4 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES

4.1 APPROACH TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS

As described in Chapter 1, Introduction, this focused Draft Program EIR evaluates the potentially significant environmental effects of the Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Facilities Master Plan at a program level, and evaluates the first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Immediate Improvements, at a more detailed, project level. In addition, this analysis focuses on a limited number of environmental resource topics, based on the potentially significant impacts identified in the Initial Study prepared and circulated with the Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Appendix A). 4.1.1 PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

As described in Chapter 3, Project Description, the Facilities Master Plan establishes how the City’s WWTP would be upgraded and expanded in the coming years to meet the City’s anticipated wastewater treatment demands through build‐out of the City’s 2030 General Plan; however, beyond the Immediate Improvements, the design details, final options, and the timing of future phases of the Master Plan are not currently known. As such, the environmental impact analysis has been prepared at a programmatic level of detail; it addresses the full range of potential environmental effects associated with implementation of the Facility Master Plan, but in some cases the analysis is general. This approach is consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines provisions for a Program EIR, as described in Section 15168, which suggests that the level of detail is dictated by “ripeness”; detailed analysis should be reserved for issues that are ripe for consideration. 4.1.2 PROJECT-LEVEL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

The first phase of the Facility Master Plan, the Immediate Improvements, has been planned at a project‐level of detail to allow for project approval, construction, and operation upon certification of the EIR and approval of the Facilities Master Plan. However, the Immediate Improvements are entirely within the footprint of the overall WWTP Facilities Master Plan, so in the majority of cases, the analysis of Facility Master Plan impacts also sufficiently addresses impacts of the Immediate Improvements. Where additional detail is needed to evaluate the Immediate Improvements, that detail is added under discussion of the specific impact (example: a more specific discussion of air quality impacts associated with construction of Immediate Improvements is added to the overall discussion of air quality impacts from construction of the Facilities Master Plan). The same approach is provided for mitigation measures; specific mitigation for Immediate Improvements is added when mitigation associated with the overall Master Plan is either insufficient or insufficiently detailed to address impacts associated with the first phase. 4.1.3 CONTENTS OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SECTIONS

Sections 4.2 through 4.9 provide detailed analysis of each of the resource areas (examples: water quality, air quality) that would be potentially affected by the project. Each section includes the applicable regulatory background; existing environmental setting; the potential for the Facilities Master Plan and the Immediate Improvements to significantly affect the environment; and recommended mitigation measures to reduce or avoid potentially significant impacts when necessary. The resource sections are organized into the following major subsections:

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4-1 Approach to the Environmental Analysis Ascent Environmental

Regulatory Background: This subsection presents information on the laws, regulations, plans and policies that relate to the issue area being discussed. Regulations originating from the local, state, and federal levels are each discussed as appropriate.

Existing Environmental Setting: This subsection presents the existing environmental conditions on the proposed project site and surrounding area as appropriate, in accordance with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125. The discussions of the environmental setting focus on information relevant to the issue under evaluation. The extent of the environmental setting area evaluated (the project study area) differs among resources, depending on the locations where impacts would be expected. For example, air quality impacts are assessed for the air basin, whereas cultural resource impacts are assessed for the project site only.

Environmental Impacts and Recommended Mitigation Measures: This subsection identifies the thresholds of significance used to determine the level of significance of the environmental impacts for each resource topic. Key methods and assumptions used to frame and conduct the impact analysis as well as issues or potential impacts not discussed further (such issues for which the project would have no impact) are also described.

Project impacts are organized numerically in each subsection (e.g., Impact 4.4‐1, Impact 4.4‐2, Impact 4.4‐3, etc). A bold‐font impact statement, a summary of each impact, and its level of significance precedes the discussion of each impact. The discussion that follows the impact summary includes the substantial evidence supporting the impact significance conclusion. The potentially significant effects of the Facilities Master Plan are discussed within each impact at the programmatic level. Subsequent to that discussion, the potentially significant effects of the Immediate Improvements are discussed at a project level. If necessary, mitigation measures are then recommended to reduce potentially significant effects to a less‐than‐significant level when feasible, and the significance of the impact post mitigation is described. The mitigation measures are organized numerically to correspond to the impact being reduced. For example, Impact 4.4‐1 would be mitigated with Mitigation Measure 4.4‐1.

City of Galt 4-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Agricultural Resources

4.2 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES

This section evaluates the potential impacts of the proposed project on existing agricultural land uses at the project site. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce project impacts where feasible. 4.2.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FEDERAL

FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT

The purpose of the Federal Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) is to minimize federal actions leading to the conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses by ensuring that federal programs are administered in a manner compatible with state government, local government, and private programs designed to protect farmland.

The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) is the agency primarily responsible for implementing the FPPA, which is a voluntary program that provides funds to help purchase development rights to keep productive farmland in agricultural uses. The program provides matching funds to state, local, or tribal government entities and nongovernmental organizations with existing farmland protection programs to purchase conservation easements. Participating landowners agree not to convert the land to nonagricultural uses and retain all rights to the property for future agriculture. A minimum 30‐year term is required for conservation easements, and priority is given to applications with perpetual easements. NRCS provides up to 50% of the fair market value of the easement (NRCS 2012). STATE

CALIFORNIA IMPORTANT FARMLAND INVENTORY SYSTEM AND FARMLAND MAPPING AND MONITORING PROGRAM

The California Department of Conservation (DOC) maintains a statewide inventory of farmlands. These lands are mapped by the Division of Land Resource Protection as part of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The maps are updated every 2 years with the use of aerial photographs, a computer mapping system, public review, and field reconnaissance. Farmlands are divided into the following five categories based on their suitability for agriculture:

 Prime Farmland—land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed.  Farmland of Statewide Importance—land other than Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical and chemical characteristics for crop production.  Unique Farmland—land that does not meet the criteria for Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance, but that has been used for the production of specific crops with high economic value.  Farmland of Local Importance—land that is either currently producing crops or has the capability of production, but that does not meet the criteria of the categories above.  Grazing Land—land on which the vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock.

The categories of Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, and Unique Farmland, together, are defined as “agricultural land” or “farmland” by CEQA (PRC §21060.1 (a) and the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G, II

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.2-1 Agricultural Resources Ascent Environmental

(a). Other categories used in the FMMP mapping system are “urban and built‐up lands,” “lands committed to nonagricultural use,” and “other lands” (land that does not meet the criteria of any of the other categories).

CALIFORNIA LAND CONSERVATION ACT OF 1965 (WILLIAMSON ACT)

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly known as the Williamson Act (California Government Code Section 51200 et seq.), enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of promoting the continued use of the relevant land in agricultural or related open space use. In return, landowners receive property tax assessments that are based on farming and open space uses instead of full market value. Local governments receive an annual subvention (subsidy) of forgone property tax revenues from the state via the Open Space Subvention Act of 1971. Amendments to the California State Budget Act of 2009 greatly reduced the Williamson Act Subvention payments, but the Williamson Act Program remains in place and contracts remain in effect.

The Williamson Act empowers local governments to establish “agricultural preserves” consisting of lands devoted to agricultural uses and other compatible uses. Upon establishment of such preserves, the locality may offer to owners of included agricultural land the opportunity to enter into annually renewable contracts that restrict the land to agricultural use for at least 10 years (i.e., the contract continues to run for 10 years following the first date upon which the contract is not renewed). In return, the landowner is guaranteed a relatively stable tax rate, based on the value of the land for agricultural/open space use only and unaffected by its development potential. LOCAL

CITY OF GALT GENERAL PLAN

The 2030 Galt General Plan (City of Galt 2009b) contains the following policies related to agricultural resources that may be applicable to the proposed project: Conservation and Open Space Element

Agriculture, Open Space, and Natural Resource Preservation  Policy COS‐4.1: Prime Agricultural Land Preservation. The City shall work to preserve prime agricultural lands surrounding the Planning Area from future development by creating a clear and sensitive urban transition to minimize land use conflicts and protect long‐term agriculture. Land Use Element

Agriculture, Open Space, and Parks  Policy LU‐9.1: Greenbelt. The City should participate in regional efforts to establish a permanent agriculture, open space, and wildlife habitat greenbelt between the northern boundary of the Planning Area and the City of Elk Grove.  Policy LU‐9.2: Agricultural‐Residential Uses. The City shall strongly encourage Sacramento County to deny the subdivision of agricultural land near Galt for agricultural‐residential uses at a minimum lot size of less than two acres west of the 2007 city limits and less than five acres east/north of the 2007 city limits.

City of Galt 4.2-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Agricultural Resources

4.2.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING SACRAMENTOCOUNTY

The Galt WWTP is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County lands zoned as AG‐80, which is an agricultural zone meant to promote long‐term agricultural use and to discourage the premature and unnecessary conversion of agricultural land to urban uses. The zone permits one single‐family residence per parcel, accessory dwellings for agricultural employees are permitted, and the minimum parcel size is 80 gross acres (Sacramento County 2007).

According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), Sacramento County ranked 25th out of the 58 counties in California in gross value agricultural production for 2010 (NASS 2011). Agricultural production in the County was estimated at approximately $356 million in 2010 (see Table 4.2‐1). Leading crops produced in the County in 2010 included wine grapes (approximately $92.5 million), milk (approximately $48.6 million), Bartlett pears (approximately $39 million), and nursery stock (approximately $29 million) (SacramentoCounty2011a).

Table 4.2-1 Sacramento County Major Agricultural Commodities and Gross Production Values, 2009–2010 Commodity Type 2009 2010 Apiary1 $90, 000 $3, 000 Field Crops $50, 663, 000 $58, 543, 000 Fruit and Nut Crops $145, 850, 000 $144, 270, 000 Livestock and Poultry $50, 147, 000 $43, 467, 000 Livestock Products $40, 261, 000 $50, 149, 000 Nursery Stock $27, 494, 000 $28, 925, 000 Seed Crops $4, 183, 000 $2, 275, 000 Vegetable Crops $31, 787, 000 $28, 311, 000 Total $350, 475, 000 $355, 943, 000 1 An apiary is a place where honey bee hives are kept. Source: Sacramento County 2011a

Table 4.2‐2 shows the changes in the amount of farmland in Sacramento County over an 8‐year period, from 2002 to 2010.

Table 4.2-2 Acreage of Farmland1 in Sacramento County, 2002–2010 County 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 Prime Farmland 112, 037 110, 278 106, 667 104, 366 97, 476 Farmland of Statewide Importance 60, 817 56, 141 51, 218 49, 470 45, 264 Unique Farmland 15, 743 15, 188 15, 267 15, 463 15, 076 Farmland of Local Importance 37, 924 39, 873 41, 960 43, 819 53, 928 Total1 226, 521 221, 480 215, 112 213, 118 211, 744 1 The total acreage of farmland includes Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, and Farmland of Local Importance. Grazing Land, Urban and Built-up Land, and Other Land is not included. Source: California Department of Conservation 2011

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.2-3 Agricultural Resources Ascent Environmental

As shown in Table 4.2‐2, the total amount of farmland in Sacramento County decreased by 14, 777 acres, or approximately 7%, between 2002 and 2010. Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance has decreased by 14, 561 acres and 15, 553 acres, respectively, since 2002. Designation of new areas as Farmland of Local Importance has resulted in a net increase of 16, 004 acres since 2002.

According to the Sacramento County General Plan, 171, 492 acres (or 27% of the land) in Sacramento County has been placed under a Williamson Act contract (Sacramento County 2011b). CITY OF GALT

As shown in Table 4.2‐3, a large portion of the 2030 Galt General Plan study area’s total acreage (approximately 45%) is used for agricultural uses, with only 446 acres (or 2%) categorized as idle. Field crops, pasture, and grain/hay crops account for the largest agricultural use. Urban uses account for 6, 070 acres (or 24%) of the 2030 Galt General Plan study area.

Table 4.2-3 Agricultural Land Use within the 2030 Galt General Plan Study Area Land Use Class Acreage Within Study Area1 Percentage of Study Area1 Citrus and Subtropical 16 Less than 1% Deciduous Fruits and Nuts 32 Less than 1% Field Crops 4, 565 18% Grain and Hay Crops 1, 328 5% Idle 446 2% Pasture 3, 301 13% Truck, Nursery, and Berry Crops 85 Less than 1% Vineyards 918 4% Riparian Vegetation 955 4% Native Vegetation 6, 391 26% Water Surface 304 1% Semi Agricultural & Incidental to 468 2% Agriculture Urban Uses 6, 070 24% Total 24, 879 100% 1Acreages presented in this table have been calculated using the California Department of Water Resources’ spatial data for the 2030 Galt General Plan study area. Only lands within the 2030 Galt General Plan study area are included in the table above; parcels extending past the planning boundary have been measured accordingly. Consequently, the2030 Galt General Plan total study area may vary from the total represented in other sections of 2030 Galt General Plan Existing Conditions Report. The data presented in this table do not account for duplicative increases in crop acreage due to double or triple cropping. Source: City of Galt 2005

As identified in Table 4.2‐4, in 2004, lands designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance accounted for almost half (41%) of the 2030 Galt General Plan study area. Lands designated as Prime Farmland accounted for only 3% of the total land within the2030 Galt General Plan study area. In comparison, lands designated as Urban and Built‐Up Land and Other Land account for approximately 22% of the total land within the 2030 Galt General Plan study area.

City of Galt 4.2-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Agricultural Resources

Table 4.2-4 Farmland in the 2030 Galt General Plan Study Area (2004) Land Use Category Acreage Within Study Area Percentage of Study Area1 Prime Farmland 706 3% Farmland of Statewide Importance 10, 210 41% Unique Farmland 821 3% Farmland of Local Importance 3, 148 13% Grazing Land 4, 474 18% Urban and Built‐Up Land 2, 876 12% Water 52 Less than 1% Other Land 2, 738 11% Total 25, 023 100% 1Percentages may not total 100 due to rounding. Source: City of Galt 2005

In 2005, an estimated 4, 443 acres (or approximately 18%) of the 2030 Galt General Plan study area were under an active Williamson Act contract (City of Galt 2005). A total of 631 acres (or approximately 2.5%)of the 2030 Galt General Plan study area were in non‐renewal for Williamson Act contracts in 2005. PROJECT SITE

The Galt WWTP has been operating at 10059 Twin Cities Road for well over 30 years with the most recent expansion to 3.0 mgd constructed in 1989. The City of Galt2030 General Plan designates the project site for Public/Quasi‐Public land uses, indicating that the City has placed a priority on uses that support public needs, such as the WWTP, over the long term. Continued agricultural use of the site would be allowable, so long as it is compatible with the public use. In the case of the WWTP, the City’s 2010 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for operation of the WWTP requires that the City use treated effluent for reclamation activities via crop irrigation on the City‐owned property during the summer months to the extent practicable. Therefore, as described in Chapter 3,”Project Description,” during the summer months, the City operates an agricultural reuse site (surrounding the existing WWTP within the City’s 298‐acre property) where fodder, fiber, or feed crops that are not directly used for human consumption are grown. Crops have historically included corn, pasture, ryegrass, sweet clover, and sudan grass. Treated effluent directed to the agricultural fields can either be undisinfected secondary‐ or disinfected tertiary‐treated effluent.

Exhibit 4.2‐1 shows the designated farmland within and surrounding the project site according to the latest data available from FMMP. Based on the FMMP data, the 298‐acre, City‐owned property includes land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance (207.1 acres), Urban and Built‐Up Land (66.2 acres), Grazing Land (24.3 acres), and a small amount of Unique Farmland (0.4 acre) (DOC2010). Using this data, 207.5 acres is defined as agricultural land or farmland under CEQA.

The project site does not contain any lands under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2009). The closest parcels under Williamson Act contract are located approximately 0.5 mile to the northeast and 0.6 mile to the southwest of the City’s property.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.2-5 Agricultural Resources Ascent Environmental

Source: DOC 2010; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012 Exhibit 4.2-1 Potential Disturbance of Farmland City of Galt 4.2-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Agricultural Resources

4.2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would result in a significant impact related to agricultural resources if it would:

 convert farmland (i.e., Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance) as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the FMMP of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use;  involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to nonagricultural use;  conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract;  conflict with zoning for forest land or timberland; or  result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non‐forest use. METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Evaluation of the project’s potential impacts on agricultural resources was based on a review of the planning documents pertaining to the project area, including goals and policies from the 2030 Galt General Plan (City of Galt 2009b) and the Sacramento County General Plan (Sacramento County 2011b), as well as information from the Sacramento County Agricultural Commissioner’s Office. In addition, DOC (2009) farmland maps and California Land Conservation Act (commonly known as the Williamson Act [California Government Code Section 51200 et seq.]) maps for Sacramento County were used to determine the agricultural significance of the lands in the project area. ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

Impacts to forestry resources were addressed in the Initial Study (Appendix A). Because it was determined that the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would have no impact related to forestry resources (none are present on the site), they are not discussed further in this Draft Program EIR.

The project site does not contain any lands under a Williamson Act contract, nor is it adjacent to such lands (DOC 2009).No impact would occur to lands under Williamson Act contract and this issue is not discussed further in this Draft Program EIR.

The potential for growth inducement due to the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and secondary impacts to agricultural resources are addressed in Chapter 7,”Other CEQA and NEPA Mandated Sections,” of this Draft Program EIR.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.2-7 Agricultural Resources Ascent Environmental

IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Conversion of Farmland to Non-agricultural Use. Implementation of the WWTP Facilities Master 4.2-1 Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would result in the permanent conversion of up to 35 acres of farmland to non-agricultural use. This impact would be significant for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The 298‐acre City‐owned property, on which the project site is located, contains approximately 232 acres of farmland, including Farmland of Statewide Importance (approximately 207 acres), Grazing Land (approximately 24 acres), and Unique Farmland (approximately 0.5 acre) (DOC 2010). The property’s remaining approximately 66 acres consist of Urban and Built‐up land associated with the existing WWTP facilities.

Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan would require expansion of the existing WWTP footprint to the immediate west and south (plus potential modifications to existing storage ponds to the north) (see Exhibits 3‐3, 3‐4, and 4.2‐1). In addition, the existing effluent flow meter, currently located near the northern boundary of the storage reservoir and the upstream end of Skunk Creek would be removed and replaced within the footprint of the WWTP facilities. The maximum area of disturbance for the WWTP expansion would result in the permanent conversion of up to 35 acres of agricultural land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, which is considered farmland under CEQA, to non‐agricultural use. While the actual amount of land conversion would likely be less than 35 acres, for purposes of this analysis, the maximum area of disturbance was assumed.

In 2010, Sacramento County had a total of 211, 744 acres of farmland (DOC 2011). The loss of farmland that would occur under the proposed project represents less than 0.02% of Sacramento County’s total acreage farmland. However, farmland is a non‐renewable resource and is considered important by the state, as evidenced by the various policies established for protection of farmland including its specific focus in CEQA. Therefore, the conversion of up to 35 acres of farmland to non‐agricultural use due to build‐out of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would be considered a significant impact.

The 2030 Galt General Plan designates the project site for Public/Quasi‐Public land uses, indicating that the City has planned for conversion of this agricultural land to urban uses, and that the General Plan does not envision nor designate this area for permanent agricultural use. The City’s General Plan EIR found that conversion of up to 3, 200 acres of farmland, including the project site, to urban use would be a significant and unavoidable impact with no feasible mitigation (City of Galt 2009a). Although conversion of up to 35 acres to urban use would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, build‐out of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would nonetheless result in the permanent loss of farmland, which would contribute to the City’s loss of farmland, and which would be itself a significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, which would include construction on approximately 1 acre of Farmland of Statewide Importance located directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the up to 35‐acres of farmland conversion associated with the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project (see Exhibits 3‐3, 3‐4, and 4.2‐1). No additional agricultural land conversion would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. Because farmland is a non‐ renewable resource and considered important by the state, the conversion of approximately 1 acre of Farmland of Statewide Importance for the Immediate Improvements would be considered a significant impact, and this impact would be within the overall impact for the Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt 4.2-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Agricultural Resources

MITIGATION MEASURES Mitigation Measure 4.2-1. Minimize Farmland Conversion

As stated above in Section 4.2.1 as well as in the City’s 2030 General Plan EIR (Impact 8.4-2), the City will continue to support both local and regional agricultural preservation measures through the implementation of a variety of policies incorporated in the General Plan. In addition, the City shall implement the measures listed below to minimize impacts on farmland.

 Minimize the conversion of farmland at the City-owned WWTP site by designing and engineering the WWTP Facilities Master Plan to minimize the footprint of new and expanded facilities to the maximum extent feasible.

 Maximize agricultural production on the farmland at the City-owned WWTP site through maximizing use of reclaimed water from the WWTP.

Implementing this mitigation measure may reduce the impact of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements on farmland, but not to a less‐than‐significant level. The extent to which conversion can be minimized is not currently known, and cannot be currently known, because a long‐term design of the facility has not been finalized. With respect to using reclaimed water, the City will do this to the extent it is feasible; however, factors such as crop type, practices needed to reduce certain chemicals in the soil, and other factors could influence how much water is ultimately reclaimed for agricultural use. Therefore this impact would remain significant and unavoidable for both the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements.

Impact Conflicts with Agricultural Land Uses. The WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate 4.2-2 Improvements would involve improvements to and expansion of the existing WWTP. The project would not introduce a new land use and all improvements and expansion would remain within the City-owned property, which is designated for Public/Quasi-Public land use. The footprint of the expansion would be surrounded by the City’s agricultural reuse site and the irrigation storage reservoir; the fields would remain in agricultural production for treated effluent reclamation; and the reservoir would remain in place. This agricultural production would not conflict with the surrounding Sacramento County lands, which include agricultural land, habitat conservation land, and undeveloped land. The WWTP expansion would not conflict with on- or off-site agricultural land uses. This would be a less-than-significant impact for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The existing WWTP facilities, storage ponds, and irrigation storage reservoir, as well as the 35‐acre area of potential expansion and agricultural land conversion due to the Facilities Master Plan, are surrounded by the remainder of the City’s 298‐acre property, which is agricultural land used for reclamation of treated effluent. Under implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, the City may convert up to 35 acres of the on‐site agricultural lands for WWTP facilities, but would maintain remaining agricultural fields on the City’s property to continue reclamation activities consistent with the 2010 NPDES permit.

The City’s 298‐acre property is surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County lands zoned as AG‐80 (Sacramento County 2007). The WWTP is bordered by agricultural fields within unincorporated Sacramento County on the south and southwest. Land northwest of the property is undeveloped. The City’s 70‐acre Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat conservation land is located north of the property; and north of that is a conservation bank owned by Wildlands Inc. The Union Pacific Railroad mainline tracks form the property’s eastern boundary, beyond which is undeveloped unincorporated land in Sacramento County and State Route

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.2-9 Agricultural Resources Ascent Environmental

(SR) 99.According to the land use map in the 2030 Galt General Plan, lands to the east of the property (west of SR 99) are designated for light industrial, commercial, and office professional (City of Galt 2009b) in the Galt Sphere of Influence. A portion of the lands south of Twin Cities Road are zoned for rural residential use (AR‐2) in the unincorporated county (Sacramento County 2007).

Expansion of the existing WWTP (see Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4) under the Facilities Master Plan would not result in a conflict with on‐ or off‐site land uses. The Facilities Master Plan would not introduce a new land use, but rather would expand the existing WWTP, which is an existing, non‐agricultural use located on City‐owned property that is designated for Public/Quasi‐Public land use. Furthermore, the WWTP operations would be largely the same as under current conditions, with some improved effluent treatment processes and expanded treatment capacity. Although up to 35 acres of the existing agricultural fields may be converted to WWTP facilities, the WWTP operations would continue to involve reclamation of treated effluent to support agricultural production on the remaining City‐owned fields. During construction, staging areas would be located within the disturbed WWTP footprint or sites that are fallow, that are already developed or disturbed, or that are to be discontinued for use as agricultural land, and by using the existing road to access construction areas. In addition, the use of existing utilities and agricultural drainage systems would be minimized so that existing agricultural uses (including irrigation of agricultural lands) are not substantially disrupted by project construction.

Typically, agricultural‐urban interfaces result in the potential for conflicts between agricultural practices and adjacent land owners. Pesticide application, generation of noise and dust from farm equipment, and shared roadways with farm trucks and tractors are common sources of these conflicts. The improvement and expansion of the WWTP would not result in these types of conflicts as it does not include uses sensitive to these operations. Further, the agricultural production on the City‐owned land would be consistent with agricultural production on adjacent County land and would buffer the WWTP expansion from the adjacent habitat conservation lands and undeveloped lands. Therefore, potential long‐term conflicts between the proposed project and adjacent agricultural operations are not expected. This impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, which would include construction on approximately 1 acre of Farmland of Statewide Importance located directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the up to 35‐acres of farmland conversion associated with the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project (see Exhibits 3‐3 and 4.2‐1). No additional ground disturbance or agricultural land conversion would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, the Immediate Improvements would be consistent with the existing WWTP operations, consistent with the Public/Quasi‐Public land use designation, and would be surrounded by City‐owned fields in agricultural production. The Immediate Improvements would not result in conflicts with adjacent agricultural lands, and this impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.2-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

4.3 AIR QUALITY

This section includes a discussion of existing air quality conditions, a summary of applicable regulations, and an analysis of potential short‐term and long‐term air quality impacts caused by the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project. The method of analysis for short‐term construction, long‐ term regional (operational), local mobile‐source, and toxic air emissions is consistent with the recommendations of the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). In addition, mitigation measures are recommended as necessary to reduce significant air quality impacts. 4.3.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

The WWTP project site is located in the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (SVAB). Air quality at the project site is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (ARB), SMAQMD, and the City of Galt (City). Each of these agencies develops rules, regulations, policies, and/or goals to comply with applicable legislation. Although EPA regulations may not be superseded, both state and local regulations may be more stringent.

Concentrations of several air pollutants—ozone, carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead—indicate the quality of ambient air and are therefore the premise of air quality regulations. Because these pollutants are the most prevalent air pollutants known to be harmful to human health, they are commonly referred to as “criteria air pollutants.” Their effects on human health have been studied in depth and their criteria for affecting health have been documented. Acceptable levels of exposure to criteria air pollutants have been determined and ambient standards have been established for them (Table 4.3‐1).

