, Assistant General Manager, Sacramento Regi ona 1 Transit District, Sacramento, CA.
13. Dave Melko, Associate Planner, Sacr~mento Regi onal Transit Dist rict , Sacramento, CA.
14. Brian Boxer, Project Manager, Docks EIR, EIP Associates, Sacramento, CA.
132
IX. PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PREPARATION OF THIS EIR
Report Preparation Staff
Department of General Services Office of Project Development and Management Environmental Planning Section 400 P Street, Suite 3460 Sacramento, CA 95814 {916) 324-0214
l . Robert Sleppy, EIR Project Manager 2. Christal Waters, Associate Planner 3. Randy Nelson, Associate Environmental Planner 4. Jeffrey Martinez, Environmental Planner 5. Cher Daniels, Associate Environmental Planner 6. James Hargrove, Supervising Environmental Planner 7. Janet King, Word Processing
SubconsuJtants
l. Kenneth Mclvers, Archeological Study Center, Department of Anthropol ogy, Cal ifornia State University, Sacramento.
2. Joan A1-Kaz1ly, Traffic Studies, Department of Civil Engineering, California State University, Sacramento.
3, David Cai'ver, Light Rail Compatibility, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas , Inc.
Contributors to Report
l. Richard Troy, Super intendent, Sacramento District State Parks, California Department of Parks and Recreation.
2. Wa.lter Gray III, Curator, California State Rail road Museum, California Department of Parks and Recreation .
3. Steven Drew, Curator , Californ ia State Railroad Museum, Cal i fornia Department of Parks and Recreat ion.
4. James Doyle, Environmental Review Section, California Department of Parks and Recreation.
5, Roger Willmarth, Environmental Review Section, California Department of Parks and Recreation.
133
APPENDIX 1
NOTICE OF PREPARATION AND RESPONSES
134
TO:
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
FROM: Dept. of Parks & Recreation Environmental Review Section P. 0, Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report ·
Lead agency for the project identified bel ow 1s the Department of Parks and Recreation, We need t.o know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information -._h1ch is germane to your agency's interest or statutory respons1b111t1es 1n connection with the proposed project. If yours fs a permitting agency, you wil l need to use the EIR when considering your permit or other approval for the pr9ject. The EIR wi11 be prepared by the Department of General Services, Environmental Section.
The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained 1n the attached w.ater1als. The 1n1t1al study has not yet been prepared.
Due to the t1me l 1m1ts mandated by State 1 aw, your response must be sent at the earliest possible data but not later than 30· days after receipt of this not1ce.
Please send your response to Ragar Willmarth at the ad.dress shown above. Incluae the name of a ·contact person ·1n your agency.
Project Title: Steam Excursion Trainio Old Sacramento to Hood
Signature _¼,...._c ___ ~r ...... ~ .... , \\')_l}_·..,,~.,,.J.....,w._· ______ _
( Jame~ M. Doyle
Title Supervisor, ~nyjronmentaJ Review Sectjon
Telephone ------<~9~1~6~>-3~2~4~-~6~5~1-5 ____ _
Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14, Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375.
Steam Excursion Train, Old Sacramento to Hood
The California Department of Parks and Recreat1on proposes to operate scheduled excursion trains on a portion of the abandoned Walnut Grove Branch L1ne cf the Southern Pac1f1c Transportatio~ Company. The train service which now operates between 01 d Sacramento and M111 er Park wou 1 d be extended 1 n stages over the next several years to W1111am Land Park, Freeport, and Hood, for a total of 16, 9 m1 l es one-way. ( See the attached_ map.)
"ihe extension of service would req11 iret upgrading existing track, restoration of missing track, and ccnstruct1on of ne~ faciliti~s of several types, 1nclud1ng passing tracks, s1gnals a.t grade crossings, and passenger loading areas. The proposed developments are described be1ow, 11sted by geograph ical location from north to south.
O]d Sacramento - No change from ex1st1ng and programmed development.
Museum of Railroad Technology• Reconstruct ex1st1ng passing track; construct asphalt passenger loading p1atform and shelter next to track,
MJJJec Park -· Construct asphalt passenger loaifing platform and .shelter rrext to trac!<.
