Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II Responses to Comments | SCH#: 2015022067
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District’s South Sacramento County Agriculture and Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II Responses to Comments | SCH#: 2015022067 JANUARY 2017 Prepared by: Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program Final Environmental Impact Report Volume II Responses to Comments SCH#: 2015022067 Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program Final Environmental Impact Report CEQA Lead Agency: Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San) has prepared this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the South County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program (proposed Project). Regional San proposes to provide Title 22 disinfected tertiary treated recycled water for irrigation and groundwater recharge in the southern portion of Sacramento County (South County) and to the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) managed wetlands. The EIR considers three action alternatives and the No Project Alternative: Alternative 1, Medium Service Area Alternative - Convey up to 50,000 acre-feet per year (AFY) of recycled water from the Sacramento Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant to 16,000 acres of irrigated lands in South County including water to farmers, 400 acres of managed wetlands within the South Stone Lake area of the NWR, and to a potential 560-acre irrigation and recharge area. Facilities would include a pump station, and up to 13.8 miles of transmission pipelines and distribution mains, and an undetermined length of service lateral connections. Alternative 2, No Reclamation Funding Alternative - Same as Alternative 1 (Medium Service Area Alternative), except Bureau of Reclamation would not provide any funding, this alternative is included to facilitate a possible future request for federal funding. Alternative 3, Small Service Area Alternative - Reduced version of Alternative 1 (Medium Service Area Alternative), with a smaller service area. The managed wetlands at Stone Lakes NWR would continue to be served, and the potential recharge area would be included in order to benefit the Central Sacramento Groundwater Basin. Alternative 4, No Project Alternative - Assumes that the proposed Project would not be constructed and that recycled water would not be supplied to South County, Stone Lakes NWR, or a potential recharge area. The EIR assesses potential environmental effects of the South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program alternatives and a No Project Alternative on resources including: aesthetics, air quality, agriculture, biological resources, cultural resources, energy, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services and utilities, recreation, transportation, socioeconomics, and environmental justice. For further information, contact: José Ramirez, Project Manager Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District 10060 Goethe Road Sacramento, CA 95827 (916) 869-6059 [email protected] Regional San’s South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Table of Contents Recycled Water Program Table of Contents – Volume II Chapter 7 Responses to Comments ..................................................................................7.0-1 7.0 Introduction..................................................................................................................7.0-1 7.1 Comment Letter 1 - Bureau of Reclamation, Michelle H. Denning, Regional Planning Officer ...........................................................................................................7.1-1 7.2 Comment Letter 2 - State Water Resources Control Board, Cedric Irving, Environmental Scientist ...............................................................................................7.2-1 7.3 Comment Letter 3 - State of California, Department of Fish and Wildlife, North Central Region, Tanya Sheya, Environmental Scientist..............................................7.3-1 7.4 Comment Letter 4 - Caltrans District 3, Jacob Buffenbarger, Transportation Planner 7.4-1 7.5 Comment Letter 5 - State of California, Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, State Clearinghouse (two letters) ................................................................................7.5-1 7.6 Comment Letter 6 - Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board, Stephanie Tadlock, Environmental Scientist ...............................................................7.6-1 7.7 Comment Letter 7 - Sacramento County Water Agency, Michael L. Peterson, Director of Department of Water Resources ...............................................................7.7-1 7.8 Comment Letter 8 - Sacramento Environmental Commission, Richard Hunn, Chair..7.8-1 7.9 Comment Letter 9 - Sacramento Local Agency Formation Commission, Donald Lockhart, Assistant Executive Director............................................................7.9-1 7.10 Comment Letter 10 - Sacramento Central Groundwater Authority, Darrell K. Eck, Executive Director .....................................................................................................7.10-1 7.11 Comment Letter 11 - Cosumnes Coalition, Melinda Frost-Hurzel, Cosumnes River Monitoring Coordinator and Mike Eaton, Cosumnes GDE Advisor ...........................7.11-1 7.12 Comment Letter 12 - The Nature Conservancy, Jay Ziegler .....................................7.12-1 7.13 Comment Letter 13 - San Luis & Delta-Mendota Water Authority, submitted through Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedemann & Girard, Rebecca R. Akroyd ....................7.13-1 7.14 Comment Letter 14 - Rick Bettis................................................................................7.14-1 7.15 Comment Letter 15 - Sacramento County Department of Transportation, Matthew G. Darrow, P.E., T.E., P.T.O.E, Senior Transportation Engineer ...............7.15-1 7.16 Comment Letter 16 - Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD), Rob Ferrera, Environmental Specialist ...........................................................................................7.16-1 7.17 Staff Initiated Text Changes ......................................................................................7.17-1 Chapter 8 Comment Letters ...................................................................................................8-1 List of Tables Table 7-1: Summary of Water Deliveries in Regional San Service Area............................7.1-7 Table ES-1 Regional San’s South County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program EIR Impact Summary (correction) ....................................................7.17-1 Table 1-2 Responsible and Trustee Agencies and Coordination (correction).................7.17-1 Table 2-1: Estimated Recycled Water Use Included in Alternative 1 (Medium Service Area Alternative)..............................................................................................7.17-2 Table 3.4-6 Maximum Daily Construction Emissions (lbs/day) of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors................................................................................................7.17-2 Table 3.4-7: Overall Annual Construction Emissions (tons/year) of Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors................................................................................................7-17-3 Table 3.4-11: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the Project (Tons of CO2e/year)........................................................................................7.11-3 January 2017 i Regional San’s South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Table of Contents Recycled Water Program List of Figures Figure 7-1: Estimate of Benefits to the Cosumnes Subbasin................................................7.10-3 Figure 7-2: Forest Blocks along Cosumnes River.................................................................7.11-3 Figure 7-3: Groundwater Elevations Castello Forest ............................................................7.11-4 Figure 7-4 Groundwater Elevations Valensin Forest.............................................................7.11-5 Figure 7-5: Groundwater Elevations Shaw Forest ................................................................7.11-6 Figure 7-6: Groundwater Elevations Orr Forest ....................................................................7.11-7 Figure 7-7: Groundwater Elevations Tall Forest....................................................................7.11-8 List of New Appendices Appendix C – Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program January 2017 ii Regional San’s South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Responses to Comments Recycled Water Program Chapter 7 Responses to Comments 7.0 Introduction 7.0.1 Project Background The Sacramento Regional County Sanitation District (Regional San), as CEQA lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR) for the South Sacramento County Agriculture & Habitat Lands Recycled Water Program (proposed Project). The Draft EIR was developed to provide the public and responsible and trustee agencies reviewing the proposed Project with an analysis of the potential effects on the local and regional environment associated with construction and operation of the Project. The Project would deliver recycled