Air quality regulations also focus on toxic air contaminants (TACs), or in federal parlance, hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). In general, for those TACs that may cause cancer, all concentrations present some risk. In other words, there is no threshold level below which adverse health impacts may not be expected to occur. EPA and ARB regulate HAPs and TACs, respectively, through statutes and regulations that generally require the use of the maximum or best available control technology for toxics (MACT and BACT) to limit emissions. These statutes and regulations, in conjunction with additional rules set forth by SMAQMD, establish the regulatory framework for TACs.

Applicable regulations associated with criteria air pollutants, TACs, and odors are described below. FEDERAL

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

At the federal level, EPA implements the national air quality programs. EPA’s air quality mandates are drawn primarily from the federal Clean Air Act (CAA), enacted in 1970. The most recent major amendments were made by Congress in 1990.

The CAA requires EPA to establish national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). As shown in Table 4.3‐1, EPA has established primary and secondary NAAQS for the following criteria air pollutants: ozone, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead (ARB 2010a). The primary standards protect public health and the secondary standards protect public welfare. Areas that do not meet standards are designated as such to initiate planning efforts for improvement. The three basic designation categories are “nonattainment,” “attainment,” and “unclassified.” “Unclassified” is used in an area that cannot be classified on the basis of available information as meeting or not meeting the standards. Attainment designations for the year 2011 with respect to the project site are shown in Table 4.3‐2 for each criteria air pollutant for both federal and state standards.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-1 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Table 4.3-1 Ambient Air Quality Standards Averaging National c Pollutant California a,b Time Primary b,d Secondary b,e Ozone 1‐hour 0.09 ppm –e Same as primary standard (180 μg/m3) 8‐hour 0.070 ppm 0.075 ppm (137 μg/m3) (147 μg/m3) Carbon monoxide 1‐hour 20 ppm 35 ppm Same as primary standard (CO) (23 mg/m3) (40 mg/m3) 8‐hour 9 ppmf 9 ppm (7 mg/m3) (10 mg/m3) Nitrogen dioxide Annual arithmetic mean 0.030 ppm 53 ppb Same as primary standard g 3 3 (NO2) (57 μg/m ) (100 μg/m ) 1‐hour 0.18 ppm 100 ppb – (339 μg/m3) (188 μg/m3)

Sulfur dioxide (SO2) 24‐hour 0.04 ppm – – (105 μg/m3) 3‐hour – 0.5 ppm – (1300 μg/m3) 1‐hour 0.25 ppm 75 ppb – (655 μg/m3) (196 μg/m3) Respirable particulate Annual arithmetic mean 20 μg/m3 – Same as primary standard 3 3 matter (PM10) 24‐hour 50 μg/m 150 μg/m Fine particulate Annual arithmetic mean 12 μg/m3 15.0 μg/m3 Same as primary standard 3 matter (PM2.5) 24‐hour – 35 μg/m Lead g Calendar quarter – 1.5 μg/m3 Same as primary standard 30‐Day average 1.5 μg/m3 – – Rolling 3‐Month Average – 0.15 μg/m3 Same as primary standard Hydrogen sulfide 1‐hour 0.03 ppm (42 μg/m3) Sulfates 24‐hour 25 μg/m3 Vinyl chloride f 24‐hour 0.01 ppm (26 μg/m3) No Visibility‐reducing 8‐hour Extinction national particulate matter coefficient of 0.23 standards per kilometer — visibility of 10 mi or more Notes: µg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; km = kilometers; ppb = parts per billion; ppm = parts per million. a California standards for ozone, SO2 (1- and 24-hour), NO2, particulate matter, and visibility-reducing particles are values that are not to be exceeded. All others are not to be equaled or exceeded. California ambient air quality standards are listed in the Table of Standards in Section 70200 of Title 17 of the California Code of Regulations. b Concentration expressed first in units in which it was issued. Equivalent units given in parentheses are based on a reference temperature of 25 degrees Celsius (°C) and a reference pressure of 760 torr. Most measurements of air quality are to be corrected to a reference temperature of 25°C and a reference pressure of 760 torr; ppm in this table refers to ppm by volume, or micromoles of pollutant per mole of gas. c National standards (other than ozone, particulate matter, and those based on annual averages or annual arithmetic means) are not to be exceeded more than once a year. The ozone standard is attained when the fourth highest 8-hour concentration in a year, averaged over 3 years, is equal to or less than the standard. The PM10 24-hour standard is attained when 99 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. The PM2.5 24-hour standard is attained when 98 percent of the daily concentrations, averaged over 3 years, are equal to or less than the standard. Contact the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for further clarification and current federal policies. d National primary standards: The levels of air quality necessary, with an adequate margin of safety, to protect the public health. e National secondary standards: The levels of air quality necessary to protect the public welfare from any known or anticipated adverse effects of a pollutant. f The California Air Resources Board has identified lead and vinyl chloride as toxic air contaminants with no threshold of exposure for adverse health effects determined. These actions allow for the implementation of control measures at levels below the ambient concentrations specified for these pollutants. Source: ARB 2010a

City of Galt 4.3-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

The CAA also requires each state to prepare an air quality control plan referred to as a State Implementation Plan (SIP). The federal Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA) added requirements for states with nonattainment areas to revise their SIPs to incorporate additional control measures to reduce air pollution. The SIP is modified periodically to reflect the latest emissions inventories, planning documents, and rules and regulations of the air basins as reported by their jurisdictional agencies. EPA reviews all state SIPs to determine whether they conform to the mandates of the CAA and its amendments and whether implementing them will achieve air quality goals. If EPA determines a SIP to be inadequate, a Federal Implementation Plan that imposes additional control measures may be prepared for the nonattainment area. If the state fails to submit an approvable SIP or to implement the plan within the mandated time frame, sanctions may be applied to transportation funding and stationary air pollution sources in the air basins. General Conformity Rule The General Conformity Rule was established under the CAA (Section 176 (c)(4)) in 1993 to help states and tribes improve air quality in those areas that do not meet the NAAQS. Under the General Conformity Rule, federal agencies must work with state, tribal, and local governments in a nonattainment or maintenance area to ensure that federal actions conform to the air quality plans established in the applicable state or tribal implementation plan. The primary functions of the General Conformity Rule are to:

 Ensure that federal activities do not cause or contribute to new violations of NAAQS;  Ensure that actions do not cause additional or worsen existing violations of or contribute to new violations the NAAQS; and  Ensure that attainment of the NAAQSs is not delayed.

The General Conformity regulation contains de minimis thresholds that, below which, a project would not be considered to substantially interfere with attainment of NAAQS associated with air quality planning efforts. If a project would exceed the de minimis thresholds, the project would be subject to a General Conformity Determination. As summarized in Table 4.3‐2, the project area is designated nonattainment for federal standards for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. De minimis thresholds are summarized in Table 4.3‐3, below.

Table 4.3-2 Attainment Status Designations for Sacramento County Pollutant National Designation State Designation Ozone Nonattainment Nonattainment

PM10 Nonattainment Nonattainment

PM2.5 Nonattainment Nonattainment CO Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment

NO2 Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment

SO2 Unclassified Attainment Lead (Particulate) Unclassifiable/Attainment Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide – Unclassified Sulfates – Attainment Visibility Reducing Particulates – Unclassified

Notes: CO = carbon monoxide; NO2 = nitrogen dioxide; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; SO2 = sulfur dioxide Sources: ARB 2010b

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-3 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Table 4.3-3 General Conformity Applicability De Minimis Thresholds Pollutant Attainment Designation Threshold (tons/year)

VOC or NOX Nonattainment (Severe) 25

PM10 Nonattainment (Moderate) 100

PM2.5 Nonattainment 100

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; VOC = volatile organic compounds. Sources: EPA 2012a, 2012b

HAZARDOUS AIR POLLUTANTS

EPA has programs for identifying and regulating HAPs. Title III of the CAAA directed EPA to issue national emissions standards for HAPs (NESHAP). The NESHAP may be different for major sources than for area sources of HAPs. Major sources are defined as stationary sources with potential to emit more than 10 tons per year (TPY) of any HAP or more than 25 TPY of any combination of HAPs; all other sources are considered area sources. The emissions standards are to be issued in two phases. In the first phase (1992–2000), EPA developed technology‐based emission standards designed to produce the maximum emission reduction achievable and are generally referred to as requiring MACT. For area sources, the standards may be different, based on generally available control technology. In the second phase (2001–2008), EPA is required to issue emissions standards based on health risks where the standards are deemed necessary to address risks remaining after implementation of the technology‐based NESHAP standards.

The CAAA also requires EPA to issue vehicle or fuel standards containing reasonable requirements that control toxic emissions, at a minimum for benzene and formaldehyde. Performance criteria were established to limit mobile‐source emissions of toxics, including benzene, formaldehyde, and 1,3‐butadiene. In addition, Section 219 requires the use of reformulated gasoline in selected areas with the most severe ozone nonattainment conditions to further reduce mobile‐source emissions. STATE

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

ARB coordinates and oversees the state and local programs for controlling air pollution in California and implements the California Clean Air Act (CCAA), adopted in 1988. The CCAA requires ARB to establish California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS) (Table 4.3‐1) (ARB 2010a). ARB has established CAAQS for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, vinyl chloride, visibility‐reducing particulate matter, and the above‐mentioned criteria air pollutants. In most cases, the CAAQS are more stringent than the NAAQS. Differences in the standards are generally explained by the health effects studies considered during the standard‐setting process and the interpretation of the studies. In addition, the CAAQS incorporate a margin of safety to protect sensitive individuals.

The CCAA requires that all local air districts in the state endeavor to achieve and maintain the CAAQS by the earliest practical date. The act specifies that local air districts should focus particular attention on reducing the emissions from transportation and areawide emission sources. The act provides districts with the authority to regulate indirect sources (e.g., land development that results in increases in air pollution from motor vehicles).

ARB also oversees local air district compliance with federal and state laws, approving local air quality plans, submitting SIPs to EPA, monitoring air quality, determining and updating area designations and maps, and setting emissions standards for new mobile sources, consumer products, small utility engines, off‐road vehicles, and fuels.

City of Galt 4.3-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

TACs in California are regulated primarily through the Tanner Air Toxics Act (Assembly Bill [AB] 1807 [Statutes of 1983]) and the Air Toxics Hot Spots Information and Assessment Act of 1987 (AB 2588 [Statutes of 1987]). AB 1807 sets forth a formal procedure for ARB to designate substances as TACs. This process includes research, public participation, and scientific peer review before ARB can designate a substance as a TAC. ARB has identified more than 21 TACs to date and has adopted EPA’s list of HAPs as TACs. Most recently, diesel PM was added to the ARB list of TACs.

Once a TAC is identified, ARB then adopts an airborne toxics control measure for sources that emit that particular TAC. If a safe threshold exists for a substance at which there is no toxic effect, the control measure must reduce exposure below that threshold. If no safe threshold exists, the measure must incorporate BACT to minimize emissions.

The Hot Spots Act requires that existing facilities that emit toxic substances above a specified level prepare an inventory of toxic emissions, prepare a risk assessment if emissions are significant, notify the public of significant risk levels, and prepare and implement risk reduction measures.

ARB has adopted diesel exhaust control measures and more stringent emissions standards for various transportation‐related mobile sources of emissions, including transit buses, and off‐road diesel equipment (e.g., tractors, generators). Recent and upcoming milestones for transportation‐related mobile sources include a low‐ sulfur diesel fuel requirement and tighter emissions standards for heavy‐duty diesel trucks (2007) and off‐road diesel equipment (2011) nationwide. Over time, the replacement of older vehicles will result in a vehicle fleet that produces substantially lower levels of TACs than under current conditions. Mobile‐source emissions of TACs (e.g., benzene, 1‐3‐butadiene, diesel PM) have been reduced significantly over the last decade and will be reduced further in California through a progression of regulatory measures (e.g., Low Emission Vehicle/Clean Fuels and Phase II reformulated gasoline regulations) and control technologies. With implementation of ARB’s Risk Reduction Plan, it is expected that diesel PM concentrations will be 85% less than the estimated year‐2000 level (i.e. an estimated 28,000 tons/year) in 2020 (ARB 2000). Adopted regulations are also expected to continue to reduce formaldehyde emissions from cars and light‐duty trucks. As emissions are reduced, it is expected that risks associated with exposure to the emissions will also be reduced.

ARB’s Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective (ARB 2005) provides guidance concerning land use compatibility with TAC sources. While not a law or adopted policy, the handbook offers advisory recommendations for the siting of sensitive receptors near uses associated with TACs, such as freeways and high‐traffic roads, commercial distribution centers, rail yards, ports, refineries, dry cleaners, gasoline stations, and industrial facilities, to help keep children and other sensitive populations out of harm’s way.

LOCAL

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMAQMD attains and maintains air quality conditions in Sacramento County through a comprehensive program of planning, regulation, enforcement, technical innovation, and promotion of the understanding of air quality issues. The clean air strategy of SMAQMD includes the preparation of plans and programs for the attainment of ambient‐air quality standards, adoption and enforcement of rules and regulations, and issuance of permits for stationary sources. SMAQMD also inspects stationary sources, responds to citizen complaints, monitors ambient air quality and meteorological conditions, and implements other programs and regulations required by the CAA, CAAA, and CCAA.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-5 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

SMAQMD released a revision to its previously adopted guidelines document in December 2009. This revised Guide to Air Quality Assessment (SMAQMD 2009) is an advisory document that provides lead agencies, consultants, and project applicants with uniform procedures for addressing air quality in environmental documents. The handbook contains the following applicable components:

 criteria and thresholds for determining whether a project may have a significant adverse impact on air quality;  specific procedures and modeling protocols for quantifying and analyzing impacts on air quality;  methods available to mitigate impacts on air quality; and  information for use in air quality assessments that will be updated more frequently, such as air quality data, regulatory setting, climate, and topography.

All projects are subject to SMAQMD rules and regulations in effect at the time of construction. Specific rules applicable to the construction of the proposed project include the following:

 Rule 201: General Permit Requirements. Any project that includes the use of equipment capable of releasing emissions to the atmosphere may be required to obtain permit(s) from SMAQMD before equipment operation. The applicant, developer, or operator of a project that includes an emergency generator, boiler, or heater should contact SMAQMD early to determine whether a permit is required, and to begin the permit application process. Portable construction equipment (e.g., generators, compressors, pile drivers, lighting equipment) with an internal combustion engine greater than 50 horsepower must have a SMAQMD permit or ARB portable equipment registration.  Rule 402: Nuisance. A person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever such quantities of air contaminants or other materials which cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or the public, or which endanger the comfort, repose, health or safety of any such persons or the public, or which cause or have natural tendency to cause injury or damage to business or property.  Rule 403: Fugitive Dust. The developer or contractor is required to control dust emissions from earthmoving activities or any other construction activity to prevent airborne dust from leaving the project site.  Rule 417: Wood Burning Appliances. Installation of any new, permanently installed, indoor or outdoor, uncontrolled fireplaces in new or existing developments is prohibited.  Rule 442: Architectural Coatings. The developer or contractor is required to use coatings that comply with the content limits for volatile organic compounds specified in the rule.  Rule 902: Asbestos. The developer or contractor is required to notify SMAQMD of any regulated renovation or demolition activity. Rule 902 contains specific requirements for surveying, notification, removal, and disposal of material containing asbestos.

In addition, effective as of October 10, 2005, if modeled construction‐generated emissions for a project are not reduced to SMAQMD’s threshold of significance (85 pounds per day [lb/day]) after the standard construction mitigation is applied, then an off‐site construction mitigation fee is recommended. The fee must be paid before a grading permit can be issued. This fee is used by SMAQMD to purchase off‐site emissions reductions. Such purchases are made through SMAQMD’s Heavy Duty Incentive Program, through which select owners of heavy‐ duty equipment in Sacramento County can repower or retrofit their old engines with cleaner engines or technologies.

Air Quality Plans SMAQMD, in coordination with the air quality management districts and air pollution control districts of El Dorado, Placer, Solano, Sutter, and Yolo Counties, prepared and submitted the 1991 Air Quality Attainment Plan (AQAP). The plan complies with the requirements set forth in the CCAA, which specifically addressed the

City of Galt 4.3-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

nonattainment status for ozone and, to a lesser extent, CO and PM10. The CCAA also requires a triennial assessment of the extent of air quality improvements and emission reductions achieved through the use of control measures. As part of the assessment, the attainment plan must be reviewed and, if necessary, revised to correct for deficiencies in progress and to incorporate new data or projections.

The requirement of the CCAA for a first triennial progress report and revision of the 1991 AQAP was fulfilled with the preparation and adoption of the 1994 Ozone Attainment Plan (OAP). The OAP stresses attainment of ozone standards and focuses on strategies for reducing emissions of ozone precursors (reactive organic gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOX). It promotes active public involvement, enforcement of compliance with SMAQMD rules and regulations, public education in both the public and private sectors, development and promotion of transportation and land use programs designed to reduce VMT within the region, and implementation of stationary‐ and mobile‐source control measures.

The OAP became part of the SIP in accordance with the requirements of the CAAA and amended the 1991 AQAP. However, at that time the region could not show that the national ozone (1‐hour) standard would be met by 1999. In exchange for moving the deadline to 2005, the region accepted a designation of “severe nonattainment” coupled with additional emission requirements on stationary sources. Additional triennial reports were also prepared in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2009 in compliance with the CCAA; these reports act as incremental updates.

In 2004, the Sacramento region was designated nonattainment for the 1997 8‐hour ozone NAAQS, and classified as a “serious” area with an attainment deadline of June 15, 2013. Since the Sacramento region needs to rely on the longer term emission reduction strategies from state and federal mobile‐source control programs, it was determined that the 2013 attainment date could not be met. Consequently, on February 14, 2008, ARB, on behalf of the air districts in the Sacramento region, submitted a letter to EPA requesting a voluntary reclassification (bump‐up) of the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area from a “serious” to a “severe” 8‐hour ozone nonattainment area with an extended attainment deadline of June 15, 2019, and additional mandatory requirements. On May 5, 2010 EPA approved the request effective June 4, 2010 (SMAQMD 2011a).

In March 2008, EPA strengthened its 8‐hour ozone standard. This change lowered the standard for ambient ozone from 0.08 ppm averaged over 8 hours to 0.75 ppm averaged over 8 hours. On January 6, 2010, EPA proposed to reconsider the 2008 NAAQS for ground‐level ozone. The proposed revisions are based on a re‐ evaluation of the scientific evidence about ozone and its effects on people and the environment. The ozone standards set in 2008 were not as protective as recommended by EPA’s panel of science advisors, the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). The proposed standards are consistent with CASAC’s recommendations. EPA is proposing to strengthen the 8‐hour “primary” ozone standard, designed to protect public health, to a level within the range of 0.060‐0.070 ppm (SMAQMD 2011b). City of Galt General Plan The City of Galt has various policies in place related to the improvement of air quality within the city. Policies relevant to the proposed project are shown below:

 Policy COS‐5.6: SMAQMD Coordination. The City shall coordinate with the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD) on the review of proposed development projects. The City shall use the SMAQMD Guide to Air Quality Assessment for determining and mitigating project air quality impacts and related thresholds of significance for use in environmental documents.  Policy COS‐5.9: Air Quality Mitigation Measures. The City shall enforce construction and operation related air quality mitigation measures adopted through the CEQA process.  Policy COS‐5.10: New Development Operational Emission Reductions. The City shall require all new development projects which have the potential to result in significant operational air quality impacts (exceeding SMAQMD adopted thresholds), to incorporate design or operational features that result in a City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-7 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

reduction in emissions equal to 15 percent from the level that would be produced by an unmitigated project, based upon feasible mitigation under CEQA.  Policy COS‐5.11: Construction Mitigation Measures. The City shall require developers to implement dust suppression measures as well as the applicable standard construction mitigation measures associated with exhaust NOX and PM10 reduction in accordance with the current SMAQMD CEQA Guide to Air Quality Assessment.  Policy COS‐5.12: Construction Mitigation Fees. The City shall require developers to comply with the current SMAQMD construction mitigation fee offset program.  Policy COS‐5.13: Air Pollution Control Technology. The City shall follow the rules and regulations as adopted by the SMAQMD to maintain healthful air quality and high visibility standards. These measures shall be applied to new development approvals and permit modifications as appropriate.

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

At the local level, air pollution control or management districts may adopt and enforce ARB control measures. Under SMAQMD Rule 201 (“General Permit Requirements”), Rule 202 (“New Source Review”), and Rule 207 (“Federal Operating Permit”), all sources that possess the potential to emit TACs are required to obtain permits from the district. Permits may be granted to these operations if they are constructed and operated in accordance with applicable regulations, including new‐source‐review standards and air‐toxics control measures. SMAQMD limits emissions and public exposure to TACs through a number of programs. SMAQMD prioritizes TAC‐emitting stationary sources based on the quantity and toxicity of the TAC emissions and the proximity of the facilities to sensitive receptors. Sensitive receptors are people, or facilities that generally house people (e.g., schools, hospitals, residences), that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.

ODORS

Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable stress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and SMAQMD. SMAQMD’s Rule 402 (Nuisance) regulates odorous emissions, as described above under SMAQMD regulations, above. 4.3.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is located in the City of Galt, within Sacramento County, California, which is within the SVAB. The SVAB also includes all of Butte, Colusa, Glenn, Shasta, Sutter, Tehama, Yolo, and Yuba Counties; the western portion of Placer County; and the eastern portion of Solano County. The ambient concentrations of air pollutant emissions are determined by the amount of emissions released by the sources of air pollutants and the atmosphere’s ability to transport and dilute such emissions. Natural factors that affect transport and dilution include terrain, wind, atmospheric stability, and sunlight. Therefore, existing air quality conditions in the area are determined by such natural factors as topography, meteorology, and climate, in addition to the amount of emissions released by existing air pollutant sources, as discussed separately below. TOPOGRAPHY, METEOROLOGY, AND CLIMATE

The SVAB is a relatively flat area bordered by the north Coast Ranges to the west and the northern Sierra Nevada to the east. Air flows into the SVAB through the Carquinez Strait, the only breach in the western mountain barrier, and moves across the Sacramento River–San Joaquin River Delta (Delta) from the San Francisco Bay area.

City of Galt 4.3-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

The Mediterranean climate type of the SVAB is characterized by hot, dry summers and cool, rainy winters. During the summer, daily temperatures range from 50°F to more than 100°F. The inland location and surrounding mountains shelter the area from much of the ocean breezes that keep the coastal regions moderate in temperature. Most precipitation in the area results from air masses that move in from the Pacific Ocean, usually from the west or northwest, during the winter months. More than half the total annual precipitation falls during the winter rainy season (November through February); the average winter temperature is a moderate 49°F. Also characteristic of SVAB winters are periods of dense and persistent low‐level fog, which are most prevalent between storms. The prevailing winds are moderate in speed and vary from moisture‐laden breezes from the south to dry land flows from the north.

The mountains surrounding the SVAB create a barrier to airflow, which leads to the entrapment of air pollutants when meteorological conditions are unfavorable for transport and dilution. The highest frequency of poor air movement occurs in the fall and winter when high‐pressure cells are present over the SVAB. The lack of surface wind during these periods, combined with the reduced vertical flow caused by a decline in surface heating, reduces the influx of air and leads to the concentration of air pollutants under stable metrological conditions. Surface concentrations of air pollutant emissions are highest when these conditions occur in combination with agricultural burning activities or with temperature inversions, which hamper dispersion by creating a ceiling over the area and trapping air pollutants near the ground.

May through October is ozone season in the SVAB. This period is characterized by poor air movement in the mornings with the arrival of the Delta sea breeze from the southwest in the afternoons. In addition, longer daylight hours provide a plentiful amount of sunlight to fuel photochemical reactions between reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX), which result in ozone formation. Typically, the Delta breeze transports air pollutants northward out of the SVAB; however, a phenomenon known as the Schultz Eddy prevents this from occurring during approximately half of the time from July to September. The Schultz Eddy phenomenon causes the wind to shift southward and blow air pollutants back into the SVAB. This phenomenon exacerbates the concentration of air pollutant emissions in the area and contributes to the area violating the ambient‐air quality standards.

The local meteorology of the project site and surrounding area is represented by measurements recorded at the Sacramento station. The normal annual precipitation is approximately 17 inches. January temperatures range from a normal minimum of 38°F to a normal maximum of 54°F. July temperatures range from a normal minimum of 59°F to a normal maximum of 93°F (WRCC 2012a). The predominant wind direction and speed is from the south at 8 miles per hour (WRCC 2012a, 2012b). EXISTING AIR QUALITY

CRITERIA AIR POLLUTANTS

Concentrations of emissions from criteria air pollutants are used to indicate the quality of the ambient air. A brief description of key criteria air pollutants in the SVAB is provided below. Emission source types and health effects are summarized in Table 4.3‐4. Monitoring data applicable to the project site is provided in Table 4.3‐5. Ozone Ozone is a photochemical oxidant (a substance whose oxygen combines chemically with another substance in the presence of sunlight) and the primary component of smog. Ozone is not directly emitted into the air but is formed through complex chemical reactions between precursor emissions of ROG and NOX in the presence of sunlight. ROG are volatile organic compounds that are photochemically reactive. ROG emissions result primarily from incomplete combustion and the evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels. NOX are a group of gaseous compounds of nitrogen and oxygen that result from the combustion of fuels.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-9 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX have decreased over the past several years because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels. During the last 20 years the maximum amount of ROG and NOX over an 8‐hour period decreased by 17%. However, the ozone problem in the SVAB still ranks among the most severe in the state (ARB 2009). Nitrogen Dioxide

Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) is a brownish, highly reactive gas that is present in all urban environments. The major human‐made sources of NO2 are combustion devices, such as boilers, gas turbines, and mobile and stationary reciprocating internal combustion engines. Combustion devices emit primarily nitric oxide (NO), which reacts through oxidation in the atmosphere to form NO2. The combined emissions of NO and NO2 are referred to as NOX and are reported as equivalent NO2. Because NO2 is formed and depleted by reactions associated with photochemical smog (ozone), the NO2 concentration in a particular geographical area may not be representative of the local sources of NOX emissions (EPA 2012c). Particulate Matter

Respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less is referred to as PM10. PM10 consists of particulate matter emitted directly into the air, such as fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires and natural windblown dust, and particulate matter formed in the atmosphere by reaction of gaseous precursors (ARB 2009). Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) includes a subgroup of smaller particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. PM10 emissions in the SVAB are dominated by emissions from area sources, primarily fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, farming operations, construction and demolition, and particles from residential fuel combustion. Direct emissions of PM10 have increased slightly over the last 20 years, and are projected to continue. PM2.5 emissions have remained relatively steady over the last 20 years and are projected to increase slightly through 2020. Emissions of PM2.5 in the SVAB are dominated by the same sources as emissions of PM10 (ARB 2009). Monitoring Station Data and Attainment Area Designations Criteria air pollutant concentrations are measured at several monitoring stations in the SVAB. The Elk Grove- Bruceville Road station is the closest station to the project site with recent data for ozone and PM2.5. The closest station to the project site with data for PM10 is the Sacramento‐Branch Center Road #2 air monitoring station. In general, the ambient air quality measurements from these stations are representative of the air quality near the project site. Table 4.3‐5 summarizes the air quality data from the last three years (2009 – 2011).