W1111am Land Park - Construct pass1ng track south of South Land Park Drive; construct asphalt passenger loading platform and shelter next to track at south side of Suttarvi11e Roa<J-; develop sidewalks and ;pedestr1 an access to W1111 am Land Park.
Jensen EhJd. ... Construct passing track.
Freeport - Reconstruct existing passing track; construct asphalt passenger loading platform and shelter next to track; develop walkways and pedestrian access to wharf and street level in town; develop shortterm bus and adm1n1 strati ve veh 1c1 e parking facil 1t"ies.
Hood - Reconstruct passing track and wye; reconstruct track to riverfront; construct asphalt passenger loading platform and shelter next to track, connect to water and other ut11ities; develop short-term bus and administrative veh1cle parkfng fac111t1es; reconstruct and upgrade Hood-Franklin Road at crossing with railroad.
General - Upgrade all track to meet or exceed Federal Railroad Administration Class 3 standards; repa1r al1 trestles, culverts, drains, levees and othe_r structures; reconstr.uct/repair a11 grade crossings and 1nsta11 automatic grade crossing signs and/or signals as required; clean-up and landscape the right-of-way; establish programs for regular inspection, maintenance, and repair of track and related features; establish programs for regular patrol and law enforcement along the line.
The environmental elements that could be affe(:ted as a result of the project are listed and discussed br1efly below:
Traff1c/Park1ng - It is ant icipated that the project would affect local traffic by de1ay1ng traffic f1o"a at train crossings. The demand for parking space near passenger lo.ding areas would be expected to increase.
Air Oua11ty - Both the trains and the congested traffic may have significant effects on air quality.
~ - Construct1on and maintenance projects, as well as train operations, wi l l produce noise.
Land use - Various land use impacts may occur; for example, there may be a conflict with the expansion of Sacramento Light Rail along the same right-of-way. Though trafns traYeled the route as late as 19781 land uses in the vicinity of the tracks may have changed to produce current uses which may be in conflict 1rith the project.
Geology - The possible effects of seismic activity on the proposed new faci11ties as well as the potent1 al for impacts of ne'# fac111ti es on the
_local geology ~;11 have to be examined.
Biology - It is possible that one or more of the potential sites for new facilities contain the habitat of an en~angereci species of plant or animal .
Culture - One or more of the potential sites for new facfl1ties could contain a sign i ficant archaeological resource.
Aesthetics - The impacts of the proposed new facilities on visual quality will have to be examined.
Flood1nQ - The possible effects on the proposed facilities of flood i ng will have to be examined.
l _L .. _ !.z-~ -..... · f Oms • -~- _:_·· f20/:. . I: E ••: ••~· • MILLER PARK
.V,-- -- \ iWILLIAJ'1 LAND PARK ~:./.,-~-::71 r ~- .~ 1--_:__1.J!
.. _,
~ --'·! I. "i . .
I;.
i f r~(
'; i! Ii
- ~ '!' . ·· -:.. (" .:~,
I . ,. ttS,(t
> .
r! ::
ROUTE
J
• 1.1•-t••
, .... •-·--·..J,~........:..::: ~---·
ReG1onaL TRans1T P.O. BOX 2110 • 1400 29TH STREET • SACRAMENTO, CA 95810-2110 • (916) 321- 2800
February 17, 1987
Mr. Roger Willmarth State of California Department of Parks and Recreation P. o. Box 942896 Sacramento, California 94296-0001
NAME OF DEVELOPMENT: Steam Excursion Train, Old Sacramento to Hood
CONTROL NUMBER: N/A
TYPE OF DOCUMENT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impqct Report
DATE RECEIVED AT RT: January 21, 1987
STAFF COMMENTS: The following comments should be addressed in the Draft EIR:
• Indicate that RT is the property owner for most of the right-of-way (R-O-W) from 1,000 feet south of Sutterville Road to the I-5 overcrossing south of Meadowview Road; and that an entitlement to use RT's property will be necessary for the State Department of Parks and Recreation to operate the Steam Excursion Train over t he R-O-W,
• Discuss that coordination with RT is critical, especially during the preparation of the draft EIR, preliminary engineering/final design, and construction phases of the project. RT does not want construction and operating costs for future light rail and fe eder bus service connections to be unnecessarily increased because of the Steam Excursion Train project.