Both ARB and EPA use this type of monitoring data to designate areas according to their attainment status for criteria air pollutants (attainment designations are summarized above in Table 4.3‐2).

EXISTING AIR POLLUTION DATA

Exhibit 4.3‐1 summarizes emissions of criteria air pollutants within Sacramento County for various source categories (note that there is no City‐based inventory for criteria air pollutants). According to Sacramento County’s emissions data for ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5, mobile sources are the largest contributor to the estimated annual average for air pollutant levels of ROG and NOX accounting for approximately 58% and 91% respectively, of the total emissions. Areawide sources account for approximately 89% and 73% of the County’s PM10 and PM2.5 emissions, respectively (ARB 2008).

City of Galt 4.3-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

Table 4.3-4 Sources and Health Effects of Criteria Air Pollutants Pollutant Sources Acute1 Health Effects Chronic2 Health Effects Ozone Secondary pollutant resulting increased respiration and permeability of respiratory from reaction of ROG and NOX in pulmonary resistance; cough, epithelia, possibility of permanent presence of sunlight. ROG pain, shortness of breath, lung lung impairment emissions result from incomplete inflammation combustion and evaporation of chemical solvents and fuels; NOX results from the combustion of fuels Carbon Incomplete combustion of fuels; headache, dizziness, fatigue, permanent heart and brain monoxide (CO) motor vehicle exhaust nausea, vomiting, death damage Nitrogen dioxide combustion devices; e.g., boilers, coughing, difficulty breathing, chronic bronchitis, decreased lung (NO2) gas turbines, and mobile and vomiting, headache, eye function stationary reciprocating internal irritation, combustion engines chemical pneumonitis or pulmonary edema; breathing abnormalities, cough, cyanosis, chest pain, rapid heartbeat, death

Sulfur dioxide coal and oil combustion, steel Irritation of upper respiratory Insufficient evidence linking SO2 (SO2) mills, refineries, and pulp and tract, increased asthma exposure to chronic health impacts paper mills symptoms Respirable fugitive dust, soot, smoke, mobile breathing and respiratory alterations to the immune system, particulate and stationary sources, symptoms, aggravation of carcinogenesis matter (PM10), construction, fires and natural existing respiratory and Fine particulate windblown dust, and formation in cardiovascular diseases, matter (PM2.5) the atmosphere by condensation premature death and/or transformation of SO2 and ROG Lead metal processing reproductive/developmental numerous effects including effects (fetuses and children) neurological, endocrine, and cardiovascular effects

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; ROG = reactive organic gases. 1 “Acute” refers to effects of short-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at fairly high concentrations. 2 “Chronic” refers to effects of long-term exposures to criteria air pollutants, usually at lower, ambient concentrations. Sources: EPA 2011.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-11 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Table 4.3-5 Summary of Annual Data on Ambient Air Quality (2009-2011)1 2009 2010 2011 OZONE

Maximum concentration (1‐hr/8‐hr avg, ppm) 0.102/0.086 0.106/0.089 0.097/0.080 Number of days state standard exceeded (1‐hr/8‐hr) 2/12 1/6 1/6 Number of days national standard exceeded (8‐hr) 5 2 1

FINE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM2.5)

Maximum concentration (μg/m3) 41.0 43.0 45.6 Number of days national standard exceeded (measured2) * * *

RESPIRABLE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10)

Maximum concentration (μg/m3) 76.0 62.0 69.0 Number of days state standard exceeded 11/68.7 2/12.2 2/12.2 (measured/calculated2) Number of days national standard exceeded 0/0 0/0 0/0 (measured/calculated2)

Notes: μg/m3 = micrograms per cubic meter; ppm = parts per million 1 Measurements from the Elk Grove-Bruceville Road for Ozone and fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Measurements of respirable particulate matter (PM10) obtained from the Sacramento-Branch Center Road #2 air monitoring station. 2 Measured days are those days that an actual measurement was greater than the level of the state daily standard or the national daily standard. Measurements are typically collected every 6 days. Calculated days are the estimated number of days that a measurement would have been greater than the level of the standard had measurements been collected every day. The number of days above the standard is not necessarily the number of violations of the standard for the year. * There was insufficient data to determine the value. Source: ARB 2011a

Source: ARB 2008. Exhibit 4.3-1 Sacramento County 2008 Emissions Inventory

City of Galt 4.3-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS

Concentrations of TACs are also used to indicate the quality of ambient air. A TAC is defined as an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or in serious illness, or that may pose a hazard to human health. TACs are usually present in minute quantities in the ambient air; however, their high toxicity or health risk may pose a threat to public health even at low concentrations.

According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality (ARB 2009), the majority of the estimated health risks from TACs can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel PM. Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel‐fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emissions control system is being used. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data are available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, ARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a PM exposure method. This method uses the ARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3‐butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para‐dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.

Diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among these 10 TACs mentioned. Based on receptor modeling techniques, ARB estimated its health risk to be 360 excess cancer cases per million people in the SVAB in the year 2000. Since 1990, the health risk associated with diesel PM has been reduced by 52%. Overall, levels of most TACs, except para‐dichlorobenzene and formaldehyde, have decreased since 1990 (ARB 2009).

There are no major stationary sources of TACs in the vicinity of the project site. Minor sources of TACs near the project could include but are not limited to: gasoline dispensing stations, dry cleaning establishments, printing operations, and auto body coating operations. Major highways and roadways are also considered sources of TAC emissions, associated with the presence of diesel PM emissions from vehicle exhaust. California State Route 99 is located approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the existing WWTP.

ODORS

Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache).

With respect to odors, the human nose is the sole sensing device. The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective. Some individuals have the ability to smell very minute quantities of specific substances; others may not have the same sensitivity but may have sensitivities to odors of other substances. In addition, people may have different reactions to the same odor; an odor that is offensive to one person may be perfectly acceptable to another (e.g., fast food restaurant). It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. This is because of the phenomenon known as odor fatigue, in which a person can become desensitized to almost any odor and recognition only occurs with an alteration in the intensity.

Quality and intensity are two properties present in any odor. The quality of an odor indicates the nature of the smell experience. For instance, if a person describes an odor as flowery or sweet, then the person is describing the quality of the odor. Intensity refers to the strength of the odor. For example, a person may use the word strong to describe the intensity of an odor. Odor intensity depends on the odorant concentration in the air. When an odorous sample is progressively diluted, the odorant concentration decreases. As this occurs, the odor

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-13 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

intensity weakens and eventually becomes so low that the detection or recognition of the odor is quite difficult. At some point during dilution, the concentration of the odorant reaches a detection threshold. An odorant concentration below the detection threshold means that the concentration in the air is not detectable by the average human. 4.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES

This section describes the project’s construction‐related (short‐term) and operation‐related (long‐term) effects on air quality. The discussion includes the criteria for determining the level of significance of the effects and a description of the methods and assumptions used to conduct the analysis. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

An impact on air quality would be significant if a project option would:

 cause construction‐generated criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions to exceed the SMAQMD‐ recommended threshold of 85 lb/day for NOX, or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations (e.g., PM10) that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS;  cause long‐term regional criteria air pollutant or precursor emissions to exceed the SMAQMD‐ recommended threshold of 65 lb/day for ROG and NOX, or substantially contribute to emissions concentrations (e.g., PM10) that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS;  expose sensitive receptors to TAC emissions that exceed 10 in 1 million for the maximally exposed individual to contract cancer and/or a hazard index of 1 for the maximally exposed individual; and  create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Short‐term construction‐related and long‐term operation‐related (regional and local) impacts, as well as impacts from TACs and odors, were assessed in accordance with SMAQMD‐recommended methodologies (SMAQMD 2009).

Short‐term emissions of criteria air pollutants (e.g., PM10 and PM2.5) generated by project construction and ozone precursors (e.g., ROG and NOX) were assessed in accordance with SMAQMD‐recommended methods. Where quantification was required, these emissions were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer program as recommended by SMAQMD (Appendix C). Project‐specific data, such as construction equipment types and quantities and maximum daily acreage disturbed, were not available at the time of this analysis. Project‐generated emissions were modeled based on general information provided in the project description and SMAQMD‐recommended and default model settings to estimate reasonable worst‐case conditions. Construction emissions modeling was assumed to occur over 17 years (2013‐2030) in three distinct phases. Immediate Improvements would take place during 2013‐2015, and final Facilities Master Plan improvements would take place during 2028‐2030. Phase 2 of construction is not presented in this analysis as the intensity of construction would be similar to the final Phase 3 improvements, both of which would fall well below applicable thresholds of significance. Emissions for all construction activities were accounted for in total annual emission estimates.

According to SMAQMD, short‐term ROG emissions generated by construction should be modeled; however, SMAQMD has not established a threshold to determine the significance of such emissions. Thus, in accordance with SMAQMD‐recommended methodologies, short‐term ROG emissions generated by construction are modeled and presented for informational purposes only. SMAQMD bases this approach on the fact that ROG

City of Galt 4.3-14 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

emissions attributable to construction equipment exhaust are low and those from the application of architectural coatings are regulated by Rule 442 (SMAQMD 2009).

Project‐generated, regional area‐ and mobile‐source emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors were also modeled using CalEEMod. CalEEMod allows land use selections that include project location specifics and trip generation rates. CalEEMod accounts for area‐source emissions from the use of natural gas, landscape maintenance equipment, and consumer products and from mobile‐source emissions associated with vehicle trip generation. Project‐generated emissions were modeled based on general information provided in the project description.

Other air quality impacts (i.e., TACs and odors) were assessed in accordance with methodologies recommended by ARB and SMAQMD. ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

As discussed in Section 3.3 (b) of the Initial Study prepared in May 2012 (Appendix A), CO concentration is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land‐uses such as residential areas, schools, and hospitals. Occurrences of localized CO concentrations (i.e., “hotspots”) are often associated with heavy traffic congestion, which most frequently occur at signalized intersections of high‐volume roadways. Both project construction and long‐term operation of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project would result in minor amounts of additional traffic to the surrounding intersections that could potentially increase CO emission levels; however, this increase would not be significant and the project site is not located near a high‐volume intersection. Therefore, it was determined that impacts associated with localized CO concentrations from mobile sources would be less than significant for all phases of the project. As such, CO impacts are not evaluated further in this Draft Program EIR. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Short-term Construction-Generated Emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. Short-term 4.3-1 construction-generated emissions would exceed SMAQMD’s significance threshold for NOX and SMAMQD-recommended construction emissions control practices are not included in the project description. Implementation of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements could contribute to pollutant concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. Therefore, this is a significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Construction emissions are described as “short‐term” or temporary in duration and may represent a significant impact on air quality, especially in the case of PM10. Construction‐related activities would result in project‐ generated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 (a subset of PM10) from site preparation (e.g., excavation, clearing), off‐road equipment, material delivery, and worker commute exhaust emissions, vehicle travel, and other miscellaneous activities (e.g., building construction, asphalt paving, application of architectural coatings). Fugitive dust emissions are associated primarily with site preparation and vary as a function of soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on‐ and off‐site, and other factors. Ozone precursor emissions of ROG and NOX are associated primarily with construction equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings.

Under the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, up to 45 acres could be disturbed during construction. Structures associated with the proposed treatment plant could occupy up to 5 acres. Project‐specific details related to

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-15 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

construction phasing and site design are not fully known at this time. For the purposes of this analysis, construction of the Facilities Master Plan was assumed to take place over 17 years (2013–2030), with completion of build out in 2030. It was conservatively assumed that the Immediate Improvements would occur during years 2013‐2015 and that build out of the Facilities Master Plan (Phase 3) would be completed in years 2028‐2030.

Large scale grading is not anticipated with construction of the Facilities Master Plan because the project site is flat. Construction equipment would include excavators, hydraulic cranes, front‐end loaders, backhoes, forklifts, haul trucks, concrete transit mix trucks, water trucks, job pickup trucks, temporary generators for construction power, and self‐loading scrapers. Construction traffic would travel on paved roads, and in unpaved staging areas. Demolition would be limited to minor structures, a 6,000 square foot concrete basin, and equipment pad.

Please see Appendix C for model input and output parameters, detailed assumptions, and daily construction emissions estimates. Construction emissions for the entire WWTP Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements are summarized in Table 4.3‐6, below.

Based on the modeling (Appendix C), construction of the proposed Facilities Master Plan would result in maximum unmitigated daily emissions of approximately 29 lb/day of ROG, 125 lb/day of NOX, 40 lb/day of PM10 and 12 lb/day of PM2.5. As discussed above, SMAQMD has not established a threshold of significance for construction‐generated ROG emissions because those attributable to construction equipment exhaust are low and those from the application of architectural coatings are regulated by Rule 442.

As shown below in Table 4.3‐6, maximum daily emissions of NOX would exceed the 85 lb/day SMAQMD threshold of significance during construction of the Immediate Improvements. Emission estimates associated with construction activities during future years (2028‐2030), would not exceed SMAQMD thresholds of significance.

Although future construction activities are anticipated to disturb more land and construct more buildings and treatment structures than under the Immediate Improvements, emission factors for construction equipment in 2030 are projected to be considerably lower than current emission factors. For this reason, and as shown by the modeling, construction‐related emissions in the future would not exceed applicable thresholds of significance. However, as discussed further below, the Immediate Improvements that would occur in the nearer‐term would result in higher emissions on a daily basis that would exceed SMAQMD’s NOX threshold of significance. Because emissions due to the Immediate Improvements would exceed applicable thresholds of significance, and the Immediate Improvements are included as a part of the Facilities Master Plan, the project could contribute substantially to a violation of air quality standards for ozone.

In addition, regardless of whether a project exceeds the NOX threshold of significance, SMAQMD requires each project to implement Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices. Because Basic Construction Emissions control measures are not included as part of the project description, the project could contribute substantially to an air quality violation for PM10 or PM2.5. This would be considered a significant impact.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The Immediate Improvements would take place over two years, during 2013‐2015. The Immediate Improvements would include approximately 4,500 square feet of new buildings and would include demolition of approximately 6,000 square feet of existing structure. Where specific construction activities for the Immediate Improvements were not available, the first phase of construction activities (e.g., total land disturbed, new paved surfaces) were assumed to be a fraction of the entire proposed construction activities, based on the incremental increase of capacity at the WWTP. In other words, the average dry weather flow at the WWTP is currently 2.3 million gallons per day (mgd). However, after the Immediate Improvements, the WWTP would be capable of

City of Galt 4.3-16 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

operating at 3.0 mgd (the permitted capacity of the WWTP). Complete buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would increase the capacity of the WWTP to 6.0 mgd. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, the operating capacity from existing dry weather flow conditions to 3.0mg due to the Immediate Improvements would represent a 19% increase in flow. This incremental increase was applied to the total construction activity for the Facilities Master Plan to represent construction activity over the duration of the entire construction activities, through final improvements.

Please see Appendix C for model input and output parameters, detailed assumptions, and daily construction emissions estimates. Construction emissions for the Immediate Improvements are summarized in Table 4.3‐6, below.

Table 4.3-6 Summary of Modeled Short-Term Construction-Generated Emissions for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan

Source ROG (lb/day) NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Immediate Improvements (2013-2015) Demolition 6 47 38 3 Site Preparation 2 16 2 1 Building Construction 8 58 5 3 Paving 8 50 5 3 Architectural Coatings 2 3 1 <1 Maximum lb/day 18 125 40 7 Facilities Master Plan (2028-2030) Site Preparation 2 7 2 <1 Building Construction 7 30 4 1 Paving 7 29 3 1 Architectural Coatings 29 1 1 <1 Maximum lb/day 29 66 9 3 Maximum lb/day for all phases, unmitigated 29 125 40 12 SMAQMD significance thresholds ‐85 AAQS AAQS Notes: lb/day = pounds per day; NOX =oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. See Appendix C for modeling results. Source: Data Modeled by Ascent in 2012.

As described above under “Methods and Assumptions,” emission estimates for construction of the Immediate Improvements would result in emissions of NOX that exceed the SMAQMD recommended maximum daily threshold of 85 lb/day. The project does not include Basic Construction Emissions Control Practices that are required by SMAQMD. Thus, project construction could result in a substantial contribution to a violation of air quality standards for PM10 and PM2.5. Therefore, construction‐related impacts for the Immediate Improvements would be significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 Reduce Construction-Related Exhaust and Dust Emissions

The project proponent shall comply with the following measures during all phases of construction to reduce emissions of NOX, fugitive PM and PM exhaust:

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-17 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Fugitive Dust (PM) Control Measures

 Apply water or a stabilizing agent to exposed surfaces in sufficient quantity and at adequate frequency to prevent generation of fugitive dust, but do not overwater to the extent that sediment flows off the site.

 Moisten or cover excavated soil piles to avoid fugitive dust emissions.

 Discontinue construction activities that generate substantial dust blowing on unpaved surfaces during windy conditions (i.e., when wind speeds exceed 20 mph).

 Plant vegetative cover in disturbed areas as soon as possible. Water appropriately until vegetation is established.

 Install and use a wheel-washing system to remove bulk material from tires and vehicle undercarriages before vehicles exit the proposed project site.

 Remove any visible track out mud or dirt on public roads adjacent to the project site.

 Cover or maintain at least two feet of freeboard space on dump trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose materials. Any haul trucks that would be traveling on freeways or major roadways should be covered with tarps or other enclosures.

 Limit vehicle speeds on unpaved roads to 15 miles per hour (mph).

 Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The phone number of the SMAQMD shall also be visible to ensure compliance.

Exhaust (PM and NOX) Control Measures

 Ensure that all construction and grading equipment is properly maintained.

 Ensure that all vehicles and compressors utilize exhaust mufflers and engine enclosure covers (as designed by the manufacturer) at all times.

 When feasible, use electric construction power for construction operations, in lieu of diesel-powered generators to provide adequate power for man/material hoisting, crane, and general construction operations.

 Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes. Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the site entrances.

 Suspend heavy-equipment operations during Spare the Air alerts when air pollution reaches levels considered unhealthy for sensitive groups or unhealthy.

 The City of Galt’s project representative shall submit to the lead agency and SMAQMD a comprehensive inventory of all off-road construction equipment, equal to or greater than 50 horsepower, that will be used an aggregate of 40 or more hours during any portion of the construction project. The inventory shall include the horsepower rating, engine production year, and projected hours of use for each piece of equipment. The inventory shall be updated and submitted monthly throughout the duration of the project, except that an inventory shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. At least 48 hours prior to the use of subject heavy-duty off-road equipment, the project representative shall provide SMAQMD with the anticipated

City of Galt 4.3-18 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

construction timeline including start date, and name and phone number of the project manager and on-site foreman.

 The City of Galt shall provide a plan for approval by SMAQMD demonstrating that the heavy-duty (50 horsepower [hp] or more) off-road vehicles to be used in the construction project, including owned, leased, and subcontractor vehicles, will achieve a project wide fleet-average 20% NOX reduction and 45% particulate reduction compared to the most recent California Air Resources Board (ARB) fleet average. Acceptable options for reducing emissions may include use of late model engines, low- emission diesel products, alternative fuels, engine retrofit technology, after-treatment products, and/or other options as they become available. SMAQMD’s Construction Mitigation Calculator can be used to identify an equipment fleet that achieves this reduction.

 The City of Galt shall ensure that emissions from all off-road diesel powered equipment used on the project site do not exceed 40 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one hour. Any equipment found to exceed 40 percent opacity (or Ringelmann 2.0) shall be repaired immediately, and the lead agency and SMAQMD shall be notified within 48 hours of identification of non-compliant equipment. A visual survey of all in-operation equipment shall be made at least weekly, and a monthly summary of the visual survey results shall be submitted throughout the duration of the project, except that the monthly summary shall not be required for any 30-day period in which no construction activity occurs. The monthly summary shall include the quantity and type of vehicles surveyed as well as the dates of each survey. The SMAQMD and/or other officials may conduct periodic site inspections to determine compliance. Nothing in this section shall supersede other SMAQMD or state rules or regulations.

 If at the time of construction, SMAQMD has adopted a regulation applicable to construction emissions, compliance with the regulation may completely or partially replace this mitigation. Consultation with SMAQMD prior to construction will be necessary to make this determination.

 If deemed necessary, the City of Galt shall pay SMAQMD an off-site mitigation fee for implementation of individual construction phases during implementation of the Facilities Master Plan for the purpose of reducing NOX emissions impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on the estimated construction emissions calculations shown in Appendix C, the fee associated with construction of the Immediate Improvements, including a 5% administrative fee, would be $71,019. The fee calculation to offset daily NOX emissions is based on the cost to reduce 1 ton of NOX at the time when the document is prepared (currently $17,080 per ton), and an assumed 264 construction work days/year for a period of two years. An initial payment based on 50% of the estimated fee shall be remitted to SMAQMD prior to groundbreaking. The final mitigation fee shall be based on contractor equipment inventories provided by the project proponent(s) to SMAQMD and will reconcile any fee discrepancies due to schedule adjustments, and increased or decreased equipment inventories. Equipment inventories and NOX emissions estimates for subsequent construction phases shall be coordinated with SMAQMD, and the offsite mitigation fee measure shall apply to any phase that would result in an exceedance of SMAQMD’s NOX threshold.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3‐1 would reduce fugitive dust and exhaust emissions associated with the WWTP Facilities Master Plan construction activities. Estimated emissions of fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5) were considerably low (i.e., 12 lb/day) and would be further reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3‐1. Additionally, if deemed necessary, the project proponent would pay an offsite mitigation fee to reduce emissions of NOX to below SMAQMD’s threshold of 85 lb/day. With implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.3‐1 emissions associated with construction of all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would not exceed applicable SMAQMD recommended maximum daily thresholds and Impact 4.3‐1 would be less than significant.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-19 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Impact Long-term Operational-Generated Emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5. Implementation of 4.3-2 the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project would not result in long- term operational emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, or PM2.5 that exceed SMAQMD’s thresholds of significance (65 lb/day for ROG and NOX) or substantially contribute to concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. This would be a less than significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

No area‐source emissions (e.g., natural gas fuel combustion, hearth fuel combustion, landscape fuel combustion, consumer products, and architectural coatings), are associated with the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan. Stationary‐source (e.g., diesel generators, pumps) and mobile‐source emissions are described separately below. Stationary Sources The Galt WWTP currently operates diesel‐fueled internal combustion engines that power standby emergency‐ electric generators on‐site, and may install additional diesel‐fueled emergency backup generator(s) on‐site as a result of the proposed project. Any such stationary equipment would be required to obtain the appropriate permits to operate from SMAQMD. According to SMAQMD, stationary sources of air pollutant emissions that comply with applicable regulations pertaining to BACT and offset requirements are not considered to have significant air quality impacts. In addition, stationary sources with emissions low enough to be exempt from SMAQMD’s permitting program (e.g., equipment below 50 horsepower), including the BACT and offset requirements, would not be considered to have a significant air quality impact (SMAQMD 2009:4‐13). Such sources of emissions from a diesel‐fueled backup generator would appear relatively minor in combination with the mobile‐source emissions displayed in Table 4.3‐7, because it would be used infrequently during emergency situations and for periodic testing. As a result, the impact attributable to the operation of stationary sources is considered less than significant for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan. Mobile Sources

Project‐generated mobile‐source emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 were modeled using CalEEMod. Modeling was based on project specific details as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description.”

The WWTP Facilities Master Plan is expected to reach complete buildout capacity (6.0 mgd) by the year 2030. Mobile‐source emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors would result from employee commute trips and waste hauling. The WWTP Facilities Master Plan would employ up to an additional 5 employees, resulting in approximately 10 employee commute trips per day. Additionally, an estimated 300 annual round‐ trip truck loads (0.8 daily trips) would be required to haul away biosolid waste from the WWTP.

Table 4.3‐7 summarizes the modeled project‐generated, operation‐related emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors under project buildout conditions in 2030. As shown in Table 4.3‐7, operation‐related activities during 2030 would result in annual unmitigated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 that are substantially below the SMAQMD recommended thresholds of significance.

Daily unmitigated long‐term mobile‐source emissions would not exceed SMAQMD’s significance threshold of 65 lb/day for ROG or NOX and would not be expected to contribute to concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. This impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt 4.3-20 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

Table 4.3-7 Summary of Modeled Long-Term Operational-Related Emissions for the Proposed Project

Source ROG (lb/day) NOX (lb/day) PM10 (lb/day) PM2.5 (lb/day) Immediate Improvements (2015) Mobile (employee trips + waste hauling) <1 <1 <1 <1 Facilities Master Plan (2030) Mobile (employee trips + waste hauling) <1 <1 <1 <1 SMAQMD significance thresholds 65 65 AAQS AAQS Notes: lb/day = pounds per day; NOX =oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; ROG = reactive organic gases; SMAQMD = Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. See Appendix C for modeling results. Source: Data Modeled by Ascent in 2012

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Stationary Sources The Immediate Improvements are fully encompassed within the overall Facilities Master Plan. Therefore, this impact is the same as discussed above for the Facilities Master Plan. The impact attributable to the operation of stationary sources for the Immediate Improvements is considered less than significant. Mobile Sources Improvements included under the Immediate Improvements would result in mobile‐source emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10, and PM2.5 associated with employee commute trips and waste hauling of biosolids. Immediate Improvements are expected to be completed in mid‐2015 and could result in additional employees. For modeling purposes, it was conservatively assumed that 5 new employees (10 employee commute trips per day) could be added. Additionally, 150 annual round‐trip truck loads (0.4 daily trips) would be required to haul away biosolid waste from the WWTP.

Mobile‐source emissions of criteria air pollutants and ozone precursors after completion of the Immediate Improvements would be similar to emissions under the complete WWTP Facilities Master Plan operation. As the capacity of the WWTP is increased to the final operational capacity of 6.0 mgd, more employees, but up to 5, and additional solid waste truck hauling would be required. Therefore, the operational emissions quantified above for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan includes project‐generated operational mobile‐source emissions for the entire Facilities Master Plan beginning in 2015, when the Immediate Improvements are complete, through final buildout in 2030.

Nonetheless, the operational mobile‐source emissions were modeled for the Immediate Improvements alone and are shown in Table 4.3‐7. As shown in Table 4.3‐7, and similar to operational emissions of the Facilities Master Plan, operation‐related activities during 2015 would result in project‐generated annual unmitigated emissions of ROG, NOX, PM10 and PM2.5 that are substantially below the SMAQMD recommended thresholds of significance.

Daily unmitigated long‐term mobile‐source emissions would not exceed SMAQMD’s significance threshold of 65 lb/day for ROG or NOX and would not be expected to contribute to concentrations that exceed the NAAQS or CAAQS. This impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-21 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

Impact Consistency with Air Quality Plans and General Conformity. Implementation of the proposed 4.3-3 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of any applicable air quality-related plans. Construction and operational emissions would be below established thresholds and would, therefore, meet federal air quality conformity requirements. This would be a less than significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN AND IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described in the setting, the project area is a federal nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Because the proposed project is a recipient of federal grant funding from the EPA, the project must not interfere with attainment of the NAAQS. The general conformity rule includes de minimis thresholds below which a project would not be expected to interfere with or delay attainment of the NAAQS. De minimis thresholds are on a sliding scale that becomes more stringent according to the severity of the nonattainment condition. The de minimis thresholds applicable to the Sacramento area are presented above in Table 4.3‐3. Project construction and operational emissions were estimated above in Impacts 4.3‐1 and 4.3‐2 with respect to worst‐case daily emissions. Furthermore, the maximum annual project‐related emissions for construction (based on the worst‐ case construction phase for the Immediate Improvements in 2015) and operation (at buildout of the Facilities Master Plan in 2030) are summarized in Table 4.3‐8 below.

The proposed project would not result in emissions during either construction or operation that would exceed the de minimis thresholds applicable to the Sacramento Federal Nonattainment Area for ozone precursors, PM10, or PM2.5. Therefore, the project would not conflict with or delay attainment of NAAQS, and would not conflict with air quality planning efforts. This impact is less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

Table 4.3-8 Maximum Project-Generated Annual Emissions

Project Phase ROG (tpy) NOX (tpy) PM10 (tpy) PM2.5 (tpy) Construction (2015) 1 5 1 <1 Operation (2030) <1 <1 <1 <1 De Minimis Threshold 25 25 100 100 Exceed De Minimis Threshold? No No No No

Notes: NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM2.5 = fine particulate matter; PM10 = respirable particulate matter; ROG = reactive organic gases; tpy = tons per year. Sources: EPA 2012a, 2012b

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Toxic Air Contaminants (TACs). Short-term construction 4.3-4 activities would be located approximately 2,000 feet from existing sensitive receptors located south of the project site. Short-term construction and long-term operation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive TAC emissions that exceed SMAQMD’s significance threshold. Exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs would be considered a less-than-significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt 4.3-22 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The exposure of sensitive receptors (e.g., existing and future off‐site residents) to TAC emissions from construction, and operational sources are discussed separately below. Short-Term Construction Construction‐related activities would result in temporary, short‐term project‐generated emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off‐road, heavy‐duty diesel equipment for site preparation (e.g., demolition, and clearing); paving; application of architectural coatings; and other miscellaneous activities.

Particulate‐exhaust emissions from diesel‐fueled engines (diesel PM) were identified as a TAC by ARB in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM, as discussed below, outweighs the potential for all other health impacts (ARB 2003). At this time, SMAQMD has not established a quantitative threshold of significance for construction‐related TAC emissions, but recommends that lead agencies address this issue on a case‐by‐case basis taking into consideration the specific construction‐related characteristics of each project and its proximity to off‐site receptors (SMAQMD 2009:5‐4).

Based on the CalEEMod modeling performed for the analysis of mass emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors under Impact 4.3‐1, off‐road, diesel‐powered equipment operated during project construction would generate a maximum of 7 pounds of diesel PM exhaust emissions at the project site during the more intensive phases of construction. Refer to Appendix C for detailed assumptions and calculations.

Construction activities associated with the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would be located approximately 750 feet to the north of the nearest sensitive receptors (i.e., residences located south of Twin Cities Road).

The dose to which receptors are exposed is the primary factor used to determine health risk (i.e., potential exposure to TAC emission levels that exceed applicable standards). Dose is a function of the concentration of a substance or substances in the environment and the duration of exposure to the substance. Dose is positively correlated with time, meaning that a longer exposure period would result in a higher exposure level for the maximally exposed individual. Thus, the risks estimated for a maximally exposed individual are higher if a fixed exposure occurs over a longer period of time. According to the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, health risk assessments, which determine the exposure of sensitive receptors to TAC emissions, should be based on a 70‐year exposure period; however, such assessments should be limited to the period/duration of activities associated with the project (OEHHA 2001). Because the use of off‐road heavy‐duty diesel equipment would occur temporarily and intermittently over a 17 year period, existing sensitive receptors are separated by approximately 2,000 feet from proposed construction activities, taken with the highly‐ dispersive properties of diesel PM, construction‐related emissions of TACs would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial emissions of TACs. As a result, this would be a less‐than‐significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan. In addition, Mitigation Measure 4.3‐1 includes measures to minimize diesel exhaust, such as minimizing idling time to 5 minutes, requiring an equipment fleet with lower diesel PM emissions than the statewide average, and using alternative sources of power (e.g., electricity or alternative fuels) where feasible. Long-Term Operation The Galt WWTP currently operates diesel‐fueled internal combustion engines that power standby emergency‐ electric generators on‐site, and may install additional diesel‐fueled emergency backup generator(s) on‐site as a result of the proposed project. Any such stationary equipment would be required to obtain the appropriate permits to operate and authority to construct from SMAQMD. According to SMAQMD, stationary sources of air pollutant emissions that comply with applicable regulations pertaining to Toxics Best Available Control Technology (T‐BACT), NESHAP, and ATCM are not considered to have significant air quality impacts. In other words, equipment that would exceed SMAQMD’s TAC thresholds would not receive a permit from SMAQMD

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-23 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

(SMAQMD 2009:5‐7). Any such equipment that does receive a permit, such as additional diesel fueled generators, would comply with T‐BACT, NESHAP, and ATCM requirements and would be within acceptable limits for TAC emissions. As a result, the impact attributable to the operation of stationary sources is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Short-Term Construction Construction of the Immediate Improvements would result in short‐term diesel exhaust emissions from on‐site heavy duty equipment. As described above, construction activities would be separated by approximately 2,000 feet from the nearest existing sensitive receptors. For the reasons identified above under the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, sensitive receptors would not be exposed to substantial concentrations of TACs during construction. This would be the same as discussed under the Facilities Master Plan, and would be a less‐than‐ significant impact. Long-Term Operation SMAQMD will only permit stationary sources of air pollutant emissions that comply with applicable regulations pertaining to Toxics Best Available Control Technology (T‐BACT), NESHAP, and ATCM, which are not considered to have significant air quality impacts. This impact would be the same as described under the Facilities Master Plan, and would be less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Exposure of Sensitive Receptors to Odors. Wastewater Treatment Plants can be considered a 4.3-5 potential source of odor-generating emissions by the SMAQMD. Buildout of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would result in additional sources of odors from expanded wastewater treatment lagoons in close proximity to existing sensitive receptors (i.e., residences located 2,000 feet to the south of the project site). However, the project proposes the same type of state-of-the-art tertiary treatment process that is currently used at the existing plant. There has been no history of odor complaints or violations of SMAQMD’s Nuisance Rule associated with the existing WWTP. The area surrounding the WWTP on the north, south and west is zoned for agriculture in the County’s General Plan. The property to the east is designated for future industrial use in the City’s General Plan. Thus, these land uses would not be odor-sensitive, and would be compatible with long-term operation of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan. It is not likely that a substantial number of people would be exposed to offensive odors associated with the proposed project. This would be a less-than-significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including: the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the sensitivity of the receptors. While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. Projects with the potential to frequently expose a substantial number of members of the public to objectionable odors would be deemed to have a significant impact.

The proposed project includes expanding the capacity of the existing WWTP in the City of Galt. The SMAQMD considers wastewater treatment plants a common land use type that has high odor‐generation potential. Type City of Galt 4.3-24 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Air Quality

of odor source, distance from the source to the nearest sensitive receptor, meteorology of the project location, and odor complaint history in the project vicinity are all parameters that affect the magnitude of an odor impact and thus, are considered in this analysis.

The SMAQMD has established screening‐level distances for projects that have the potential to result in odorous emissions at nearby sensitive receptors. SMAQMD has established a 2 mile screening‐level distance for wastewater treatment plants. SMAQMD also recommends gathering data about odor complaint history associated with the source. No odor complaints have been reported in association with the WWTP (Mark Clarkson, personal communication, 2012; Jester, personal communication, 2012). The WWTP Facilities Master Plan would result in additional treatment capacity and open‐air treatment processes in proximity to existing sensitive receptors (i.e., 2,000 feet to the south of the project site). Because the nature of the odor‐generating source would not change, it is not expected that the expansion of treatment capacity would result in significant increased intensity and frequency of odors at the WWTP. If odors are detected outside of the project site and complaints are received by the City or SMAQMD, SMAQMD would enforce its Nuisance Rule (Rule 402), which prohibits odorous emissions that cause annoyance or detriment to public health.

Further, the land surrounding the project site is zoned agriculture with a minimum lot size of 80 acres (AG80) in the Sacramento County General Plan (Sacramento County 2011). The area to the east of the project site is within the Galt Sphere of Influence and designated for future industrial land use (City of Galt 2009). Therefore, it is possible that new development could be approved within surrounding lands of the project site. However, consistent with Sacramento County zoning, potential future residences would be related to agricultural production/uses and would be surrounded by existing agricultural operations that likely result in intermittent odor. Thus, future residences would not be exposed to new or offensive odors that are not already present in the project vicinity. For these reasons, it is not anticipated that a substantial number of people would be exposed to offensive odors as a result of the proposed Facilities Master Plan. This would be a less‐than‐ significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The Immediate Improvements would include improvements to the existing WWTP which are similar to the impact under “WWTP Facilities Master Plan.” For the same reasons, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Immediate Improvements would result in exposure of a substantial number of people to offensive odors. This would be a less‐than‐significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.3-25 Air Quality Ascent Environmental

This page intentionally blank.

City of Galt 4.3-26 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

4.4 GREENHOUSE GASES AND CLIMATE CHANGE

On December 30, 2009, the Natural Resources Agency adopted Amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines for greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, pursuant to SB 97 (Statutes of 2007). These amendments, which became effective on March 18, 2010, specifically require that an EIR include an analysis of the proposed project’s GHG impacts.

Emissions of GHGs have the potential to adversely affect the environment because such emissions contribute, on a cumulative basis, to global climate change. The proper context for addressing this issue in an EIR is as a discussion of cumulative impacts, because although the emissions of one single project will not cause global climate change, GHG emissions from multiple projects throughout the world could result in a cumulative impact with respect to global climate change. In turn, global climate change has the potential to result in rising sea levels, which can inundate low‐lying areas; to affect rainfall and snowfall, leading to changes in water supply; to affect habitat, leading to adverse effects on biological resources; and to result in other effects.

Therefore, the cumulative global climate change analysis presented in this section of the Draft Program EIR estimates and analyzes the GHG emissions associated with project‐related construction activities and operation of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan. The potential effects of global climate change on the project are also identified based on available scientific data.

Cumulative impacts are the collective impacts of one or more past, present, and future projects that, when combined, result in adverse changes to the environment. In determining the significance of a proposed project’s contribution to anticipated adverse future conditions, a lead agency should generally undertake a two‐step analysis. The first question is whether the combined effects from both the proposed project and other projects would be cumulatively significant. If the agency answers this inquiry in the affirmative, the second question is whether “the proposed project’s incremental effects are cumulatively considerable” and thus significant in and of themselves. The cumulative project list for this issue (climate change) comprises anthropogenic (i.e., human‐ made) GHG emissions sources across the globe, and no project alone would reasonably be expected to contribute to a noticeable incremental change to the global climate. However, legislation and executive orders on the subject of climate change in California have established a statewide context for and a process for developing an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions. Given the nature of environmental consequences from GHGs and global climate change, CEQA requires that lead agencies consider evaluating the cumulative impacts of GHGs, even relatively small (on a global basis) additions. Small contributions to this cumulative impact (from which significant effects are occurring and are expected to worsen over time) may be potentially considerable and therefore significant.

The analysis is presented here, rather than the cumulative impacts section of this Draft Program EIR (Chapter 5), because this issue is presented in greater project‐level detail. This discussion presents a summary of applicable regulations, the current state of climate change science and GHG emissions sources in California, and a description of project‐generated GHG emissions and their contribution to global climate change. 4.4.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FEDERAL

SUPREME COURT RULING

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the federal agency responsible for implementing the federal Clean Air Act (CAA). The Supreme Court of the United States ruled on April 2, 2007, that carbon dioxide (CO2) is

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-1 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

an air pollutant as defined under the CAA, and that EPA has the authority to regulate emissions of GHGs. The ruling in this case resulted in EPA taking steps to regulate GHG emissions and lent support for state and local agencies’ efforts to reduce GHG emissions.

EPA ACTIONS

In response to the mounting issue of climate change, EPA has taken actions to regulate, monitor, and potentially reduce GHG emissions. Greenhouse Gas Permitting Requirements New major stationary emissions sources and major modifications at existing stationary sources are required by the CAA to obtain an air pollution permit before commencing construction. On May 13, 2010, EPA issued the Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Title V Greenhouse Gas Tailor Rule (EPA 2011). This final rule sets thresholds for GHG emissions that define when permits under the New Source Review Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Title V Operating Permit programs are required for new and existing industrial facilities.

PSD and Title V permitting requirements now cover new construction projects that emit GHG emissions of at least 100,000 tons carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) (90,718 metric tons [MT]) per year even if they do not exceed the permitting thresholds for any other pollutant. Modifications at existing facilities that increase GHG emissions by at least 75,000 tons (68,039 MT) per year will be subject to permitting requirements, even if they do not significantly increase emissions of any other pollutant.

As part of the PSD and Title V rules, EPA undertook another rulemaking on June 29, 2012. This action issued a final rule that continues to focus permitting on the largest emitters. The EPA did not revise the GHG permitting thresholds that were established by the GHG Tailoring Rule. Therefore, at this time, PSD and Title V permitting requirements are not applicable to smaller sources of GHG emissions such as the proposed project (EPA 2012). Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reporting Rule On September 22, 2009, EPA issued a final rule for mandatory reporting of GHGs from large GHG emissions sources in the United States. In general, this national reporting requirement will provide EPA with accurate and timely GHG emissions data from facilities that emit 25,000 MT or more of CO2 per year. This publicly available data will allow the reporters to track their own emissions, compare them to similar facilities, and aid in identifying cost‐effective opportunities to reduce emissions in the future. Reporting is at the facility level, except that certain suppliers of fossil fuels and industrial GHGs along with vehicle and engine manufacturers will report at the corporate level. An estimated 85% of the total U.S. GHG emissions, from approximately 10,000 facilities, are covered by this final rule. National Program to Cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Improve Fuel Economy for Cars and Trucks On August 28, 2012 EPA and the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) issued joint Final Rules for Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards for vehicle Model Years 2017 and beyond (NHTSA 2012). These first‐ever national GHG emissions standards will increase fuel economy to the equivalent of 54.5 mpg for cars and light‐duty trucks by Model Year 2025. EPA approved these standards under the CAA, and NHTSA approved them under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act. STATE

EXECUTIVE ORDER S-3-05

Executive Order S‐3‐05, which was signed by Governor Schwarzenegger in 2005, proclaims that California is vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. It declares that increased temperatures could reduce the Sierra City of Galt 4.4-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Nevada snowpack, further exacerbate California’s air quality problems, and potentially cause a rise in sea level. To combat those concerns, the Executive Order established total GHG emission reduction targets. Specifically, emissions are to be reduced to the 2000 level by 2010, the 1990 level by 2020, and to 80% below the 1990 level by 2050.

ASSEMBLY BILL 32, THE CALIFORNIA GLOBAL WARMING SOLUTIONS ACT OF 2006

In September 2006, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Assembly Bill (AB) 32, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 establishes regulatory, reporting, and market mechanisms to achieve quantifiable reductions in GHG emissions and a cap on statewide GHG emissions. AB 32 requires that statewide GHG emissions be reduced to 1990 levels by 2020. This reduction will be accomplished through an enforceable statewide cap on GHG emissions that will be phased in starting in 2012. To effectively implement the cap, AB 32 directs the California Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce statewide GHG emissions from stationary sources.

ASSEMBLY BILL 32 CLIMATE CHANGE SCOPING PLAN

In December 2008, ARB adopted its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contains the main strategies California will implement to achieve reduction of approximately 118 million metric tons (MMT) CO2e, or approximately 22% from the state’s projected 2020 emission level of 545 MMT of CO2e under a business‐as‐usual scenario (this is a reduction of 47 MMT CO2e, or almost 10 percent, from 2008 emissions). ARB’s original 2020 projection was 596 MMT CO2e, but this revised 2020 projection takes into account the economic downturn that occurred in 2008 (ARB 2011). The Scoping Plan reapproved by ARB in August 2011 includes the Final Supplement to the Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document (FED), which further examined various alternatives to Scoping Plan measures. The Scoping Plan also includes ARB‐recommended GHG reductions for each emissions sector of the state’s GHG inventory. ARB estimates the largest reductions in GHG emissions to be achieved by implementing the following measures and standards (ARB 2011):

 improved emissions standards for light‐duty vehicles (26.1 MMT CO2e),

 the Low‐Carbon Fuel Standard (LCFS) (15.0 MMT CO2e),

 energy efficiency measures in buildings and appliances (11.9 MMT CO2e), and

 a renewable portfolio and electricity standards for electricity production (23.4 MMT CO2e).

In 2011, ARB adopted the cap‐and‐trade regulation. The cap‐and‐trade program covers major sources of GHG emissions in the state such as refineries, power plants, industrial facilities, and transportation fuels. The cap‐and‐ trade program includes an enforceable emissions cap that will decline over time. The state will distribute allowances, which are tradable permits, equal to the emissions allowed under the cap. Sources under the cap will need to surrender allowances and offsets equal to their emissions at the end of each compliance period (ARB 2012).

With regard to land use planning, the Scoping Plan expects that reductions of approximately 3.0 MMT CO2e will be achieved through implementation of Senate Bill (SB) 375, which is discussed further below (ARB 2011).

SENATE BILL 97

As directed by Senate Bill (SB) 97, the California Natural Resources Agency (CNRA) adopted Amendments to the CEQA Guidelines for GHG emissions on December 30, 2009. On February 16, 2010, the Office of Administrative Law approved the Amendments, and filed them with the Secretary of State for inclusion in the California Code of Regulations. The Amendments became effective on March 18, 2010. This EIR complies with these new

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-3 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

guidelines, which includes new Appendix G checklist questions referenced in the impact analysis later in this chapter.

SENATE BILL 375

SB 375, signed in September 2008, aligns regional transportation planning efforts, regional GHG emission reduction targets, and land use and housing allocation. SB 375 requires Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) to adopt a Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or Alternative Planning Strategy (APS), which will prescribe land use allocation in that MPO’s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). ARB, in consultation with MPOs, will provide each affected region with reduction targets for GHGs emitted by passenger cars and light trucks in the region for the years 2020 and 2035. These reduction targets will be updated every 8 years, but can be updated every 4 years if advancements in emissions technologies affect the reduction strategies to achieve the targets. ARB is also charged with reviewing each MPO’s SCS or APS for consistency with its assigned targets. If MPOs do not meet the GHG emission reduction targets, transportation projects would not be eligible for funding programmed after January 1, 2012.

SENATE BILL X7-7

SB x7‐7, enacted in November 2009, requires all water suppliers in California to increase water use efficiency. Specifically, the legislation sets an overall goal for the State of California to reduce per capita urban water use by 20% by December 31, 2020. An interim goal of a 10% per capita reduction was set for December 31, 2015.

The legislation set forth different requirements for urban water suppliers and agriculture water suppliers. All urban retail water suppliers were required to develop water use targets and an interim water use target by July 1, 2011. Urban retail water suppliers were also required to prepare a water management plan by July 2011, containing baseline per capita water use, water use targets, interim water use targets, and compliance with daily per capita water use. Agriculture water suppliers were required to adopt agriculture water management plans by December 31, 2010 and update those plans by December 31, 2015 and every 5 years thereafter (DWR 2010). LOCAL

Sacramento County General Plan The Sacramento County general plan includes the following goals related to reducing GHG emissions in Sacramento County (Sacramento County 2009):

 CO‐22. Support water management practices that are responsive to the impacts of Global Climate Change such as groundwater banking and other water storage projects.  LU‐115. It is the goal of the County to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2020. This shall be achieved through a mix of state and local action. Sacramento County Climate Action Plan The Sacramento County Climate Action Plan was adopted on November 9, 2011 by the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors. The plan includes a GHG inventory for the entire county of Sacramento, as well as for the City of Galt, GHG emissions target, and goals and implementation measures developed to help the county and associated cities reach these targets. The plan includes goals for reducing GHG emissions associated with wastewater treatment. These goals state that Sacramento County should:

 comply with state requirements as well as commitments in the Water Forum Agreement for water conservation and reduction in potable water demand. Achieve 20%reduction in statewide average per capita water use by2020, in compliance with the state’s water conservation requirements (SBx7‐7). Balance

City of Galt 4.4-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

this with the Water Forum Agreement, which requires over 25% reduction in water demands from 1990 levels by 2030.Emphasize water use efficiency as a way to reduce energy consumption;  increase energy efficiency related to water system management; and  strive to reduce uncertainties in water reliability and quality by increasing the flexibility of the water allocation and distribution system to respond to drought conditions and encouraging redundancy in water storage, supply, and treatment systems (consistent with Water Forum Agreement). City of Galt General Plan The City of Galt General Plan includes the following goals and policies related to reducing GHG emissions and addressing global climate change in Galt(City of Galt 2009):

 GOAL COS‐7. To encourage energy conservation in new and existing developments in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and its effect on global warming.  Policy COS‐7.1: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction. The City shall reduce greenhouse gas emissions from City operations as well as from private development in compliance with the California Global Warming Act of 2006 and any applicable state regulations. To accomplish this, the City will coordinate with the SMAQMD and the California Air Resources Board in developing a Greenhouse Gas Emissions Reduction Plan (Plan) that identifies greenhouse gas emissions within the City as well as ways to reduce those emissions. The plan will parallel the requirements adopted by the California Air Resources Board specific to this issue. Specifically, the City will work with the SMAQMD to include the following key items in the Plan:  Inventory all known, or reasonably discoverable, sources (both public and private) of greenhouse gases in the City;  Inventory estimated 1990 greenhouse gas emissions based on available data, the current level, those projected for the 2020 milestone year (consistent with AB32), and that projected for the year 2030;  Set a target for the reduction of emissions attributable to the City’s discretionary land use decisions and its own internal government operations,and;  Identify specific actions that will be undertaken by the City to meet the emission reduction targets set by the City.  Policy COS‐7.2: Statewide Global Warming Solutions Support. The City should monitor and support the efforts of the California Air Resources Board, under AB 32, to formulate mitigation strategies, if any, that may be implemented by local government. If and when any such strategies become available, the City should consider whether to implement them in some form, such as, for example, by imposing new mitigation measures on new development. If the City Council, after seeking public input on the subject, chooses to implement any such measures it considers to be feasible and desirable, the City’s commitment may take the form of a new ordinance, resolution, or other type of policy document.  Policy COS‐7.4: Energy Efficient Development. In addition to the energy regulations of Title 24, the City shall encourage the energy efficiency of new development. Possible energy efficient design techniques include provisions for solar access, building siting to maximize natural heating and cooling, and landscaping to aid passive cooling and protection from winter winds.  Policy COS‐7.5: Building Design and Components. The City shall encourage the implementation of cost‐ effective and innovative emission‐reduction technologies in building components and design.  Policy COS‐7.6: Sustainable Design. The City shall promote the implementation of sustainable design strategies for “cool communities” such as reflective roofing, light colored pavement, and urban shade trees.  Policy COS‐7.9: City Facilities. The City shall incorporate, when feasible, energy‐conserving design and construction techniques in all city facilities.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-5 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

 Policy COS‐7.10: Renewable Energy Incentive Programs. The City shall encourage voluntary participation in incentive programs to increase the use of renewable energy.  Policy COS‐7.11: Solar Photovoltaic System Incentive Programs. The City shall promote voluntary participation in incentive programs to increase the use of solar photovoltaic systems in new and existing residential, commercial, institutional, and public buildings.

Additionally, the City of Galt has several policies in place that would enable resiliency in the face of climate change‐associated impacts for all City owned facilities and operations. These policies include:

 Policy COS‐1.1: Flood Control. The City shall require adequate natural floodway design to assure flood control in areas where stream channels have been modified and to foster stream enhancement, improved water quality, recreational opportunities, and groundwater recharge.  Policy COS‐4.2: Natural Floodway Protection. Where stream modifications are needed to prevent flooding, the City shall require a natural floodway incorporating as much of the existing vegetation as possible. When feasible, the City should require additional wetlands along drainage features, in retention basins, and parks, and that development and roads are setback from stream courses a sufficient distance to prevent damage to these areas. 4.4.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ATTRIBUTING CLIMATE CHANGE―THE PHYSICAL SCIENTIFIC BASIS

Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected back toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low‐frequency infrared radiation. The frequencies at which bodies emit radiation are proportional to temperature. The earth has a much lower temperature than the sun; therefore, the earth emits lower frequency radiation. Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth. Without the greenhouse effect, earth would not be able to support life as we know it.

Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Human‐caused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is extremely unlikely that global climate change of the past 50 years can be explained without the contribution from human activities (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [IPCC] 2007).

Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (about 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). GHGs persist in the atmosphere for long enough time periods to be dispersed around the globe. Although the exact lifetime of any particular GHG molecule is dependent on multiple variables and cannot be pinpointed, it is understood that more CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human‐caused CO2 emissions, approximately 54% is sequestered through ocean uptake, uptake by northern hemisphere forest regrowth, and other terrestrial sinks within a year, whereas the remaining 46% of human‐caused CO2 emissions remains stored in the atmosphere (Seinfeld and Pandis 1998).

City of Galt 4.4-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Similarly, impacts of GHGs are borne globally, as opposed to localized air quality effects of criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants. The quantity of GHGs that it takes to ultimately result in climate change is not precisely known; suffice it to say, the quantity is enormous, and no single project would measurably contribute to a noticeable incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or micro climates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative. ATTRIBUTING CLIMATE CHANGE―GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSION SOURCES

Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the transportation, industrial/manufacturing, utility, residential, commercial and agricultural emissions sectors (ARB 2010a). In California, the transportation sector is the largest emitter of GHGs, followed by electricity generation (ARB 2010a). Emissions of CO2 are byproducts of fossil fuel combustion. CH4, a highly potent GHG, results from off‐gassing (the release of chemicals from nonmetallic substances under ambient or greater pressure conditions). It is largely associated with agricultural practices such as raising of livestock and landfills. N2O is also largely attributable to agricultural practices and soil management. CO2 sinks, or reservoirs, include vegetation and the ocean, which absorb CO2 through sequestration and dissolution, respectively, two of the most common processes of CO2 sequestration.

GHG EMISSIONS INVENTORY

In 2009, the Sacramento County Department of Environmental Review and Assessment (DERA), in conjunction with all affected jurisdictions, completed a 2005 GHG emission inventory for the unincorporated areas of Sacramento County and the incorporated cities of Sacramento, Rancho Cordova, Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Isleton, and Galt. The GHG inventory is the first step in a county‐wide effort to reduce GHG emissions. These efforts to reduce emissions are consistent with state policy and current regulation from AB 32 directing the State of California to reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (Sacramento County 2009).

The majority of GHG emissions are produced through the burning of fossil fuels. The GHG Inventory includes GHG emissions from residential, commercial, industrial, transportation, and waste sectors. Emissions by sector are shown below in Table 4.4‐1 and Exhibit 4.4‐1. Wastewater treatment was estimated to contribute 2,227 MT CO2e/year in 2005, which composed 1.3% of the City’s total GHG emissions.

Table 4.4-1 City of Galt 2005 GHG Inventory by Economic Sector

Sector MT CO2e/yr Residential 35,373 Commercial 35,013 On‐Road Transportation 73,801 Off‐Road Vehicle Use 9,687 Waste 5,306 Wastewater Treatment 2,227 Agriculture 239 Water‐Related 1,410 High GWP GHGs 9,372 Total 172,428

Notes: GWP = global warming potential; MT CO2e/yr = metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. 1 Includes in-state-generated and imported electricity production. 2 Contained within Industrial Sector emissions. 3 Totals may not sum exactly due to rounding. Source: Sacramento County 2009

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-7 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

2005 City of Galt GHG Emissions Inventory

1% 1%

3% 5% 6%

Residential Commercial

21% On‐Road Transportation Off‐road Vehicle Use 43% Waste Wastewater Treatment Agriculture

20% Water‐Related High GWP GHGs

Total: 172,428 CO2e Metric Tons

Source: Sacramento County 2009 Exhibit 4.4-1 City of Galt’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions by Sector

ADAPTATION TO CLIMATE CHANGE

According to the IPCC, which was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme, global average temperature is expected to increase by 3–7°F by the end of the century, depending on future GHG emission scenarios (IPCC 2007). According to the CNRA temperatures in California are projected to increase 2–5°F by 2050 and by 4–9°F by 2100 (CNRA 2009).

Environmental resources other than air quality and global average temperature could be indirectly affected by the accumulation of GHG emissions. For example, an increase in the global average temperature is expected to result in a decreased volume of precipitation falling as snow in California and an overall reduction in snowpack in the Sierra Nevada. According to the California Energy Commission (CEC 2012), the snowpack portion of the state’s water supply could potentially decline by 30–90% by the end of the 21st century. An increase in precipitation falling as rain rather than snow also could lead to increased potential for floods because water that would normally be held in the Sierra Nevada until spring could flow into the Central Valley concurrently with winter storm events. This scenario would place more pressure on California’s levee/flood control system.

As the existing climate throughout California changes over time, the ranges of various plant and wildlife species could shift or be reduced, depending on the favored temperature and moisture regimes of each species. In the worst cases, some species would become extinct or be extirpated from the state if suitable conditions are no longer available (CNRA 2009).

City of Galt 4.4-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

Changes in precipitation patterns and increased temperatures are expected to alter the distribution and character of natural vegetation and associated moisture content of plants and soils. An increase in frequency of extreme heat events and drought are also expected. These changes are expected to lead to increased frequency and intensity of large wildfires (CNRA 2009).

Another outcome of global climate change is sea level rise. Sea level rose approximately 7 inches during the last century and it is predicted to rise an additional 7–22 inches by 2100, depending on the future levels of GHG emissions (IPCC 2007). CNRA projects that sea levels along California will rise 12–18 inches by 2050 and 21–55 inches by 2100 (CNRA 2009). Predicted sea level rise in the California Bay Area is shown below in Exhibit 4.4‐2. 4.4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines, climate change‐related impacts are considered significant if implementation of the proposed project would do any of the following:

 generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment; or  conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.

At the time of this Draft Program EIR, SMAQMD had no established GHG emission threshold. To establish context in which to consider the order of magnitude of project‐generated GHG emissions, it should be noted that facilities (i.e., stationary, continuous sources of GHG emissions) that generate greater than 25,000 MT CO2e/year are mandated to report their GHG emissions to ARB pursuant to AB 32. On a national (federal) level, the Council on Environmental Quality recommends 25,000 MT CO2e/year as the level below which full analysis of GHG emissions is not required for projects subject to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). (The Council on Environmental Quality coordinates federal environmental efforts and works closely with agencies and other White House offices in the development of environmental policies and initiatives.) In addition, Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) and South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) have both adopted 10,000 MT CO2e/year as the CEQA significance threshold for industrial projects where the air district is the lead agency. SMAQMD, the Air District with air quality jurisdiction over the proposed project, also recommends use of 10,000 MT CO2e/year as a GHG significance threshold for projects where emissions are stationary‐source in nature (Berry, personal communication. 2012). Even though SMAQMD has not adopted thresholds of significance for GHG emissions, 10,000 MT CO2e/year has been recommended by SMAQMD and adopted by other air districts in California, and is considered applicable to the proposed project. METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

At the time of writing this Draft Program EIR, the SMAQMD has not formally adopted a recommended methodology for evaluating GHG emissions associated with stationary sources and/or new projects.

The Governor’s Office of Planning and Research(OPR) recommends that lead agencies under CEQA make a good‐ faith effort, based on available information, to estimate the quantity of GHG emissions that would be generated by a proposed project, including the emissions associated with construction activities, stationary sources, vehicular traffic, and energy consumption, and to determine whether the impacts have the potential to result in a project or cumulative impact and to mitigate the impacts where feasible mitigation is available (OPR 2008). OPR prepared amendments to the State CEQA Guidelines, pursuant to SB 97 (Statutes of 2007) for adoption by the CNRA. The amendments added several provisions reinforcing the requirements to assess a project’s GHG emissions as a contribution to the cumulative impact of climate change. The amendments went into effect on March 18, 2010.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-9 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

Source: Cal-Adapt 2012 Exhibit 4.4-2 Predicted Sea Level Rise in the California San Francisco Bay Area

City of Galt 4.4-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

GHG emissions would result from short‐term construction activities, operational mobile‐sources, direct emissions from wastewater treatment, and indirect emissions from electricity consumption.

Short‐term construction and operational mobile‐source emissions of GHGs were quantified by using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) computer program as recommended by SMAQMD. Because the WWTP Facilities Master Plan is still in the design phase, limited project‐specific data was available. Project‐ specific information, such as construction equipment types, was input into the model where available and model default parameters and reasonably conservative assumptions were relied upon in absence of project‐ specific data. CalEEMod accounts for mobile‐source emissions associated with vehicle trip generation from employees and waste hauling. Construction emissions modeling was assumed to occur over 17 years (2013‐ 2030) in three distinct phases. The Immediate Improvements would take place during 2013‐2015 and final Facilities Master Plan improvements (Phase 3) would take place during 2028‐2030. Phase 2 of construction is not presented in this analysis as the intensity of construction would be similar to the final Phase 3 improvements, both of which would fall well below applicable thresholds of significance. Emissions for all construction activities were accounted for in total annual emission estimates. Operational mobile‐source emissions were modeled based on projected full time employees that would operate the facility and waste hauling truck trips required on a daily basis. See Appendix C for modeling results.

Direct emissions from wastewater treatment processes were quantified using equations obtained from the Local Government Operations Protocol. The Local Government Operations Protocol was developed in partnership by the ARB, California Climate Action Registry (CCAR), and ICLEI – Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI), in collaboration with The Climate Registry and dozens of stakeholders. The protocol provides standardized methodology for quantifying GHG emissions from buildings, facilities, vehicles, wastewater and potable water treatment facilities, landfill and composting facilities, and other government operations. Indirect emissions from electricity consumption were calculated based on utility emission factors for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) for CO2, N2O, and CH4as contained in CalEEMod, and estimates of project‐specific electricity consumption. See Appendix C for modeling results. ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

All potential resource topics of relevance to greenhouse gases and climate change are addressed in the following impact discussions. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Generation of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. The proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and 4.4-1 Immediate Improvements Project would result in less-than-cumulatively considerable GHG emissions and would have a less-than-significant impact on climate change.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Project‐related construction activities would result in increased generation of GHG emissions. Heavy‐duty off‐ road equipment, materials transport, and worker commutes during construction of the proposed project would result in exhaust emissions of GHGs.

GHG emissions associated with operation of the WWTP would consist of direct emissions from wastewater treatment processes, indirect emissions from electricity consumption, and mobile‐source emissions of GHGs from worker commute and waste truck hauling. Direct emissions from wastewater treatment would occur onsite and are primarily associated with CH4 and N2O emissions. Anaerobic digestion leads to the production of CH4.The generation of N2O results from the treatment of wastewater during both nitrification and denitrification City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-11 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

of the nitrogen present. N2O is also released from the effluent discharge to receiving aquatic environments (ARB 2010b). Indirect emissions are GHG emissions that would occur offsite at utility providers associated with the generation of electricity to serve the project. Mobile‐source emissions would be associated with employee trips and truck hauling activity.

It is notable that the City has entered into an agreement with a solar power provider, and has constructed a solar array on the project site. In 2012, the first year of operation, the solar array supplied just over 40% of the total electrical demand at the WWTP (957,072 kWh), and produced 1,037,362 kWh of additional power, which was used by other customers of the local power utility (City of Galt 2013). Based on this, the City estimates that the solar array will provide a substantial portion of the electricity needed to power the WWTP. However, contribution of electricity generation from the solar array was not factored in to the analysis presented below, providing for a conservative analysis of related GHG emissions.

The total net increase in operational GHG emissions was estimated using a combination of methods, as described above in Methods and Assumptions. The net increase in project‐related operational emissions is presented below in Table 4.4‐2.

Construction emissions were modeled for the Immediate Improvements (2013‐2015) and for final (Phase 3) buildout of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan (2028‐2030). Phase 2 of construction is not presented, as the intensity of construction would be similar to final (Phase 3) improvements. The maximum annual GHG emissions from construction activity are shown above in Table 4.4‐2. The construction activities would result in worst‐case annual GHG emissions of 1,150 MT CO2e. Other construction years would produce lower levels of GHG emissions than this worst‐case annual estimate.

Table 4.4-2 Summary of Net Increase in Operational GHG Emissions Associated with the WWTP Facilities Master Plan Project1

Source CO2e (MT/year) Construction Emissions2 1,150 WWTP Direct Emissions 7,755 WWTP Indirect Offsite Electricity Consumption 252 Mobile Sources (Employee Trips + Truck Hauling) 53 Total Project Operational‐Related GHG Emissions 8,041

Notes:CO2e = carbon dioxide equivalent; GHG = greenhouse gas; MT = metric tons 1 Detailed assumptions and modeling output files are included in Appendix C. 2 Construction emissions represent the worst-case annual GHG emissions that would occur during all construction activity Source: Modeled by Ascent Environmental, Inc. in 2012

Operation of the proposed project would result in approximately 8,041 MT CO2e/year for the lifetime of the project. The net increase associated with the project’s operational GHG emissions would be below the 10,000 MT CO2e/year threshold recommended by SMAQMD for this project. Further, combining the worst case construction year, as shown in Table 4.4‐2, and the projected operational emissions would result in 9,191 MT CO2e/year which is still below the threshold recommended by SMAQMD. For these reasons, the net increase in GHG emissions would not be considered substantial and would not contribute substantially to the cumulative impact of climate change. Further, the project would not conflict with any applicable programs or policies adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions from wastewater treatment. The WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project would not conflict with the goals of AB 32. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less‐than‐cumulatively considerable and, therefore, less‐than‐significant impact on climate change.

City of Galt 4.4-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The Immediate Improvements would include system upgrades at the WWTP but no increase in capacity from the current permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd. Implementation of the Immediate Improvements would result in similar sources of GHG emissions as described above. Additionally, because the Immediate Improvements would take place before complete buildout of the WWTP and is included as a part of the overall Facilities Master Plan, GHG emissions associated with this phase are included in the analysis described above. The net increase in GHG emissions from the Immediate Improvements would be lower than under the entire Facilities Master Plan. Because the net increase in GHG emissions for the entire Facilities Master Plan is below the threshold recommended by SMAQMD, the net increase in GHG emission associated with implementation of the Immediate Improvements would also be below the 10,000 MT CO2e/year significance threshold. The Immediate Improvements would result in a less‐than‐cumulatively considerable contribution of GHG emissions and would have a less‐than‐significant impact on climate change.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Impacts of Climate Change on the Project. Climate change is expected to result in a variety of 4.4-2 effects on the WWTP project area including changes to timing and intensity of precipitation resulting in increased risk from flood and impacts associated with increased stormwater runoff. Climate change could also result in increased temperatures, leading to increased wildland fire and elevated sea levels. However, the proposed project is not located in an area prone to wildland fire and is located far enough away from the California coast such that projected sea level rise would not affect the project. Additionally, the City of Galt has various policies in place that would protect development from increased risk of flooding. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

As discussed previously in this section, human‐induced increases in GHG concentrations in the atmosphere have led to increased global average temperatures (climate change) through the intensification of the greenhouse effect, and associated changes in local, regional, and global average climatic conditions.

Although there is a strong scientific consensus that global climate change is occurring and is influenced by human activity, there is less certainty as to the timing, severity, and potential consequences of the climate phenomena. Scientists have identified several ways in which global climate change could alter the physical environment in California (CNRA 2009, CEC 2012, DWR 2006, IPCC 2007). These include:

 increased average temperatures;  modifications to the timing, amount, and form (rain vs. snow) of precipitation;  changes in the timing and amount of runoff;  reduced water supply;  deterioration of water quality; and  elevated sea level.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.4-13 Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Ascent Environmental

These changes may translate into a variety of issues and concerns that may affect the project area, including but not limited to:

 increased frequency and intensity of wildfire as a result of changing precipitation patterns and temperatures,  increased stormwater runoff associated with changes to precipitation patterns; and  increased risk of flooding and landslide associated with changes to precipitation patterns.

Although uncertainty exists as to the precise levels of these impacts, there is consensus regarding the range, frequency, or intensity of these impacts that can be expected. The WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project could be subject to potential hazards that could be exacerbated by climate change, such as changes in the timing and amount of runoff and the increased risk of flooding associated with changes to precipitation. Because the WWTP project site is located in a developed area and far from any forested or wildlands, it would not be affected by increased frequency or intensity of wildfire.

Increases in intense storm events could result in impacts to wastewater treatment plants that are connected to stormwater drainage systems. Increased flow could lead to poor effluent quality or the inability of the WWTP to process the increased flow. However, the City of Galt’s storm drain collection and disposal system collects storm water and directs it into catch basins where it then enters an underground system of pipes, draining into three separate channels: Dry Creek, Hen Creek, and Deadman’s Gulch (City of Galt 2009). Therefore, increased stormwater drainage would not enter the WWTP and would not affect the facility’s ability to process wastewater or handle incoming wastewater.

As shown in Exhibit 4.4‐2, sea level rise is expected to increase 21‐55 inches by the year 2100 (CNRA 2009). Although sea level is expected to rise, the proposed project is not located in close proximity to future projected inundation areas, as shown in Exhibit 4.4‐2. Therefore, it is unlikely that the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would be affected by projected increases in sea level.

As discussed in the setting, the City has adopted policies to plan for flood control and protection of natural floodways in response to climate change. These policies would reduce the extent and severity of climate change‐ related impacts to the project from increased risk of flooding and landslide associated with changes to precipitation patterns. The project would not be affected by increased risk of wildfire or increases in stormwater runoff. Additionally, the project is located far enough away from areas that would be inundated by projected sea level rise and the policies in place would minimize risks from increased flooding. For these reasons, this impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

Immediate Improvements The Immediate Improvements would include immediate improvements to the WWTP but no increase in capacity from the current permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd. The Immediate Improvements are a component of the Facilities Master Plan and, therefore, the effects of climate change on the Immediate Improvements would be identical to those described above for the Facilities Master Plan. For the same reasons as described above, it is unlikely that the proposed project would be affected by the impacts of climate change. This impact would be less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.4-14 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

4.5 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

This section evaluates the potential hydrologic and water quality impacts that would result from the proposed WWTP improvements and increases in effluent discharged to Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek. This analysis addresses the effluent limits for specified pollutants in the current NPDES Permit for the WWTP (2010) as well as the hydrology‐ and water quality‐related issues raised in the NOP comment letters, particularly those from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Appendix B). 4.5.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FEDERAL

CLEAN WATER ACT AND NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT PROGRAM

The federal Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants to navigable waters within the United States. The law authorizes the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set point‐source effluent limitations for industry and publicly owned treatment works and requires states (or EPA in the event of a state default) to set water quality standards for contaminants in surface waters. The CWA authorizes EPA to delegate many permitting, administrative, and enforcement aspects of the law to states. In such cases, EPA still retains oversight responsibilities. California administers the CWA through the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) and its nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards.

The CWA requires wastewater dischargers to obtain a permit that establishes effluent limitations and specifies monitoring and reporting requirements. The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program regulates the discharge of waste to waters of the United States and requires wastewater dischargers to regulate nondomestic waste discharged to sewers through activities such as pretreatment programs and/or sewer‐use ordinances. NPDES permits include the following terms and conditions:

 effluent discharge limitations,  prohibitions,  receiving‐water limitations,  compliance monitoring and reporting requirements, and  other special study or compliance provisions.

NATIONAL TOXICS RULE AND CALIFORNIA TOXICS RULE

In 1992, pursuant to the CWA, EPA promulgated the National Toxics Rule (NTR) criteria to establish numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants for California. The NTR established water quality standards for 42 pollutants not covered at that time under California’s statewide water quality regulations. As a result of a September 1994 court order that revoked California’s statewide water quality control plan for priority pollutants, EPA initiated efforts to promulgate additional numeric water quality criteria for California. In May 2000, EPA issued the California Toxics Rule (CTR), which promulgated numeric criteria for priority pollutants. The CTR documentation (Volume 65, pages 31682–31719 of the Federal Register [65 FR 31682–31719], May 18, 2000, along with amendments in February 2001) “carried forward” the previously promulgated standards of the NTR, thereby providing a single document listing California’s fully adopted and applicable water quality criteria for 126 priority pollutants.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-1 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

SECTION 303(D) IMPAIRED WATERS LIST

Section 303(d) of the CWA requires states to develop lists of water bodies (or sections of water bodies) that do not meet water quality standards after implementation of minimum required levels of treatment by point‐ source dischargers (i.e., municipalities and industries). The intent of the Section 303(d) list is to identify water bodies that require future development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) and associated implementation program to maintain water quality. Section 303(d) requires states to develop a TMDL for each of the listed pollutants and water bodies.

FEDERAL ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY

The federal antidegradation policy is designed to protect existing uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect existing uses, and provide protection for higher quality and national water resources. The federal policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the following primary provisions (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 131.12):

1) Existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing uses shall be maintained and protected.

2) Where the quality of waters exceeds levels necessary to support propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state finds, after full satisfaction of the intergovernmental coordination and public participation provisions of the state’s continuing planning process, that allowing lower water quality is necessary to accommodate important economic or social development in the area in which the waters are located.

3) Where high quality waters constitute an outstanding National resource, such as waters of national and state parks and wildlife refuges and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that water quality shall be maintained and protected.

EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988: FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT

Executive Order 11988 requires federal agencies to avoid to the extent possible the long and short‐term adverse impacts associated with the occupancy and modification of flood plains and to avoid direct and indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable alternative. In accomplishing this objective, Executive Order 11988 states that “each agency shall provide leadership and shall take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health, and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by flood plains in carrying out its responsibilities.”

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) oversees floodplains and administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) adopted under the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968. The program makes federally subsidized flood insurance available to property owners within communities that participate in the program. Areas of special flood hazard (those subject to inundation by a 100‐year flood) are identified by FEMA through regulatory flood maps titled Flood Insurance Rate Maps. The NFIP mandates that development cannot occur within the regulatory floodplain (typically the 100‐year floodplain) if that development results in an increase of more than one foot in flood elevation. In addition, development is not allowed in delineated floodways within the regulatory floodplain.

City of Galt 4.5-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

STATE

PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT

Under the Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, California must adopt water quality policies, plans, and objectives to ensure that the state’s beneficial uses for water are reasonably protected. The law requires the nine RWQCBs to adopt water quality control plans and establish water quality objectives, and authorizes the SWRCB and RWQCBs to issue and enforce permits containing requirements for the discharge of waste to surface waters and land. The water quality standards provisions of the state’s water quality control plans (i.e., designation of beneficial uses, adoption of water quality objectives to protect beneficial uses, and adoption of an antidegradation policy) meet the requirements of Section 303 of the federal CWA, which requires the states to adopt water quality standards.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE CENTRAL VALLEY REGION

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan), last amended in 2009, defines the beneficial uses, water quality objectives, implementation programs, and surveillance and monitoring programs for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins. The Basin Plan contains specific numeric water quality objectives that apply to certain water bodies or portions of water bodies. Numerical water quality objectives have been established for bacteria, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, pesticides, electrical conductivity (EC), total dissolved solids (TDS), temperature, turbidity, and trace elements. Additionally, the Basin Plan contains numerous narrative water quality objectives generally intended to specify broad goals and minimum acceptable conditions.

POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF TOXICS STANDARDS FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS, ENCLOSED BAYS, AND ESTUARIES OF CALIFORNIA

The Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays, and Estuaries of California (commonly referred to as the Statewide Implementation Plan) applies to discharges of toxic pollutants into California’s inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries. Effective since April 28, 2000 (as amended in 2005), the policy describes methods for setting effluent limitations for priority pollutants in NPDES permits based on NTR and CTR criteria and objectives established in basin plans. The policy also establishes certain monitoring requirements and provisions for controlling chronic toxicity, and includes special provisions for certain types of discharges.

CALIFORNIA ANTIDEGRADATION POLICY (SWRCB RESOLUTION NO. 68-16)

The goal of SWRCB Resolution No. 68‐16 (“Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High Quality Waters in California”) is to maintain high‐quality waters where they exist in the state. SWRCB Resolution No. 68‐16 states, in part:

1) Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the state that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water, and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.

2) Any activity which produces or may produce a waste or increased volume or concentration of waste and which discharges or proposes to discharge to existing high quality waters will be required to meet waste discharge requirements which will result in the best practicable treatment or control of the discharge

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-3 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

necessary to assure that (a) a pollution or nuisance will not occur and (b) the highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the state will be maintained.

The SWRCB has interpreted Resolution No. 68‐16 to incorporate the federal antidegradation policy, which is applicable if a discharge that began after November 28, 1975, will lower existing surface water quality. LOCAL

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

The following policies from the Open Space and Conservation Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, and Safety and Seismic Element and the of the Sacramento County General Plan of 2005‐2030 (Sacramento County 2011) are directly related to hydrology and water quality resource management issues and are applicable to the proposed project. Conservation Element  Objective #5: Manage the quality and quantity of urban runoff to protect the beneficial uses of surface water and groundwater.  Policy CO‐24. Comply with the Sacramento Areawide NPDES Municipal Permit.  Policy CO‐26. Protect areas susceptible to erosion, natural water bodies, and natural drainage systems.  Policy CO‐27. Support surface water quality monitoring programs that identify and address causes of water quality degradation.  Policy CO‐28. Comply with other water quality regulations and NPDES permits as they apply to County projects or activities, such as the State’s Construction General Permit and Aquatic Pesticides Permit.  Policy CO‐30. Require development projects to comply with the County’s stormwater development/design standards, including hydromodification management and low impact development standards, established pursuant to the NPDES Municipal Permit.  Policy CO‐32. Support programs and activities conducted by watershed groups and citizen volunteers that help to ensure compliance with the NPDES Municipal Permit by increasing public awareness and encouraging stewardship of water resources.