• Indicate that SACOG's Sacramento Light Rail Transit Extension Study Final Report (May 1986) identifies the Meadowview Corridor as one of four high prior ity corridors to be considered for further study. The Final Report recommends the "R" Street alignment as the best method to tie into RT Metro ser~ice in downtown Sa cramento (see enclosed map).
Sacramento Regional Transit, a Public Entity, is an Equal Opportunity Employeo/-/003
Mr. Roger Willmarth February 17, 1987 Page 2 ·
• Provide a description of the Stearn Excursion Train 's timeframe and phasing.
• Discuss whether it will be feasible t o have concurrent steam Excursion Train and light rail operations within the same corridor.
- Will improvements (such as track elevations and curves, roadbed, ballast, signals, grade crossings, trestles, culverts, etc.) constructed for s t eam Excursion Train operations be compatible with and designed so that light rail service can operate on them wi~hout repl acement?
- Will PUC regulations allow joint operations on the same track'?
- Will there be enough R-0-W for light rail doubletrack, crossovers, turnouts, access roads, utility easements , ~nd track for the Steam Excursion Train?
• Discuss whether insurance costs and liability exposure will be increased due to concurrent operations within the corridor.
• Discuss whether the environmental (i.e. noi se and air quality) and traffic impacts at cross streets wil l be less ·than signi ficant individually or cumulati ve with concurrent Steam Excursion Train and light rail operations.
• I dentify responsibilities for miti gating environmental and transportation impacts, and maintenance of track and way improvements.
CONTACT David Melko, Associate Planner - 732-2262 en DeCrescenzo, Assistant Planner - 732- 225 4
Enclosure c: Keith Martin, SACOG
Steve Dee, Ci ty o f Sacramento Planning Department Jim Bloodgood , City of Sac . Public Works/Traff i c Engineering John Ketelsen, Chi ef Legal Counsel Mark Lonergan, Operations Support Manager Gene Moir, Technical Support Manager - TSO Hi nda Chandler , Project Deve l opment Admi nistrator - TSD
AeGronaL TA a nstT
"'
- - A LEVEE/CAPITOL '4ALL * ,• , nu 8 LEVEE/ R STREET
• ooue C LEVEE/ STH' STREET • • •• • C ! · 5/ STH STREE7' • 1 - E RIVERSIOE BLVO. - ST ARTER LINE
MEADOWVIEW CORRIDOR LIGHT RAIL ALTERNATIV ES ENCLOSURE A
Fruitrido• A (I
Sacr1men10 Chy
"' "' a: II)
* ALTERNAT I VE 11 811 IS THE RECOMMENDED ALIGNMENT
SOURCE: SACRAMEIITO L IGHT RAIL TRANSIT EXTENSION STU DY , SACOG, MAY 1, 1986
2/1 7/87
STATE Of CALIFORNIA .
PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102
February 24, 1987
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, 9ovffl>Or
{415) 557-9884 T. s. Joe
File No.: 183- 34/EIR
James M. Doyle California Department P. o. Box 2390
of Parks and Recreation
·sacramento, CA 95811
Dear _Mr. Doyle:
This is in response to your N.O.P. of a draft Environmental Impact Report for the Steam Excursion Train, Old Sacramento to Hood, SCH #87012604.
Our concern will be that any report and analysis adequately address the effects of those portions of the project t hat deals with the safety of railroad.crossings and the general safe ty of all who may use the railro"ad facilities and right- of-way, We would encourage you to make all alterations, impr ovements and changes so that they meet Commission regulations and standards.
Very truly youis,
. , &~~~.__£f rf_ (>~tr AJ DONALD R. CHEW, Supervisor Transportation Projects Section Railroad Operations & Safety Branch Transportation Division
cc: . P~ggy L, Osborn Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814
-- - "I r:, ,;, ,.:,,i~f - .- :.) , I I , ., -1
• t.- - , •.