CITY OF GALT GENERAL PLAN

The following policies from the Open Space and Conservation Element, Public Facilities and Services Element, and Safety and Seismic Element and the of the City of Galt2030 General Plan (General Plan, City of Galt 2008) are directly related to hydrology and water quality resource management issues and are applicable to the proposed project. Open Space and Conservation Element  Goal COS‐1:To protect and enhance the qualities of the area’s rivers, creeks, sloughs, and groundwater.  Policy COS‐1.4. Storm Flow Impacts. The City will continue to ensure, through the development review process, that future developments do not increase peak storm flows and do not cause flooding of downstream facilities and properties.  Policy COS‐1.5. Water Quality Control Board Regulations Compliance. The City shall continue to comply with the Central Valley RWQCB’s regulations concerning the operation of the City’s wastewater treatment plant.  Policy COS‐1.6. Underground Storage Tank Law Compliance. The City shall provide continued compliance with the Underground Storage Tank Law and all other laws relating to water quality.

City of Galt 4.5-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

 Policy COS‐1.7. Stormwater Quality Protection. The City shall, through the development review process, ensure compliance with federal and state stormwater quality standards and regulations.  Policy COS‐1.10. Ecological Features Retention. The City shall retain to the extent feasible the ecological features of the creeks, sloughs, and rivers in their natural state.  Policy COS‐1.12. Best Management Practices. The City shall require all new development and redevelopment to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the City shall require, as part of its Storm Water NPDES Permit and ordinances, to implement the Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction activities of any improvement plans, new development and redevelopment projects for reducing pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Public Facilities and Services Element  Goal LU‐24: To collect and dispose of stormwater in a manner that protects the city’s residents and property from the hazards of flooding, manages stormwater in a manner that is safe and environmentally sensitive, and enhances the environment.  Policy PFS‐4.3. Stormwater Quality. The City shall ensure compliance with federal and state clean water standards by continuing to monitor and enforce provisions to control non‐point source and point source water pollution contained in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency NPDES program.  Policy PFS‐4.4. Project Design. The City should encourage project designs that minimize drainage concentrations and impervious surfaces.  Policy PFS‐4.5. Grading During the Rainy Season. The City shall prohibit grading activities during the rainy season, unless adequately mitigated, to avoid sedimentation of storm drainage facilities.  Policy PFS‐4.6. Erosion Control Plan. The City shall require new development projects to prepare an erosion control plan.  Policy PFS‐4.7. Mitigating Stormwater Runoff. The City shall require projects that have significant impacts on the quantity and quality of surface water runoff to incorporate mitigation measures for impacts related to urban runoff.

Safety and Seismic Element

 Goal SS‐2: To protect the lives and property of residents and visitors to Galt from flooding hazards and manage floodplains for their open space and natural resource values.  Policy SS‐3.2. Development in 100‐year Floodplain. The City shall prohibit development in the 100‐year floodplain of streams to minimize safety hazards, property loss, environmental disruption, and to promote stream enhancement, improved water quality, recreational opportunities, and groundwater recharge.  Policy SS‐3.3. Natural Drainageways Enhancements. The City should promote the aesthetic, environmental, and functional improvement of natural drainageways where water courses have been disrupted in such a manner as to balance the protection of abutting uses with the consideration of environmental, recreational, and open space needs.

STORMWATER DRAINAGE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND POLICIES

The County of Sacramento and the Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento are jointly regulated by Order No. R5‐2002‐0206/NPDES No. CAS082597 “Waste Discharge Requirements for County of Sacramento and Cities of Citrus Heights, Elk Grove, Folsom, Galt and Sacramento Storm Water Discharges From Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems Sacramento County” issued by the Central Valley RWQCB. The rural and agricultural areas that surround the developed City urbanized areas are not subject to the NPDE S regulations. The General MS4 permit requires the discharger to develop and implement a Storm Water City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-5 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

Management Plan/Program (SWMP) with the goal of reducing the discharge of pollutants to the maximum extent practicable (MEP). MEP is the performance standard specified in Section 402(p) of the CWA. The General Permit requires regulated small MS4s to develop and implement a SWMP that describes best management practices (BMPs), measurable goals, and timetables for implementation in the following five program areas.

 Public Education – Educate the public in its permitted jurisdiction about the importance of the storm water program and the public’s role in the program.  Public Participation – Comply with all state and local notice requirements when implementing a public involvement/participation program.  Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination – Adopt and enforce ordinances or take equivalent measures that prohibit illicit discharges, and implement a program to detect illicit discharges.  Construction Site Storm Water Runoff Control – Develop a program to control the discharge of pollutants from construction sites greater than or equal to one acre in size within its permitted jurisdiction. The program must include inspections of construction sites and enforcement actions against violators.  Post Construction Storm Water Management – Require long term post‐construction BMPs that protect water quality and control runoff flow, to be incorporated into development and significant redevelopment projects. Post construction programs are most efficient when they stress (1) low impact design; (2) source controls; and (3) treatment controls. 4.5.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING HYDROLOGY

REGIONAL OVERVIEW

The city of Galt is located in a Mediterranean climate with dry, warm summers and cool, wet winters. Annual precipitation in the city vicinity is approximately 17.5 inches, with most occurring from November through March (City of Galt 2005, p. 8‐1). The project area is located in the Cosumnes River watershed hydrologic area, which is a subunit of the San Joaquin hydrologic region. The existing WWTP currently discharges treated effluent into a remnant section of Skunk Creek (Exhibit 4.5‐1). Effluent flows approximately 0.6 miles in Skunk Creek to the junction with the larger Laguna Creek, which subsequently joins the Lower Cosumnes River approximately 4miles downstream of the WWTP site.

FLOODPLAIN

The Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, and Lower Cosumnes River channels are located in the low‐lying Sacramento Valley floor and lie within extensive designated FEMA 100‐year floodplains adjacent to their channels (City of Galt 2005, p. 10‐22). The 100‐year floodplain is defined as the area that will be inundated by a flood event having a one‐percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The majority of the 298‐acre property, including the existing treatment process area, is not located within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain (FEMA 2011); however, much of the storage reservoir, parts of the WWTP storage ponds, and small portions of the agricultural areas of the City’s property are within the 100‐year floodplain associated with Skunk Creek as shown in Exhibit 4.5‐2. The Lower Cosumnes River is tidally influenced approximately 1.5 to 2.0 miles downstream of its confluence with Laguna Creek. The Cosumnes River joins the Mokelumne River within the Delta, approximately 5 miles downstream of the WWTP. The WWTP site, and Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek channels, are located north of the City of Galt’s jurisdictional boundaries and are not used for conveyance and disposal of stormwater drainage (City of Galt 2005, p. 6‐5). Because no streamflow gauging is conducted on Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek, accurate streamflow records do not exist. However, based on modeling, the estimated 100‐year flood streamflow rate in Laguna Creek is approximately 30,000 cfs (Blake 2001).

City of Galt 4.5-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Source: Received by West Yost 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012 Exhibit 4.5-1 Current Effluent Discharge Point and Hydrologic Area City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-7

Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Source: Data provided by FEMA 2011; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012 Exhibit 4.5-2 Floodplain Map City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-9 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

SURFACE WATER FEATURES

The lower approximately 25 miles of the Cosumnes River channel is typically dry, or contains discontinuous segments of wetted conditions, during the summer dry months (Mount et al. 2001). Laguna Creek flows are supplemented by year‐round discharges from Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) Rancho Seco decommissioned nuclear power generating facility, which discharges roughly 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) into Hadselville Creek. Hadselville Creek joins Laguna Creek approximately 10.5 miles upstream of where the WWTP effluent enters Laguna Creek. During the irrigation season, typically May through October, riparian users divert nearly all the flow in Laguna Creek for irrigation. As such, little flow reaches the lower portion of Laguna Creek west of Highway 99 near the WWTP during the peak summer irrigation periods. Starting in January 2009, weekly Laguna Creek streamflow monitoring has been conducted by the City’s WWTP staff immediately upstream of Skunk Creek. The City’s stage monitoring records indicate that streamflow is frequently lower than the lowest stage reading (i.e., equivalent to 3 cfs); however, the channel has not been observed to be completely dry at any time in the year (Dahlberg 2011 pers. comm.). Analysis of aerial photographs conducted for the assessment of effects to biological resources (i.e., fisheries, see Section4.6) indicates that continuous streamflow from Laguna Creek to the tidally influenced area of the Lower Cosumnes River can be observed in all photos that were obtained for the May through October period, which included several drier year‐type conditions (i.e., September 2010, August 2008, and July 2004), and other year‐types. WATER QUALITY

The Central Valley RWQCB has not established beneficial uses specifically for Skunk Creek or Laguna Creek. However, as direct tributaries to the Cosumnes River, the beneficial uses of the Cosumnes River are applicable to Skunk and Laguna Creeks via the “tributary statement” in the Basin Plan, which states that the “…beneficial uses of any specifically identified water body generally apply to its tributary streams” (Central Valley RWQCB2009:II‐2.00). The applicable beneficial uses of the Cosumnes River are agricultural supply, municipal and domestic supply, contact and non‐contact recreation, warm and cold freshwater habitat, warm and cold migration, warm and cold spawning habitat, and wildlife habitat (Central Valley RWQCB 2009). In addition, the Basin Plan implements SWRCB Resolution No. 88‐63, which established state policy that all waters (including groundwater), with certain exceptions, should be considered suitable or potentially suitable for municipal or domestic supply.

Available information characterizing existing water quality conditions in Laguna Creek is limited to the routine monitoring data collected by the WWTP operators for general parameters consisting of temperature, DO, EC, TDS, pH, turbidity, and ammonia at locations upstream (R1) and downstream (R2) of the WWTP. Prior to October 2011, the City discharged effluent to Skunk/Laguna Creek only seasonally during the months of November through April, and all treated effluent was used for land irrigation during the months of May through October. The City’s NPDES permit does not require monitoring of the receiving water when surface discharge of effluent is not occurring; thus, historical data for the May through October period is limited. Following completion of tertiary filtration and ultraviolet (UV) light disinfection upgrades in January 2011, the City became authorized to discharge effluent year‐round to Skunk Creek according to the NPDES permit. The City first initiated year‐round discharge in October 2011; consequently, receiving water data for the May‐October period is limited (i.e., only October 2011 and May 2012 was available for this assessment). Also, the City conducted two year‐long studies of constituent quality in Laguna Creek, one for limited constituents during the period January 2002‐February 2003, and one for a full suite of chemical constituents during April 2007 to March 2008, thus providing a limited data set upon which to assess year‐round conditions in Laguna Creek. The average background constituent concentrations in Laguna Creek upstream of Skunk Creek, for those constituents that have been detected in the WWTP effluent and thus could be affected downstream of the effluent discharge, are tabulated in Table 4.5‐1. The data indicate that background Laguna Creek concentrations of iron, manganese, copper, and lead have exceeded the lowest applicable regulatory water quality objectives.

City of Galt 4.5-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

There is no entity that conducts routine water quality monitoring of the Cosumnes River; thus, available information is limited. However, the water quality of the Cosumnes River is designated as impaired by the Central Valley RWQCB for exotic species, Escherichia coli bacteria, and sediment toxicity on the 2010 Section 303(d) list of water quality limited stream segments (Central Valley RWQCB 2011). The lower Cosumnes River reach is also partially within the legal boundaries of the Sacramento River‐San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), for which the eastern Delta water bodies are included in the Section 303(d) list as being impaired by mercury, several pesticides, and unknown toxicity. Laguna Creek is not identified as water quality limited on the Section 303(d) list. GROUNDWATER

The City of Galt and WWTP site overlie the extensive groundwater basin of the Central Valley, specifically the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, and Cosumnes River subbasin (California Department of Water Resources 2006). Groundwater in the study area is available in the shallow, near‐surface unconfined aquifer materials and deeper, confined aquifers. The shallow unconfined aquifer is recharged by local precipitation, and through percolation from the surrounding surface water bodies (i.e., rivers, creeks, and smaller earthern canals/drainage ditches). The thickness of the shallow alluvial aquifer ranges from 200 feet to 1,000 feet below the ground surface (City of Galt 2005, p.8‐4/5).

Groundwater is the primary source of municipal drinking water for the City of Galt. Groundwater quality of the Cosumnes River subbasin is characterized by calcium‐magnesium or calcium‐sodium bicarbonate types with overall groundwater quality considered to be good (California Department of Water Resources 2006). City testing of local groundwater wells for a variety of organic and inorganic constituents have shown that local water supplies generally meet all primary drinking water standards established for public health protection (City of Galt 2005, p.8‐4/5). However, iron and manganese concentrations have exceeded secondary drinking water standards established for taste and odor control in some wells in the northeastern portion of the City, which are then removed by treatment prior to distribution in the potable system. Additionally, there has been some impairment in the Cosumnes River subbasin from pesticide contamination(California Department of Water Resources 2006) and several of the City’s drinking water wells have wellhead treatment systems to remove arsenic, but post‐treatment levels have been slightly above the primary drinking water standard of 10 µg/L (Carollo Engineers 2011a). Potential issues of concern for the study area’s future groundwater quality include the leakage of waste materials from local industrial/manufacturing processes, and the use of septic systems in rural areas. The City’s large municipal supply wells are constructed with seals that prevent any direct conduit for surface contaminants to migrate to the groundwater. 4.5.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The significance criteria described below were developed for use in assessing potential impacts to hydrology and water quality resources from construction and operation of the proposed WWTP treatment process improvements for the Immediate Improvements and expanded capacity under the Facilities Master Plan, and in particular the changes in discharge of treated effluent into Skunk Creek/Laguna Creek and downstream receiving water bodies. The significance criteria are consistent with the threshold effects defined in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and the specific thresholds of significance for stormwater quality effects adopted by the City of Galt. These significance criteria were applied to the assessment findings to determine impact significance. Accordingly, the potential project‐related impacts to hydrology and water quality were considered to be significant if the project‐related actions would:

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-11 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

 substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site;  substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in increased frequency and magnitude of flooding that would pose significant risks to human life or property;  cause exceedance of applicable state or federal numeric or narrative water quality objectives/criteria, or other relevant water quality effects thresholds identified for this assessment, by frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse effects to one or more beneficial uses within affected water bodies;  increase levels of a bioaccumulative pollutant by frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent such that the affected water body (or portion of a water body) would be expected to have measurably higher body burdens of the bioaccumulative pollutant in aquatic organisms, thereby substantially increasing the health risks to wildlife (including fish) or humans consuming those organisms;  cause long‐term degradation of water quality in one or more water body of the affected environment, resulting in sufficient use of available assimilative capacity such that occasionally exceeding water quality objectives/criteria would be likely and would result in substantially increased risk for adverse effects to one or more beneficial uses;  further degrade water quality by measurable levels, on a long‐term basis, for one or more parameters that are already impaired and, thus, included on the Section 303(d) list for the water body, such that beneficial use impairment would be made discernibly worse; or  substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table that would reduce the production rate of preexisting nearby wells to a level that would no longer support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted. METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The proposed increase in treatment capacity to 6.0 mgd under the long‐term buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would increase effluent discharge to Skunk Creek from the existing annual average flow (i.e., 2011 conditions) of approximately 2.3 mgd. Increased effluent discharge, in turn, would change the hydrology and water quality conditions in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, and the Lower Cosumnes River compared to existing conditions. This assessment incorporates by reference information and analyses of the effluent discharge (e.g., maximum observed concentrations, frequency of occurrence) and resulting effects to receiving water quality, that were presented in an antidegradation analysis (Robertson‐Bryan, Inc. 2009) prepared for the City’s NPDES/WDRs permit renewal process, and in the City’s Summer Surface Discharge Project Initial Study prepared in 2011 (City of Galt 2011). Assessment of Hydrologic Impacts The assessment of potential hydrologic effects was conducted considering the existing flow regime of Laguna Creek, using historical data to the extent available. The incremental increase in discharge from the proposed WWTP capacity expansion for the Facilities Master Plan was compared to historical discharges to determine the degree to which the increased discharge would alter the hydrologic characteristics in the channel. The effects of changes to WWTP facilities and effluent discharge rates on stormwater drainage, flooding, and flood hazards during peak‐flow events were assessed qualitatively. Qualitative assessment of these hydrologic effects is adequate for the Facilities Master Plan components because the area of disturbances would be minor relative to the much larger contributing watershed in which the WWTP is located.

City of Galt 4.5-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Assessment of Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Water quality impacts associated with temporary construction activities were assessed in a qualitative manner. The potential short‐term construction‐related effects of grading and land disturbance were assessed based on the probability of seasonal exposure to rainfall and runoff, routes of exposure for contaminants to enter surface water, and the magnitude and duration of construction relative to the potential water quality parameters expected to be affected by the activity. Assessment of Operational Water Quality Impacts The assessment of potential water quality effects resulting from project discharges to surface water and groundwater addressed the magnitude and frequency of water quality changes expected to occur based on the projected quality of effluent produced upon completion of the proposed WWTP facility improvements and expanded treatment capacity. Effluent discharges to Skunk Creek from the WWTP are regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB under the City’s WDRs/NPDES permit (Order No. R5‐2010‐0099, NPDES No. CA0081434), which was renewed September 23, 2010. The NPDES permit regulates the allowable concentrations and loadings of constituents that have the potential to affect beneficial uses of the receiving water so that the discharge complies with all applicable water quality standards.

The City’s engineering consultant for the proposed project, West Yost Associates, provided information on the design‐minimum effluent‐quality specifications for constituents that the proposed treatment processes are designed to remove. For constituents that the conventional biological and other treatment processes are not designed to remove, design effluent‐quality specifications are not developed and quantitative projection of future effluent concentrations is not possible. In these situations, the assessment was based on the assumption that the constituent concentrations in effluent from the new WWTP would be the same, and no worse, than in effluent currently produced by the existing WWTP. Moreover, concentrations of other constituents for which the WWTP is designed to remove (e.g., biochemical oxygen demand, suspended solids, settleable solids, turbidity, pathogens) would remain the same, or be reduced where the NPDES permit requires.

Existing effluent quality was screened to evaluate constituent concentrations in relation to applicable state regulatory water quality objectives and federal criteria (collectively called “criteria” in this assessment). Appropriate water quality criteria considered for this assessment included the CTR/NTR criteria and the Basin Plan objectives consisting of numerical and narrative water quality objectives, which incorporate by reference state drinking water maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for waters with domestic and municipal supply uses. In cases where adopted state criteria do not exist (e.g., ammonia, aluminum), EPA‐recommended criteria (also referred to as 304[a][1] criteria) were used for assessment purposes. As stated by EPA, the recommended criteria “…are not regulations, and do not impose legally binding requirements on EPA, States, tribes or the public.” Therefore, in this document, such EPA recommended criteria and other non‐enforceable numeric values are referred to as “advisory” to distinguish them from adopted criteria. Constituents considered for the assessment also included those for which the state has determined there to be existing sources of impairment in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, or the lower Cosumnes via the Section 303(d) listing process.

The screening analysis consisted of determining (1) whether the constituent had been detected in the undiluted effluent, and (2) what the maximum detected concentration was. Constituents that have never been detected at or above the laboratory reporting limit, and constituents detected but always at levels below applicable water quality criteria and background receiving water concentrations, were not evaluated further. In meeting applicable water quality criteria, it is demonstrated that the discharge of undiluted WWTP effluent would not adversely affect any beneficial use of the receiving water. However, constituents detected in the effluent at a maximum concentration that exceeded the minimum background receiving water concentration in Laguna Creek (i.e., theR1 monitoring location) were evaluated further for the potential to degrade existing water quality conditions. The screening included constituents that were detected but are not regulated, and do not have any other relevant guidance value that would facilitate an impact assessment. Examples of such constituents include several inorganic ions (e.g., calcium, potassium, magnesium) and isolated occurrences of organic compounds (e.g., benzoic acid). City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-13 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

Constituents detected at least once above an applicable water quality objective or other relevant guidance value, and constituents detected at a level above the background receiving water concentration, were evaluated further in this EIR. If consistent compliance with the applicable water quality criteria was demonstrated for the receiving water downstream of the WWTP’s effluent discharge, or if beneficial uses would not be adversely affected by long‐ term degradation, then it was determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect water quality. For some constituents where applicable water quality criteria exist, the constituents have not been detected, but the analytical detection limits used for the analyses were higher than the applicable criteria. For these constituents, no relevant assessment of their presence or concentration in the effluent can be conducted; thus the constituent is not carried forward for further analysis because an informed impact determination cannot be made based on the available information.

The data screening and assessment considered the effects of WWTP treatment process upgrades that the City has implemented in recent years, which have improved constituent removal and reduced concentrations in the effluent. The known or projected effluent quality characteristics that existed following the dates that WWTP improvements became operational were used for assessment. In particular, the City constructed a storage reservoir bypass system in November 2009 that facilitated the ability to eliminate comingling of treated and filtered effluent with effluent in the storage pond, thus reducing the concentrations of some constituents that were known to be elevated as a result of pond operations. Therefore, effluent data collected since November 2009 was used for constituents known to have been affected by operations that existed prior to the construction of the storage reservoir bypass system. Additionally, treatment process upgrades consisting of new tertiary filtration units to improve solids removal, and replacement of the former chlorine disinfection system with a new UV light disinfection system, were completed in January 2011. The elimination of chlorine disinfection has eliminated production of trihalomethane compounds (THMs); thus, THMs are not assessed further in this EIR. In combination with storage reservoir bypass system, the construction of the new tertiary filtration facilities provides improved removal of suspended solids. Consequently, constituents known to have physical and/or chemical affinity to filterable mineral and organic matter, such as some trace metals and organic compounds for which conventional wastewater treatment processes are not typically designed to remove, also are anticipated to exhibit overall reduced effluent concentrations. For these filterable constituents, the available data were limited to the period since January 2011 when the new tertiary filtration became operational. An exception to these data cutoff dates was the constituents detected in historical data collected prior to November 2009, for which no recent data has been collected, which were also used for the impact assessments.

Based on the available effluent data, including consideration of anticipated effluent quality improvements resulting from construction of proposed WWTP upgrades, Table 4.5‐1 provides a tabulation of constituents that have either: (a) been detected in the effluent data collected since November 2009; (b) detected in data prior to November 2009 for which there is no recent data available after November 2009; and (c) constituents for which the City has current effluent limitations, whether or not the constituent has been detected in data collected since November 2009. The effects of project‐related effluent discharges, and related changes in receiving water concentrations and effects on beneficial uses, were assessed with respect to appropriate averaging periods on which the regulatory water quality criteria are based. That is, aquatic life are generally less able to tolerate concentration changes, and water quality criteria are based, on a maximum allowable change over a short averaging time period (e.g., 1‐hour for acute criteria and 4‐day averaging for chronic criteria). Human health criteria often reflect the maximum tolerable value for longer averaging periods in drinking water supplies (e.g., monthly exposure for nuisance taste and odor constituents; lifetime exposure for potential carcinogens).

The assessment of the potential for project‐related effluent discharges to cause degradation of background receiving water quality conditions (i.e., Laguna Creek downstream of the Skunk Creek confluence containing the effluent) was conducted with a mass balance analysis of effluent and receiving water flow and constituent concentrations. The mass‐balance provides a quantitative assessment of the change in receiving water concentrations downstream of the effluent discharge. The mass balance analysis consisted of updating and modifying the antidegradation analysis that was prepared for the City in 2009 as part of the NPDES permit renewal City of Galt 4.5-14 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

process. The 2009 antidegradation analysis was conducted for a projected future flow rate of 4.5 mgd (the proposed effluent discharge rate for Phase 2 of the Facilities Master Plan). This previous analysis was updated with current constituent and receiving water concentrations and the proposed buildout (Phase 3) capacity of 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan to reflect the maximum change anticipated that would occur to receiving water quality with implementation of all phases of the Facilities Master Plan implementation. Predicted receiving water conditions under the proposed Facilities Master Plan were compared to the existing conditions that exist with the City’s current annual average inflow of approximately 2.3 mgd. The antidegradation analysis considered potential dilution that would be provided by Laguna Creek using the calculated design minimum streamflow rates specified by state policy and calculated based on streamflow data available prior to 2009 used for the City’s antidegradation analysis, consisting of the 1‐day average low flow with recurrence interval of once in 10 years [1Q10] for acute conditions (i.e., 0.1 cfs), 7‐day average/10‐year low flow [7Q10] for chronic conditions (i.e., 0.2 cfs), and harmonic mean flow for human health and other constituents (e.g., salinity) that express toxicity over long time periods (i.e., 9.4 cfs). Table 4.5‐2 summarizes the results of the mass‐balance analysis of receiving water concentrations under existing conditions and with the treatment capacity expansion to 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan. The table provides values for the existing and projected future receiving water concentration, and the percentage change in assimilative capacity (i.e., amount of degradation that occurs with an increased concentration), which is calculated as the percentage change in the difference between the applicable water quality criterion and the receiving water concentration. Thus, a 10% reduction in assimilative capacity means that the receiving water concentration increased, and would be 10% closer to exceeding the criteria. Consistency with Plans and Policies Potential inconsistencies with land use plans, policies, and regulations that are adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect do not, per se, translate into adverse environmental effects under CEQA. Even where a lead agency is subject to an environmentally protective policy, the mere fact of inconsistency is not by itself an adverse effect on the environment. Such inconsistencies may indicate, however, that a proposed physical activity might harm the environmental resource intended to be protected by the plans, policies, or regulations at issue. Potential adverse effects on such resources (e.g., effects on hydrology and water quality resources) are addressed in the Impact Analysis and Mitigation Measures section below. Unless otherwise specifically identified, the effects of implementing the Immediate Improvements and Facilities Master Plan would be consistent with applicable policies, and no further discussion is provided below.

As stated in Section 3.3 of this EIR, it is a stated objective of the project that implementation of the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements by the City would comply with applicable stormwater management programs and regulations. In particular, project construction activities would be conducted in compliance with the City’s SWMP, and the SWRCB NPDES Stormwater General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities (“General Construction NPDES Permit,” Order No. 2009‐0009‐DWQ/NPDES Permit No. CAS000002). The General Construction NPDES Permit requires the preparation and implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that outlines the temporary construction‐related BMPs to prevent and minimize erosion, sedimentation, and discharge of other construction‐related contaminants, as well as permanent post‐construction BMPs to minimize adverse long‐term stormwater related–runoff water quality effects. As discussed below, all other identified potential construction‐ and operations‐related impacts associated with implementation under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements are considered less than significant after implementation of mitigation measures. Therefore, the project would be anticipated to be consistent with local plans and regulations and this issue is not discussed further.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-15 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

Table 4.5-1 Constituent Concentrations in Effluent under the Existing and Proposed Project Conditions and Background Laguna Creek Concentrations Lowest Receiving- WWTP Design Performance Laguna Existing Effluent Concentration 3 Permit Water Quality Criteria2 Concentration4 Creek 5, 6 Constituent Units Limits 1 Human Aquatic Life Avg. Max. Count Detects (%) Avg. Max. Avg. Health/Other Physical Parameters and Inorganic Constituents Aluminum g/L 200 7 7508 200 9 27.8 10 60 10 10 80 NA 156 <0.7 to Ammonia, total (N) mg/L 1.7 1.4/3.811 NA 0.8 19 80 24 <2.0 12 0.9 13 0.412 Chloride mg/L NA 230 14 250 9 69 6 92 6 13 100 NA 7.0 Electrical Conductivity(EC) µmhos/cm NA NA 900 9 47510 59010 63 100 NA 121 15 Foaming agents (MBAS) mg/L NA NA 0.5 9 0.08 6 0.12 6 13 100 NA 0.02 Iron g/L 300 7 NA 300 9 56 10 59 10 3 100 NA 1,313 Manganese g/L 50 7 NA 50 9 8 10 18 10 3 100 NA 72 Nitrate (N) mg/L 10 NA 10 16 9.1 27 83 81 <10 17 <10 17 0.67 Sulfate mg/L NA NA 250 9 24 6 34 6 13 100 NA 9.1 Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L NA NA 500 9 37510 48010 63 100 NA 117 15 Total Phosphorus mg/L NA Narr. 18 NA 2.7 6 4.8 6 13 100 <19 0.86 Priority Pollutant Inorganic Constituents and Trace Metals Antimony g/L NA NA 14 0.11 6 0.23 6 13 62 NA 0.04 Arsenic g/L 10 NA 10 16 11 10 19 10 34 100 <10 20 4.6 Cadmium g/L NA 1.5/2.2 21, 22 5 0.06 6 0.46 6 12 17 NA 0.84 13 Chromium (III) g/L NA 123/1,032 21, 22 50 0.36 6 1 6 12 100 NA 1.8 Chromium (VI) g/L NA 11/16 21 NA 1.3 3.1 7 14 NA 2.5 13 Copper g/L 3.1 5.5/7.7 21, 22 1000 9 3.3 10 10 10 11 55 NA 7.6 13 Cyanide g/L 3.4 5.2/22 21 700 1.8 10 3.7 10 11 18 NA 3.0 13 Lead g/L 0.38 1.2/30 21, 22 15 17 0.3 10 0.7 10 10 30 NA 1.5 13 Mercury ng/L 0.05 lbs/yr 23 NA 50 1.7 10 3.5 10 9 100 NA 5.0 Selenium g/L NA 524 50 0.5 6 0.7 6 12 100 NA 1.3 13 Silver g/L NA 1.222, 25 NA 0.02 6, 26 0.04 6, 26 12 100 NA 0.1 13 Thallium g/L NA NA 1.7 0.02 6 0.06 6 12 50 NA 0.01 Zinc g/L NA 70/70 21, 22 5,000 46 6 52 6 12 100 NA 38 13 Priority Pollutant Organic Compounds 1,1,2‐Trichloro‐1,2,2‐ g/L NA NA 1,200 0.24 6 0.4 6 13 8 NA 0.08 Trifluoroethane Bis(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate g/L 1.8 NA 1.8 0.3 10 1.0 10 10 30 NA 1.5 Carbofuran g/L NA NA 18 0.94 6 1.5 6 4 25 NA 0.9

City of Galt 4.5-16 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Table 4.5-1 Constituent Concentrations in Effluent under the Existing and Proposed Project Conditions and Background Laguna Creek Concentrations Lowest Receiving- WWTP Design Performance Laguna Existing Effluent Concentration 3 Permit Water Quality Criteria2 Concentration4 Creek 5, 6 Constituent Units Limits 1 Human Aquatic Life Avg. Max. Count Detects (%) Avg. Max. Avg. Health/Other Carbon tetrachloride g/L 0.25 NA 0.25 ND 10 ND 10 10 0 NA NA Hexachlorocyclopentadiene g/L NA NA 50 0.81 6 1 6 5 20 NA 1 Toluene g/L NA NA 150 16 0.32 6 1 6 13 31 NA 0.35

Notes: NA = No applicable regulatory water quality objective for the constituent; mg/L = milligrams per liter; g/L = micrograms per liter; µmhos/cm = micromohs per centimeter; CaCO3 = calcium carbonate; MBAS = methylene blue activated substances. 1 Lowest effluent limitation (concentration-based) specified in the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit adopted on September 10, 2010. The average monthly effluent limit (AMEL) is shown unless otherwise specified. 2 Lowest applicable receiving-water quality criteria for ambient surface water specified in the California Toxics Rule (CTR), unless otherwise specified. 3 City Self Monitoring and Reporting (SMR) data for November 2009 through May 2012, unless otherwise specified. 4 Minimum design performance concentration for proposed WWTP process upgrades for the Immediate Improvements, unless otherwise specified. 5 Average background receiving water concentration used for assessment of potential degradation resulting from effluent discharge unless otherwise specified. 6 Unless otherwise specified, available data from two, year-long monitoring periods conducted by the City during February 2002-January 2003 and March 2007-April 2008 and used for the City’s 2009 antidegradation analysis (Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2009). No additional data available following adoption of City’s current NPDES permit in September 2010 because City is not required to routinely monitor these constituents. 7 Effluent limitation is specified as the annual average concentration not to be exceeded. 8 EPA chronic water quality criterion for aluminum for aquatic life protection based on moderate hardness and pH conditions specified in the EPA criteria document (EPA 1988), which is consistent with conditions present in Laguna Creek downstream of the City’s WWTP effluent discharge. 9 Secondary drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. 10 City SMR data for January 2011 through May 2012 period following construction of tertiary filtration, reflecting improved performance in removal of filterable constituents and constituents typically associated with filterable suspended solids. Data period also used for compounds affected by former chlorine disinfection system, including related chemical additions (i.e., electrical conductivity, total dissolved solids, cyanide, and carbon tetrachloride) 11 EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2009) ammonia criteria for aquatic life beneficial use protection specified as criteria continuous concentration (CCC)/criteria maximum concentration (CMC), or chronic and acute criteria, respectively. The applicable EPA criteria are identified in City’s NPDES permit; with the chronic criterion based on the rolling 30-day average pH and temperature values in Laguna Creek for the period of January 2004 through December 2009. The acute criterion is based on the City’s self-imposed maximum allowable pH of 8.2 for the effluent discharged to Skunk Creek. 12 Design treatment performance for ammonia anticipated following construction of measures for the Immediate Improvements to ensure consistent nitrification. Performance based on West Yost Associates modeling of worst-case combination of effluent and receiving-water pH and temperature values (West Yost Associates 2009). Average concentration would range from <0.7 mg/L based on modeling (West Yost Associates 2009) to about 0.4 mg/L, which is the current average WWTP performance if occasional spikes observed in excess of the MDEL in the period of record since November 2009 are deleted to represent future performance. 13 Maximum background receiving water concentration used for assessment of potential degradation resulting from effluent discharge. 14 EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2009) chloride chronic water quality criterion for aquatic life protection. 15 City’s receiving water data for November 2009 through May 2012. 16 Primary drinking water MCL contained in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations. 17 Design treatment performance for nitrate anticipated following construction of measures for the Immediate Improvements to ensure consistent denitrification when discharging to surface waters. 18 Basin Plan narrative objective for nutrient biostimulation is applicable to phosphorus; numerical water quality criteria have not been established. 19 Phosphorus concentrations would likely decrease with the addition of the enhanced nitrification/denitrification process. Actual decreases cannot be quantified with existing data. 20 Minimum proposed design treatment performance for arsenic that would be implemented through one or more treatment processes for the Immediate Improvements. 21 CTR criteria for aquatic life beneficial use protection specified as the chronic CCC/acute CMC. Criteria expressed as the total recoverable form of the constituent. 22 CTR metals criteria are hardness-dependent; based on City data collected from November 2009 through May 2012 consisting of minimum effluent hardness of 53 mg/L as CaCO3 and minimum and maximum Laguna Creek hardness of 28 and 100 mg/L as CaCO3, respectively. 23 Total mercury effluent limitation is specified as a maximum allowable mass emission of pounds per year. 24 CTR chronic aquatic life criterion. 25 CTR acute aquatic life criterion. 26 Predicted average and maximum silver values projected based on average removal performance with tertiary filtration.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-17 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

Table 4.5-2 Mass Balance Analysis - Effects of 6.0 mgd Discharge of Tertiary-treated, UV-disinfected Effluent with Nitrogen Removal Lowest Applicable Concentration in Laguna Creek (R2) downstream of WWTP Outfall Assimilative Capacity Water Quality Objective Constituent Units @ Existing(2.3 @ Facilities Master Plan Incremental Currently Available Additional Reduction Value Basis mgd)Discharge Rate (6.0 mgd) Discharge Rate Increase Used (%) (conc. units) Expansion to 6.0 mgd (%) Physical Parameters and Inorganic Constituents Aluminum g/L 121 92 ‐29 200 2° MCL 60% 79 ‐36% Ammonia, total (N) mg/L 0.74 0.701 ‐0.04 1.4 EPA‐CCC 54% 0.6 ‐6.7% Chloride mg/L 88 91 3 230 EPA‐CCC 38% 141 2% EC µmhos/cm 215 295 80 900 2° MCL 24% 685 12% Foaming agents (MBAS) mg/L 0.03 0.05 0.012 0.5 2° MCL 6.9% 0.47 3% Iron g/L 968 688 ‐279 300 2° MCL 323% None ‐93% Manganese g/L 54 40 ‐14 50 2° MCL 108% None ‐28% Nitrate (N) mg/L 26 9.9 ‐16 10 1° MCL 263% None ‐164% Sulfate mg/L 13 17 32 250 2° MCL 5.3% 237 1% TDS mg/L 188 245 57 500 2° MCL 38% 312 18% Priority Pollutant Inorganic Constituents and Trace Metals Antimony g/L 0.06 0.08 0.02 14 CTR‐CCC 0.4% 14 0.1% Arsenic g/L 6.3 7.3 0.92 10 1° MCL 63% 3.7 25% Cadmium g/L 0.48 0.47 ‐0.01 1.5 CTR‐CCC 34% 0.92 ‐1.3% Chromium (III) g/L 1.4 1.1 ‐0.3 50 CTR‐CCC 2.9% 48 ‐0.7% Chromium (VI) g/L 3.1 3.1 0.0 11 CTR‐CCC 28% 7.9 0.2%3 Copper g/L 9.9 9.9 0.12 5.5 CTR‐CCC 190% None None Copper(WER adjusted) g/L 9.9 9.9 0.12 16.5 4 CTR‐CCC 60% 6.6 1.1% Cyanide g/L 3.7 3.7 0.0 5.2 CTR‐CCC 70% 1.5 1.5%3 Lead g/L 0.7 0.7 0.0 1.2 CTR‐CCC 62% 0.46 ‐5.8%3 Mercury ng/L 4.1 3.4 ‐0.7 50 CTR‐HH 8.2% 46 ‐1.6% Selenium g/L 0.7 0.7 0.0 5 CTR‐CCC 15% 4.3 ‐0.4%3

City of Galt 4.5-18 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Table 4.5-2 Mass Balance Analysis - Effects of 6.0 mgd Discharge of Tertiary-treated, UV-disinfected Effluent with Nitrogen Removal Lowest Applicable Concentration in Laguna Creek (R2) downstream of WWTP Outfall Assimilative Capacity Water Quality Objective Constituent Units @ Existing(2.3 @ Facilities Master Plan Incremental Currently Available Additional Reduction Value Basis mgd)Discharge Rate (6.0 mgd) Discharge Rate Increase Used (%) (conc. units) Expansion to 6.0 mgd (%) Silver g/L 0.04 0.04 0.0 1.2 CTR‐HH 3.3% 1.2 ‐0.1%3 Thallium g/L 0.02 0.02 0.0 1.7 CTR‐CMC 0.9% 1.7 0.1%3 Zinc g/L 51 51 0 70 CTR‐CCC 73% 19 2%3 Priority Pollutant Organic Compounds 1,1,2‐Trichloro‐1,2,2‐ g/L 0.2 0.2 0.0 1200 CTR‐HH 0.0% 1200 0.0% Trifluoroethane Bis(2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate g/L 1.2 0.9 ‐0.3 1.8 CTR‐HH 66% 0.6 ‐45% Carbofuran g/L 0.9 0.9 0.0 18 CTR‐HH 5.1% 17 0.1%3 Hexachlorocyclopentadiene g/L 0.95 0.91 ‐0.04 50 CTR‐HH 1.9% 49 ‐0.09% Toluene g/L 0.34 0.33 ‐0.01 150 CTR‐HH 0.2% 150 0.0%3 Notes: EPA-CCC: EPA National Recommended Water Quality Criteria (2009) chronic criterion for aquatic life protection 2° MCL = Department of Public Health Title 22 secondary MCL. 1° MCL = Department of Public Health Title 22 primary MCL. CTR-CCC = CTR chronic criterion for the protection of aquatic life. CTR-CMC = CTR acute criterion for the protection of aquatic life. CTR-HH = CTR criterion for the protection of human health (consumption of water and organisms). None = no assimilative capacity is available. 2Ammonia mass balance and incremental change in Laguna Creek calculated conservatively based on the modeled average ammonia concentration of 0.7 mg/L (West Yost Associates 2009). 2Rounding of calculated receiving water concentration change results in value not equal to difference between tabular values of existing and future receiving water concentrations. 3Rounding of calculated percentage change in assimilative capacity results in value despite a reported zero change in receiving water concentrations. 3CTR copper chronic criteria adjusted with assumed minimum Water Effect Ratio (WER) of 3.0.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-19 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

All potential resource topics of relevance to hydrology and water quality plans, policies, and regulations are assessed in the following impact discussions. However, because the beneficial uses that are most sensitive to dissolved oxygen and temperature are fisheries resources, the effects of the effluent discharges on these constituents in the Skunk Creek/Laguna Creek receiving waters downstream of the effluent discharge are assessed in Section 4.6, “Fisheries and Aquatic Resources.” IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Temporary Stormwater Quality Effects from Project Construction Activities. Project-related 4.5-1 construction activities for either expansion of the WWTP facilities under the Facilities Master Plan or the Immediate Improvements would have the potential to result in temporary soil erosion, discharges of construction-related contaminants, and off-site transport of wastes in stormwater runoff. To avoid or minimize the potential for adverse construction-related effects on water quality, the construction contractors would be required under current state regulations to obtain authorization under the statewide NPDES Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activity before beginning work. Implementation of construction BMPs identified in the SWPPP would be anticipated to avoid or minimize the potential for construction-related erosion and contaminant discharges to surface water and groundwater. However, the specific construction plans and potential construction-related water quality effects for both the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements cannot be predicted with certainty at this time. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Detailed construction plans and specifications for the expanded WWTP facilities for the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements have not yet been developed. However, construction would involve site disturbance, grading, excavation, and facility construction activities on up to 15 acres for Immediate Improvements and on up to a maximum of 45 acres for the Facilities Master Plan buildout. Construction activities would result in potential temporary increases in soil erosion and discharge of construction‐related contaminants to surface water or groundwater. Construction activities could disturb and displace channel soils directly, or could result in direct discharge of construction materials into the waterway. Construction of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would also require temporary staging areas for storage of construction materials, fuels, equipment, and vehicles, and would involve the transport of materials to and from the site. Potential contaminants at staging areas and other construction‐site locations could be exposed to stormwater and be transported off‐site in runoff. Additionally, trenching for pipeline, utility, and structure foundations is unlikely to require temporary site dewatering and disposal to accommodate the construction activity.

Based on the size and duration of the construction activities, the potential exists for temporary discharges of construction‐related contaminants to enter adjacent surface water or groundwater. Contaminated and/or high‐ turbidity runoff could be generated at the construction site, which could affect localized drainage channels and Skunk Creek, thereby adversely affecting water quality. Land grading activities would be expected to occur during the dry season in the summer, when storms and runoff would be unlikely to occur. Likewise, bare soils would be exposed to rainfall runoff only temporarily, and the potential for substantial erosion and discharges of runoff, if any, would be expected to be relatively low. Moreover, the City’s construction contractors would be required to prepare a SWPPP, and comply with the City’s SWMP authority for construction stormwater control, for compliance with the statewide NPDES Stormwater Permit for General Construction Activity. However, for both the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, only a general knowledge of the construction‐

City of Galt 4.5-20 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

related activities and potential water quality effects can be assessed at this time. Thus, the potential exists for construction‐related activities to cause contaminant discharges to enter adjacent surface water or groundwater and cause substantial temporary exceedances of applicable regulatory criteria, or cause degradation through reduction of assimilative capacity for the contaminants and still remain below criteria, which is considered a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, up to 15 acres located on and directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (see Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, the potential exists for construction‐related activities for the Immediate Improvements to cause contaminant discharges to enter adjacent surface water or groundwater and cause substantial temporary exceedances of applicable regulatory criteria, or cause degradation through reduction of assimilative capacity for the contaminants and still remain below criteria, which is considered a potentially significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 4.5-1. Obtain an NPDES Permit and Develop and Implement a SWPPP with BMPs

Construction disturbance for the Immediate Improvements and for buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would be larger than 1 acre and therefore would require a stormwater construction permit. To avoid or minimize the potential for adverse construction-related effects on water quality, the City shall develop a SWPPP and obtain authorization under the statewide NPDES stormwater permit for general construction activity before beginning work on any construction phase. To comply with the NPDES regulations, the City shall identify and implement construction-related BMPs to avoid and minimize erosion and contaminant runoff. Such BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following:

 limiting ground-disturbing activities during the winter rainfall period,

 minimizing exposure of disturbed areas and stockpiles to rainfall,

 covering small areas with rolled material during rain,

 covering large areas with erosion control blankets and/or mulch,

 distributing rock bags in the gutter before an inlet to slow flow and filter sediment,

 protecting inlets with straw wattles and rock bags,

 putting stucco and concrete supplies and materials in one place with pH sampling equipment and covering with plastic,

 using large river rock to stabilize entrance and exit areas and prevent tracking to streets,

 minimizing construction work near or in drainage channels, and

 locating staging areas as far as practicable from surface waters.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-21 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

Other preventive good housekeeping practices could include, but are not limited to, road sweeping, sediment tracking and hauling, dust control, and diversion measures such as berms to prevent clear runoff from contacting disturbed areas, and contaminated runoff from entering surface waters. Erosion and sedimentation control measures could also include soil stabilization, mulching, silt fencing, or temporary desilting basins. Implementation of feasible construction BMPs would avoid and minimize stormwater runoff and discharge of contaminants. After implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.5‐1, construction of the Immediate Improvements and all future phases of the Facilities Master Plan would result in less‐than‐significant impacts related to temporary stormwater quality effects due to construction activities.

Impact Long-term Operations-Related Effects on Stormwater Drainage and Flooding. Development of 4.5-2 WWTP facility and site improvements for the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would involve construction and modification of existing site features that would result in additional impervious surfaces and increased stormwater runoff at the existing WWTP site. The Facilities Master Plan would increase the size of the developed WWTP site up to a total of approximately 35 acres. Additionally, the WWTP treatment capacity would increase to 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan resulting in the peak hourly wet-weather effluent discharge in Laguna Creek, downstream of the effluent outfall, to increase by approximately 19 cfs compared to existing conditions. A designated 100-year floodplain is defined for the Laguna Creek channel; therefore, the channel capacity for existing storm flows may be limited. The project-related contribution of additional WWTP effluent during storm events could incrementally increase the potential frequency of overbank flows in the channel. However, the additional flow and volume of WWTP effluent discharged during a peak flow event represents a small change to existing conditions (i.e., channel capacity, floodplain inundation) and thus would be unlikely to measurably increase the area or depth of floodwater inundation. Because the project-related effluent discharge would contribute to flows in an existing designated floodplain, and would minimally affect channel inundation characteristics, this impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The low‐lying lands adjacent to the Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek channels, including portions of the WWTP effluent storage ponds and reclamation irrigation fields, lie within the FEMA‐designated 100‐year floodplain. A small portion of the site located within the 100‐year floodplain may potentially be used for construction of WWTP improvements under both the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements. However, the minor encroachment of facilities in the floodplain area of Skunk Creek would not measurably alter any floodplain functions, including but not limited to flow conveyance or floodwater storage capacity, because the disturbed area would be incrementally small relative to the much larger and extensive floodplain area and functions provided by the overall Laguna Creek and Skunk Creek floodplains surrounding the WWTP site. Additionally, the WWTP improvements would be constructed to be protected from flooding inundation and thus would not increase flood hazards.

Construction of new facilities for the WWTP under the Facilities Master Plan buildout phase would increase the developed area of the WWTP site (from the existing 17 acres of hardscape up to approximately 35 acres), including new paved areas and other impervious surfaces which may increase by up to about 25 acres relative to existing conditions. Additional impervious surfaces would reduce infiltration of rainfall into the soil during rain events and, therefore, may increase the stormwater runoff rate and volume from the site relative to existing conditions. Stormwater runoff rates would not change with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. Because the WWTP site modifications that would be constructed under the Facilities Master Plan are only conceptual at this time, the potential increase in stormwater runoff that may occur as a result of additional impervious surfaces is unknown. However, the additional drainage from the site would be small relative to the drainage generated in the Laguna Creek watershed, and would not be expected to

City of Galt 4.5-22 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

measurably contribute to channel peak flows that are generated upstream of the WWTP. The options for management of additional stormwater generated onsite would be routing collected stormwater to the WWTP headworks for treatment, routing stormwater through conventional stormwater conveyance and treatment features (i.e., swales and the storage reservoir), or a combination of the methods. Moreover, the WWTP unit processes and effluent storage pond provide a large volume for storage of elevated wastewater flows, thus discharge of stormwater via the WWTP or from the WWTP site would be attenuated and minimized consistent with stormwater management policies and regulations.

Expanding the WWTP treatment capacity under the Facilities Master Plan buildout phase to 6.0 mgd from the existing average daily discharge rate of approximately 2.3 mgd would be anticipated to result in a corresponding increase in the peak hourly effluent discharge rates. These rates are larger than average daily flows as a result of daily wastewater flow fluctuation and potential infiltration and inflow of groundwater and stormwater runoff within the sewer collection system service area. Based on WWTP engineering analyses conducted for the City (West Yost Associates 2008, p. 6‐2/3), the peak hourly effluent discharge rate under the Facilities Master Plan may increase, proportionally to the average daily discharge rate, by about 12.3 mgd (i.e., increase equivalent to approximately 19 cfs) from the existing 7.7 mgd peak hourly rate to 20 mgd. The increased peak hourly effluent discharge rate reflects an increase in the Laguna Creek channel flow of less than approximately 1% based on the projected maximum average monthly flows in December of wet year types of about 2,700 cfs, and would represent a very small contribution, and not measurably change, the peak Laguna Creek flood flows that are known to be about 30,000 cfs.

The combined increased peak effluent discharge and stormwater runoff that may be produced at the WWTP site under the Facilities Master Plan would be small relative to current peak‐flow events that occur in the Laguna Creek channel. The additional discharge and drainage would not be expected to measurably change peak‐ channel‐flow characteristics that dictate flooding conditions such as duration, frequency, water depth and inundation, or flow velocity. Channel flows related to storm events are a concern because they increase the exposure and risk of humans and livestock to flooding, can cause erosive damage to property and infrastructure (roads and bridges) adjacent to the channel, and can result in damage from debris and sedimentation. However, downstream of the WWTP, the Laguna Creek channel traverses a rural area where there are few, if any encroachments on the natural channel (e.g., bridges, fences, dams) that would be exposed to, or cause, additional flooding or flood hazards. Consequently, the potential small changes in peak channel flow associated with the City’s effluent discharge would not be expected to cause or contribute measurably to any flooding hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, up to 15 acres located on and directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (see Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. Furthermore, the Immediate Improvements would not involve an increase in WWTP capacity from the current permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd. As described above for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, the combined increased peak effluent discharge and stormwater runoff that may be produced at the WWTP site under the Immediate Improvements would be small relative to current peak‐flow events that occur in the Laguna Creek channel. The additional discharge and drainage would not be expected to measurably change peak‐channel‐flow characteristics that dictate flooding conditions such as duration, frequency, water depth and inundation, or flow velocity. Consequently, the potential small changes in peak channel flow associated with the City’s effluent discharge would not be expected to cause or contribute measurably to any flooding hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-23 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Long-term Operations-Related Effects on Stormwater-related Runoff Quality, Erosion, and 4.5-3 Sedimentation. The Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would increase the size of the developed WWTP site and modify portions of the existing WWTP site. It would also increase the area of impervious surfaces and stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff may contain additional operations-related contaminants (e.g., oil and grease, site maintenance chemicals) associated with WWTP operational improvements and expanded capacity, and likely involve conveyance to the WWTP headworks for treatment and ultimately discharge. The WWTP treatment capacity would increase to 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan resulting in increased peak wet-weather effluent discharge to Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek downstream of the effluent outfall by approximately 19 cfs compared to existing conditions. Increased flow rates in the receiving waters resulting from site runoff and effluent discharges may result in an increased potential for channel flows that could cause or contribute to channel erosion and sedimentation downstream. However, the project-related discharges from the WWTP would not substantially alter the range and magnitude of channel flows currently resulting from background storm events, which are much larger than the additional effluent that would be discharged from the WWTP. Therefore, project-related increased discharge of effluent and stormwater would not cause substantial changes in the existing conditions of minor erosion and sedimentation associated with background storm events. Thus, neither the Facilities Master Plan nor Immediate Improvements would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. This impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The WWTP operations involve storage and on‐site use of chemicals for treatment processes, fuel for vehicles and equipment, and equipment cleaning products within equipment sheds that are raised above ground level to avoid being flooded and with containment for spills or leaks. Rainfall and associated stormwater runoff can cause these potential contaminants, and other sources such as oils and greases from paved areas, to be transported off‐site to adjacent waterways where they can impair water quality and adversely affect beneficial uses. On‐site stormwater generated at the City’s existing WWTP is collected and conveyed to the WWTP’s headworks and treated. The size of the developed WWTP site would increase substantially (from the existing 17 acres up to 35 acres) with implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, and increase slightly under the Immediate Improvements. Therefore, development of WWTP facility and site improvements would increase the area of impervious surfaces under the Facilities Master Plan by up to about 25 acres, and up to about 1 acre under the Immediate Improvements, resulting in an associated potential increase in stormwater runoff production. Stormwater runoff may contain additional operations‐related contaminants associated with increased WWTP operations, increased employee and service vehicle traffic, and chemical storage‐handling‐use. Consequently, the potential for stormwater contaminant mobilization, transport, and runoff may increase.