7-/_:k;(
$MUD SACRAMENTO MUNIC1PAL UTILITY DISTRICT O P. O. Box 15830, Socramento CA 9585,?-1830, (916) 452-321 1
AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORNIA
February 10, 1987
JAMES M. DOYLE SUPERVISOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SECTION DEPARTMENT OF PARKS & RECREATION POST OFFICE BOX 942896 _ SACRAMENTO , CA 94296-0001- - -
The Sacramento Mun1 c1pa1 Ut111ty Oistrjct has reviewed the Notice of Preparation for the Steam Excursion Train , Old Sacramento to Hood. Power will be supplied to passanger facilities from ex1st1ng distr ibution li nes. As a mitigating measure for the project, the SMUD Oistr1but1on Planning Department should .be conta~ted as early as possible to coordinate insta l latio~ of power facil1t1ei. In addition, the construction of any new track should take 1nto cons idera tion potential conflicts wi t h elect rical 11nes.
Thank you for t he opportunity to corm,ent, should you have any questions, please contact me at (916) 732-6223.
f )
.. .. . c'> .- ·1 t/) -:.,-·c , L ,r 1/ •I,.: .' I : 'I. V ' : ~ . . ,.., , - '
PAUL OLMSTEAD ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
0227J
RECEIVED
FEB 171987
RPO
DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS O 6201 S Street, S acramento CA 9 58.1 7-1899
CITY OF SACRAMENTO
DEPARTMENT OF ?LANNING ANO DEVELOPMENT Administration Room 300 449-5571
Building Inspections Room 200 449.-5716
1231 "I" Siroet Sacramento, C~. 96814
February 12, 1987
Roger ~illmarth State of California Department of Parks P.O . Box 842896
and Recreation
SacrttMento, California 94296-0001
Pfenning Room 200 449-5604
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation (NOP) of Draft Environmental I• pact · Report (BIR) State Departaent of Parks and Recreation (DPR)
SteU1 Extension Train froa Old Sacra~ento to Hood (M87-017)
Dear Mr. Willmarth:
The City at Sacramento Planning Division appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on this NOP. · Pl anninf!" staff offers the following comments to be addressed in the upcoming Draft EIR:
o Considel' assessin1t potential adverse traffic, park~ng, air.noise, and aesthetic/privacy. impacts at all project site 8 developed in ·the City including the Sutterville Road grade crossing.
o Discuss potential adverse fiscal and service impacts on the City ' s Fire, Police, Public Works, and Community Services Departments resulting from pr oposed project Jmplement ation .
o Assess the C1ty 1 ~- Bicycle Maste r Plan for related bike trails and facilities ( Chuck Taylor 449- 5145).
o Discuss the proposed project I s relationship with applicable City Master Plans (i.e., Old Sacramento, Museum of Railroad Technology, Miller Park, William Land Park).
o Discuss the proposed project I s relationship with Regional Tr1rnsit 1 s (RT) light rail project including cooi:-dination between RT, ·the City, and DPR,
Ri:CElVED
fEB 131987
RPO
Roger Willmarth -2- February 12, 1987
Questions regarding these comments may be directed to me at (916) 449-2037. Please send the Planning Division a copy of the Draft and Final EIR for review and comment.
Thank you,
<2-1~ 1dJU-, Steve Dee Associate Planner
SD:jg cc: Bob Thomas, Community Services Dept/Parks
Jim Henley, Community Services Dept/Museum Chief Charles, Fire Dept. Chuck Taylor, Public Wor:-ks/Bike Trails Jia Bloodiood, Public Works/Traffic Wendy Hoyt, Regional Transit/Asst. Gen. Mgr. Planning and Marketing
1400 29th Street P .o. Box 2110 Sacramento, CA 95810-2210 Dave Melko, Regional Transit/Associate Planner 1400 29th Street P.O. Box 2110 Sacramento, CA 95810-2210
'
Mr. Roger Willmarth State of California
February 23, 1987
Department of Parks and Recreation P. 0. Box 942896 Sacramento, CA 94296-0001
Re: Steam Excursion Trajp. Old Sacramento to Hood
Dear Mr. Willmarth:
We appreciate you g1vmg us a few extra days' extension to respond to your Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact ,Report (El R) on the Steam Excursion Train. Our comm.ents on the scope and content of the El R follow. They supplement our 11Reponse to Negative Declaration-Extent ion of Steam Excursion Train", a copy of which is enclosed.
Project Descriptiw,
The notice does not provide sufficient, accurate and detailed description of the project to inform the public and responsible agencies of the nature or scope of the -project. Therefore it is not possible for those agencies to make a meaningful ·response to this notice. The project description in the notice needs to include construction and operational phases, facilities, routes and services to be provided. Having an accurate project description is the key to evaluating significant effects on the environment and identifying alternatives and mitigation measures adequate to avoid or minimize these effects.
Detailed information on train scheduling and switching ooerati.Qru. is required to assess several impacts including noiseJ air guali!,y and traffic.-
The project description furnished with the notice does not include restrooms we previously identified as necessary. Also, landscaping and sight and sound barriers are conspicuously missing from the list of work to be done.
Existing Environment
Accurate descriptions of the existing environment, plans and standards affecting the project area, and other projects ongoing or planned for the area are required so that the steam excursion trains' effect and the cumulative effects of it and other projects can be analyzed.
Rf:CElVED
RPD 7-/0W
...
Mr. Roger Willmarth Page 2 February 23, 1987
We have previously ident ifled the proposed zoo expansion and related changes of Land Park as a project that must be considered. Future use of the abandoned railroad right-of-way by light rail and the increasing use of Interstate 5 are o.ther projects that must be included. There may be several others. -
We noted the lack of adequate traffic and air quality data ln our comments on the Negative Declaration. We have not observed a major effort in collecting such data since making that comment.
Effects of the Proiect and Mitigcaion Measures
Specific possible effects which could be considered significant must be identified and alternatives to the project and mitigation measures must be considered. The significant effects must be avoided and/or mini mi zed by. using the alternatives and mitigation measures.
Most of the possible significant effects of the projec_t are mentioned in our comments on the Negative Declaration. Observation of the train operation in 1986 confirmed our concerns over air pollution, traffic congestion, noise pollution, public safety and other adverse effects. Expansion of the project being considered by the EJR to Hood means that those effects on other areas must • be assessed •. There may also be effects unique to those areas. We have not considered them.
Expansion ~f the project has increased one of our concerns, that is, financial feasibility. The trains have operated to date on deteriorated trackage, with unreliable traffic gates, and at one point, encroached on the bicycle trail. Expansion to Land Park, then to Hood wi l l surely make adequate operation and maintenarace more difficult. Therefore,· the El R must include a comprehensive assessment of financial feasibility of all segments of the project to assure that it would be consistently operated properly l!nd not abandoned. The cost of liability to the State, the City of Sacramento and individuals associated with train operations must be included in the assessment.
The alternative of limiting the ride to the north side of the 1-5 over crossing should be assessed because it would eliminate the adverse effects relat ed to bringing people into Willlam Land Park and its surrounding neighborhood, the effects on the zoo animals, and the sight impacts related to the nearby homes. It would greatly reduce the impact on traffic and related concerns such as emergency -response and the noise and odor impacts. It would take t he air quality impact out of the immediate park area.
An alternative of limiting the frequent rides to the north side of the 1-5 over crossin-g and having infrequent non- stop rides to Freeport or Hood should be considered. It would accomplish several of the object ives of the alternatives discussed above.
An alternative of crossing the Tower Bridge and traversing through the industrial and agricultural areas of Yolo County should be considered to elir:ninate or greatly reduce the adverse environme~tal effects on res ide nces and the
Mr. Roger Willmarth Page 3 February 23, l 987
proposed development between the Tower and Pioneer Bridges. Abandoned rallroad rights-of-way are available, as are connections to the Sacramento River at Garcia Bend and Hood.
Notices to the Pub I ic and Rsponsible Agencies
We are aware that you are preparing an El R only because we received a notice directly. We are concerned that others interested in the project, especiatry responsible agencies and members of the public directly affected have not been notified. If you have not already done so, you should send the notice to the State Clearinghouse, the city traffic engineer, CAL TRANS District 3, the county air pollution control district, participants at the public hearing held last spring and residents along the entire length of the track.
summary
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the scope and content of the proposed EIR, Our association is committed to preserve Land Park by taking an active, positive role in planning activities and en~ironmental assessments.
Richard Heltzel heads our efforts on the train. He can be reached during the day at 551-2678. If he is not available, please call Larry Fein ·at 442-2657 or me at 445-951 7 •
.. Sincerely,
~~ Don Babbitt Chairman Board of Directors
jl