The options for management of additional stormwater generated onsite would be routing collected stormwater to the WWTP headworks for treatment, or routing stormwater treated through conventional stormwater conveyance and treatment features (i.e., swales and the storage reservoir), or a combination of the methods for evaporation and discharge to Skunk Creek. If stormwater runoff is allowed to directly discharge to a surface drainage, then the City would be subject to the statewide NPDES Stormwater Permit for General Industrial Activity (SWRCB Order 97‐03‐DWQ). The permit is not required if facilities can be designed to completely avoid exposure of stormwater to on‐site contaminants. The statewide NPDES permit requires preparation of a Storm

City of Galt 4.5-24 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that (a) identifies sources of contaminants that could affect the quality of stormwater discharges and non‐stormwater discharges; and (b) identifies stormwater quality Best Management Practices (BMPs) to avoid and minimize discharges of contaminated runoff. The SWPPP must identify and describe applicable nonstructural BMPs such as material handling and response, good housekeeping measures, preventive maintenance, spill response, waste handling and recycling, and erosion control and site stabilization measures. SWPPPs typically address measures such as structural BMPs such as retention ponds, secondary containment around material storage areas, and treatment BMPs such as infiltration devices, oil/water separators, detention ponds, and grass swales. If stormwater generated at the facility must be discharged to off‐site surface drainage channels, the implementation of the NPDES Stormwater Permit for General Industrial Activity and SWPPP would result in the avoidance and minimization of potential stormwater runoff–related impacts on water quality. Alternatively, stormwater facilities may be constructed to collect and convey stormwater runoff generated at the WWTP site to the headworks for treatment via the wastewater treatment unit processes, as it is currently managed. The City, as the operator of the WWTP and a co‐permittee with other Sacramento County agencies under the NPDES General MS4 stormwater permit, would plan, design, implement, and manage the appropriate post‐construction stormwater BMPs for the WWTP site as they are currently authorized under their SWMP.

The incremental project‐related increase in the peak hourly wet‐weather effluent discharge rate to Laguna Creek would contribute to overall channel flows that have the potential to cause channel erosion. However, as identified in the discussion for Impact 4.5‐2, the increase in peak discharge is estimated to be less than 1% of the estimated existing range of average monthly flows. Based on review of aerial photography and site visit observations, Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek are isolated, non‐braided channels that exhibit only minor erosion or scour. The relatively stable channels are apparently a function of the generally low gradient of the channel which results in slow flow; lack of levees that allow high flows to overtop banks and thereby reduce erosive energy of high flows; and close proximity to the Cosumnes River channel which likely causes flows to back up into the Laguna Creek channel during high flows and thereby also reduces flow energy. The existing level of channel erosion and incision in the Laguna Creek floodplain reflects the effects of the entire range of flows in the channel. In particular, highly variable channel flows associated with large winter storm events have the greatest potential to erode channel banks and transport channel sediment deposits downstream. Based on WWTP engineering analyses conducted for the City (West Yost Associates 2008, p. 6‐2/3), the peak hourly effluent discharge rate under the Facilities Master Plan may increase, proportionally to the average daily discharge rate, by about 12.3 mgd (i.e., increase equivalent to approximately 19 cfs) from the existing 7.7 mgd peak hourly rate to 20 mgd. The increased peak hourly effluent discharge rate reflects an increase in the Laguna Creek channel flow of less than approximately 1% based on the projected maximum average monthly flows in December of wet year types of about 2,700 cfs, and less than measurable contribution to peak Laguna Creek flood flows of about 30,000 cfs. This increase would not be expected to substantially change the frequency or magnitude of the peak channel flows and velocities that are most likely to cause in‐channel erosion. Given that existing channel erosion conditions in Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek are considered minor, project‐related flow contributions would not cause substantial additional erosion or sedimentation. This impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, up to 15 acres located on and directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (see Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, project‐related increased discharge of effluent and stormwater would not cause substantial changes in the existing conditions of minor erosion and sedimentation. Thus, the Immediate Improvements would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-25 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site. This impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Effects of Project Discharges on BOD, pH, coliform bacteria, TSS, and Turbidity in Receiving 4.5-4 Waters. Proposed WWTP improvements for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for BOD, pH, coliform bacteria, and SS, and the receiving water limitations for turbidity. These limitations are based on Basin Plan objectives and technology-based standards determined to be protective of aquatic life in the receiving water. The WWTP currently provides effective control or removal of these constituents, and the proposed WWTP improvements may increase the reliability of meeting these effluent limitations. These limitations are also based on the Central Valley Water Board’s determinations that allowable concentrations would be protective of receiving water beneficial uses. Therefore, effluent discharge under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would not increase levels of these constituents in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, or downstream water bodies sufficiently to cause federal or state water quality criteria to be exceeded by a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse effects on one or more beneficial uses of the receiving water. The effluent discharge also would not result in substantial, permanent degradation of existing water quality that would cause adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses of in the receiving water bodies. This is considered a less-than- significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The conventional water quality parameters of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), pH, total coliform bacteria, total suspended solids (TSS), and turbidity are typically included in NPDES permits as measures of overall plant performance and do not necessarily correspond to any specific regulatory water quality criteria for receiving‐ water. The effluent limitations reflect the level of protection that the Central Valley Water Board has determined will ensure that receiving‐water quality standards in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, or downstream water bodies are met and that beneficial uses are not adversely affected. Therefore, achieving compliance with the effluent limitations for these parameters would ensure that the proposed project would not cause adverse effects on the quality of receiving water.

In combination with the construction of the storage reservoir bypass system that became operational in November 2009 and the tertiary filtration and UV light disinfection processes that were completed in January 2011, the WWTP provides improved performance for removing suspended solids and turbidity. These improvements, in turn, also increase overall reliability of disinfection processes and the ability to meet limitations for BOD and coliform bacteria that may be associated with suspended matter. BOD is an indirect measure of a discharger’s utilization of dissolved oxygen (DO), and the Basin Plan includes numeric water quality objectives for DO to protect aquatic life. Because aquatic life–related beneficial uses of the receiving water are most sensitive to DO, the impacts of combined effluent BOD levels on water quality are discussed in Section 4.6, “Aquatic Biological Resources.” Table 4.5‐3 provides a summary of measured values for pH in samples collected after November 2009, and for other parameters affected by the improved filtration system for samples collected after January 2011. The data demonstrates that the current WWTP facilities provide effective control and removal for BOD, pH, total coliform bacteria, and TSS. Background turbidity levels in Laguna Creek are generally much higher than the effluent, and on average, reflect no substantial difference between the upstream and downstream monitoring locations. Turbidity is not monitored in the effluent; however, it does not contribute substantially to turbidity in Laguna Creek, and often likely contributes to lowering of turbidity in Laguna Creek

City of Galt 4.5-26 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

during the low‐flow months of the year when the effluent represents a substantial portion of the total streamflow.

Table 4.5-3 Summary of WWTP Performance for Conventional Constituents for November 2009 through May 2012 Compared to the Current NPDES Permit Limitations. Effluent Limitations Monitoring Data Parameter (units) Highest Average Maximum Average Monthly Maximum Daily Monthly Daily BOD (mg/L) 10 20 2.4 8.9 Total Coliform (MPN) <2.2 1 230 <2 1 240 2 TSS (mg/L) 10 20 2.1 5.5 Instantaneous limitations Instantaneous values pH 6.5 (min) 8.2 (max) 3 6.5 8.6 4 Receiving Water Limitations Average Turbidity (NTU) (Increase in Receiving Water) 1 (<20% increase) 5 ‐0.3 Notes: MPN = most probable number NTU = Nephelometric turbidity units 1 Effluent limitation and measured values specified as 7-day median concentration. 2 Maximum value appears to be an aberration; all other weekly effluent values measured since November 2009 are less than 4. 3 Permit contains a self-imposed maximum allowable pH of 8.2; however, Basin Plan objective for aquatic life protection is 8.5. 4 Maximum value appears to be an aberration; all other weekly effluent values measured since November 2009 are less than 8.0. 5 The permit does not contain an effluent limitation. The receiving water limitation restricts the allowable increase downstream of the discharge to less than 20% of the upstream value at RSW-001 when upstream turbidity is in the range of 5 to 50 NTUs. The average turbidity at RSW-001 since January 2011 is 24 NTU; thus limitation of 1 specified in table represents 20% of 5 NTUs.

For all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, there would be additional treatment process improvements implemented for control or removal of BOD, pH, coliform bacteria, TSS, and turbidity. However, upgraded and expanded WWTP facilities would be specifically designed to continue to provide effective removal and control for these parameters. Therefore, effluent and receiving water concentrations of BOD, pH, coliform bacteria, TSS, and turbidity under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would continue to achieve compliance with the permit limitations, and thus, would not increase levels of these constituents in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, or downstream water bodies sufficiently to cause federal or state water quality criteria to be exceeded by a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse effects on one or more beneficial uses of the receiving water. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long‐term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, none of these constituents are bioaccumulative constituents; thus, the effluent discharges would not result in adverse bioaccumulation effects to aquatic life or humans. Therefore, the potential long‐ term operations‐related water quality impacts of BOD, pH, coliform bacteria, TSS, and turbidity discharges would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the Immediate Improvements for the WWTP would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s applicable effluent and receiving limitations for BOD, pH, coliform bacteria, TSS, and turbidity. These limitations are, in turn, based on EPA‐recommended criteria determined to be protective of receiving water beneficial uses. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-27 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

Impact Effects of Project Discharges on Ammonia and Nitrate in Receiving Waters. The Immediate 4.5-5 Improvements for the WWTP would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for ammonia and nitrate. These limitations are, in turn, based on EPA-recommended criteria determined to be protective of aquatic life in the receiving water and the drinking water MCL, which are the beneficial uses most sensitive to these constituents. Consequently, effluent and receiving water concentrations of ammonia and nitrate in Laguna Creek would be reduced with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. Under the Facilities Master Plan, the expanded treatment capacity and maximum effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd would result in reduced nitrate concentrations in Laguna Creek downstream of the discharge and moderate additional degradation associated with increased receiving water ammonia concentrations. Thus, the project-related effects of nitrate in effluent discharged to Skunk Creek/Laguna Creek would result in improved conditions relative to the potential water quality for municipal drinking water beneficial uses. The increased discharge rate under the Facilities Master Plan would result in a moderate reduction in ammonia assimilative capacity in Laguna Creek, but receiving water ammonia concentrations would remain well below the applicable EPA criteria. Consequently, discharges of ammonia and nitrate would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long-term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. This is considered a less-than-significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The EPA‐recommended water quality criteria for ammonia provide the lowest relevant guidance values for protection of aquatic life and include long‐term chronic criteria (i.e., 30‐day average criteria) based on pH and temperature, and short‐term acute criteria (i.e., 1‐hour average criteria) based on pH of the receiving water. Therefore, the applicable criteria protective of aquatic life in the receiving water vary as receiving‐water pH and temperature conditions change. As the effluent‐to‐streamflow ratio increases, the applicable pH‐ and temperature‐dependent criteria also would shift in response to the dominance of the effluent pH and temperature condition.

Ammonia is a key inorganic form of nitrogen in the nitrogen cycle that can be discharged directly or in runoff from sources such as fertilizers and animal fecal wastes, or in organic matter that is converted to ammonia through decay. Ammonia also can be volatile and thus contribute to atmospheric sources and deposition. Ammonia is a constituent of concern for its potential to have the following effects on the aquatic environment: (1) acts as a plant nutrient that stimulates algae and aquatic weed growth; (2) can result in temperature‐ and pH‐dependent toxicity to aquatic organisms; and (3) becomes an oxygen‐demanding substance when converted to nitrate by nitrifying bacteria. Ammonia is readily oxidized to nitrite and nitrate nitrogen in aquatic environments with sufficient oxygen (i.e., aerobic environments).

− The lowest applicable regulatory criteria for nitrate (NO3) and nitrite (NO2 ) are the primary drinking water MCLs − of 10 mg/L NO3 (as N) and 1 mg/LNO2 (as N), respectively (Table 4.5‐1). Nitrate and nitrite are two oxidized forms of inorganic nitrogen and are key factors in the nitrogen cycle and in aquatic environments. Nitrate and nitrite are a concern to human health, particularly for infants and fetuses, if high levels are ingested; they can interfere with oxygen and hemoglobin functions in the blood, causing a condition called methemoglobinemia. Nitrite rapidly oxidizes to nitrate and is generally present in oxygenated waters only at very low levels. Nitrate does not bind to soil and can easily migrate to the groundwater. Nitrate and nitrite levels can be reduced through the process of denitrification—a bacterial process that produces and releases elemental nitrogen gas to the atmosphere.

City of Galt 4.5-28 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

In combination with the construction of the storage reservoir bypass system that became operational in November 2009, the City identified and implemented improved WWTP operational procedures to facilitate increased and more reliable effluent ammonia reduction through increased nitrification performance (West Yost Associates 2009). Following renewal of the NPDES permit, the City also prepared a work plan to identify additional WWTP improvements necessary to achieve full compliance with the ammonia effluent limitations (Carollo Engineers 2011b) and nitrate effluent limitations (Carollo Engineers 2011a). As indicated in Table 4.5‐1, the current average effluent ammonia concentration observed since November 2009 (i.e., 0.8 mg/L‐N) is below the chronic criterion, but maximum concentrations have infrequently exceeded the acute criterion. As a result of the more effective effluent nitrification, and because denitrification capacity of the WWTP processes is limited, the maximum effluent nitrate concentrations routinely exceed the primary MCL of 10 mg/L (as N).

Upon construction of the Immediate Improvements, ammonia compliance would become more reliable through the construction of facility upgrades to facilitate full nitrification (i.e., conversion of ammonia to nitrate) under the range of plant operations. Modeling of treatment performance (West Yost Associates 2009) indicate ammonia concentrations would not exceed approximately 2.0 mg/L as nitrogen (N) on a short‐term basis, and less than 0.7 mg/L on average, to ensure compliance with the EPA ammonia effluent limitations based on conservative assumptions of the expected most restrictive combination of receiving water temperature and pH conditions. Moreover, future average effluent ammonia concentrations may exceed the modeled estimates and be as low as about 0.4 mg/L based on calculating the current measured WWTP average performance with historical elevated ammonia values in the monitoring record eliminated to reflect the proposed fully nitrified performance. Nitrogen removal via improved denitrification process capacity (i.e., conversion of nitrates to nitrogen gas followed by atmospheric release) would be implemented to ensure compliance with the 10 mg/L nitrate MCL, which would represent a substantial improvement in effluent nitrate concentrations relative to the existing conditions.

With expansion of the WWTP to 6.0 mgd for the Facilities Master Plan, there would be no additional treatment process improvements for nitrification and denitrification. Consequently, as indicated in Table 4.5‐1, the effluent ammonia and nitrate concentrations under the Immediate Improvements and buildout of the Facilities Master Plan (Phase 3) would meet the applicable regulatory criteria and be lower on average than the current concentrations. Therefore, the project‐related effluent discharge of ammonia and nitrate would not cause toxicity to aquatic life or adversely affect human health in the receiving water. Moreover, Laguna Creek is not currently being used for domestic or municipal water supply (MUN), nor is it expected to receive such use in the near future.

Table 4.5‐2 indicates that with the expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan, the downstream nitrate concentration in Laguna Creek would be reduced substantially relative to existing conditions, which would represent a beneficial improvement. The ammonia concentration in Laguna Creek downstream of the effluent discharge would decrease slightly (i.e., 0.74 mg/L to 0.70 mg/L) reflecting a slight increase in the available assimilative capacity for ammonia of about 6.7%. Additionally, neither ammonia nor nitrate are bioaccumulative constituents; thus, the effluent discharges would not result in adverse bioaccumulation effects to aquatic life or humans. Therefore, the potential long‐term operations‐related water quality impacts of ammonia and nitrate discharges would be considered a beneficial impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the Immediate Improvements for the WWTP would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for ammonia and nitrate. These limitations are, in turn, based on EPA‐recommended criteria determined to be protective of aquatic life in the receiving water and the drinking water MCL, which are the beneficial uses most sensitive to these constituents. Consequently, effluent and receiving water concentrations of ammonia and nitrate in Laguna Creek would be reduced with implementation

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-29 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. This impact is considered a beneficial impact of the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Effects of Project Discharges on Nutrient Biostimulation in Receiving Waters. Under the 4.5-6 Facilities Master Plan buildout phase, relative to existing conditions, the expanded treatment and discharge capacity to 6.0 mgd would result in slightly increased receiving water concentrations of total phosphorus, but substantially reduced nitrate concentrations. With respect to the Immediate Improvements, relative to existing conditions, receiving water concentrations of ammonia and nitrate would be reduced. Total phosphorus concentrations may be reduced, and at a minimum would not increase. As a result of the substantial reduction in nitrate concentrations, it would be anticipated that the effluent discharge under the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would not result in adverse nutrient biostimulation in Laguna Creek, and may result in reduced nutrient biostimulation. Consequently, discharges of nutrients would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long-term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. This impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Nitrogen and phosphorus are water quality constituents of concern in streams based in part on their important role as nutrients for plants such as planktonic and benthic algae, and vascular aquatic macrophytes. In particular, elevated concentrations of nutrients can contribute to biostimulation of algae and vascular plants, which in turn can contribute to several nuisance conditions:

 aesthetically undesirable conditions for recreational users;  tastes and odors in supplies of drinking water;  daily changes in DO and pH levels in response to algal photosynthesis (day) and respiration (night) cycles; and  potential algal toxin production and release, primarily by blue‐green algae species, which can be harmful to animals and humans.

There are currently no applicable state or federal water quality criteria for nitrogen compounds (i.e., ammonia, nitrate, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, and total nitrogen) or phosphorus compounds for the control of nutrient biostimulation. Nitrogen is often determined to be the factor limiting biostimulation in flowing streams, as opposed to other potential limiting factors such as light or phosphorus (EPA 2000). In a nitrogen‐limited condition, discharge of additional nitrogen would be expected to cause increased growth of algae and plant communities, whereas addition of non‐limiting factors (e.g., phosphorus, light) would not affect the growth of existing plant communities. Numerical criteria have not been developed for the purpose of limiting biostimulatory responses in aquatic ecosystems; however, the Basin Plan contains a narrative water quality objective to require that discharges do not cause biostimulation that would adversely affect beneficial uses. A major difficulty in the science of biostimulation is that the variety and magnitude of specific factors affecting algae and plant growth can vary greatly among varying habitat types. EPA, in promoting the development of ecoregional nutrient criteria for

City of Galt 4.5-30 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

streams, considers it more appropriate to classify the trophic states of stream systems based on benthic algal biomass (e.g., chlorophyll per unit area) than on in‐water nutrient concentrations (EPA 2000).

The City’s WWTP effluent contains elevated nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations relative to the Laguna Creek receiving water. Through implementation of the facility improvements in the Facilities Master Plan, the concentrations of ammonia and nitrate would decrease substantially in the undiluted effluent compared to existing conditions and it is uncertain whether there would be any reduction in total phosphorus concentration(Table 4.5‐2). However, as a result of the increased effluent discharge rate of up to 6.0 mgd, the receiving water total phosphorus concentration would likely increase slightly as a result of the increased effluent fraction in the downstream Laguna Creek streamflow. There is no existing phosphorus data for Laguna Creek, so the change cannot be assessed. The concentration of nitrate, the nitrogen compound most readily available to aquatic vegetation and algae, would decrease substantially in Laguna Creek due to the Facilities Master Plan and ammonia concentrations would decrease slightly. Under the Immediate Improvements, which do not involve increased capacity past the permitted 3.0 mgd, relative to existing conditions, receiving water concentrations of ammonia and nitrate would be reduced. Total phosphorus concentrations may be reduced, and at a minimum would not increase.

As a result of the reduced nitrate concentrations in effluent and receiving waters relative to existing conditions under both the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, it would be anticipated that the effluent discharge would not result in adverse nutrient biostimulation in Laguna Creek, and may result in reduced nutrient biostimulation. Moreover, as noted above, available historical aerial photographs of the Laguna Creek channel taken in the seasonally dry and warm months of the year when aquatic plant growth conditions are most prolific (i.e., May through October), and prior to the City’s initiation of year‐round effluent discharge in October 2011,indicate that dense aquatic vegetation growth occurs in Laguna Creek under existing conditions upstream of Skunk Creek and the influence of the City’s effluent discharge. Consequently, nutrient levels in Laguna Creek are sufficiently elevated under existing conditions to stimulate plant growth. The additional ammonia and total phosphorus discharges, and reduced nitrate discharge, under the Facilities Master Plan would not necessarily result in any change in the current biostimulation conditions because nitrogen and phosphorus nutrients may not be the primary limiting plant growth factors.

Based on available data, it is anticipated that the project‐related discharge of nutrients under both the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements may contribute to reducing biostimulation conditions that currently exist in Laguna Creek, and at a minimum would not be expected to result in any additional contribution to biostimulation conditions. However, because Laguna Creek currently exhibits substantial aquatic vegetation growth in the channel, it is uncertain whether project‐related discharges would beneficially reduce existing levels of biostimulation in the receiving water. Consequently, discharges of nutrients would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long‐ term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, nitrogen and phosphorus compounds are not bioaccumulative constituents; thus, the effluent discharges would not result in nutrient bioaccumulation effects to aquatic life or humans. Therefore, the potential long‐term operations‐related water quality impact of nutrient discharges under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would be less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the Immediate Improvements would reduce ammonia and nitrate concentrations in effluent and receiving waters relative to existing conditions. Total phosphorus concentrations may be reduced, and at a minimum would not increase. Therefore, it would be anticipated that the effluent discharge under the Immediate Improvements would not result in adverse nutrient biostimulation in Laguna Creek, and may result in

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-31 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

reduced nutrient biostimulation. This impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Effects of Project Discharges on Arsenic in Receiving Waters. The Immediate Improvements for 4.5-7 the WWTP would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for arsenic. These limitations are based on the primary drinking water MCL for arsenic determined to be protective of human health in the receiving water, which is the beneficial use most sensitive to arsenic. Consequently, effluent and receiving water concentrations of arsenic in Laguna Creek would be reduced with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. Under the Facilities Master Plan, the expanded treatment capacity and maximum effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd would result in moderate additional degradation associated with increased receiving water arsenic concentrations in Laguna Creek, but receiving water arsenic concentrations would remain below the applicable MCL. Effluent and receiving water arsenic concentrations would be reduced with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions downstream of the discharge. Consequently, discharges of arsenic would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long-term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. This is considered a less-than- significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Arsenic historically has been elevated in the City’s groundwater supply relative to the EPA‐recommended primary drinking water MCL of 10 µg/L, resulting in WWTP effluent concentrations exceeding the MCL on both an individual sample and average monthly basis. In March of 2009, the City began implementing wellhead treatment to reduce the concentrations of arsenic in drinking water supplies (Carollo Engineers 2011a). The existing well head treatment systems provide iron and manganese removal using a variety of greensand and proprietary filtration systems. It is believed that the precipitation process at the wellhead also may create a more filterable form of arsenic, which can be more effectively removed by the WWTP tertiary filtration units that were completed in January 2011. Additionally, the City investigated development of alternate groundwater wells with lower levels of arsenic, and has added one deeper well to the water supply system which is anticipated to further enable achieving compliance with arsenic effluent limitations.

The lowest applicable regulatory criterion for arsenic is the primary drinking water MCL of 10 µg/L. Arsenic is a concern to human health as a potential carcinogen and its ability to cause or contribute to other illnesses. As indicated in Table 4.5‐1, the current average effluent arsenic concentration observed since January 2011 (i.e., 11 µg/L) slightly exceeds the primary drinking water MCL. Following renewal of the NPDES permit, the City prepared a work plan to identify additional WWTP improvements necessary to achieve full compliance with the arsenic effluent limitations (Carollo Engineers 2011a). Accordingly, as described in Chapter 3, “Project Description,” the Immediate Improvements would include development and implementation of one or more arsenic removal methods for the WWTP to reduce effluent arsenic concentrations and achieve compliance with the NPDES permit effluent limitations.

With expansion of the WWTP to 6.0 mgd at buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, there would be no additional treatment process improvements implemented for arsenic. However, due to the improvements in arsenic

City of Galt 4.5-32 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

removal methods, as indicated in Table 4.5‐1, the effluent arsenic concentrations under the Immediate Improvements and future Facilities Master Plan phases would meet the applicable regulatory criteria and be lower than the current concentrations. Therefore, the project‐related effluent discharge of arsenic would not adversely affect human health in the receiving water. Moreover, Laguna Creek is not currently being used for domestic or MUN, nor is it expected to receive such use in the near future.

Table 4.5‐2 indicates that with the expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, the downstream arsenic concentration in Laguna Creek would increase slightly (i.e., 6.3µg/L to 7.3 µg/L) reflecting a moderate reduction in the available assimilative capacity for arsenic of about 25%. However, despite the reduced assimilative capacity, the receiving water concentration would remain below the applicable primary MCL. Therefore, the additional degradation would not be of sufficient magnitude such that exceedances of water quality objectives/criteria would be likely or result in substantially increased risk for adverse effects to MUN beneficial uses. Additionally, arsenic is not a bioaccumulative constituent, thus the effluent discharges would not result in bioaccumulation impacts on humans. Therefore, the potential long‐term operations‐related water quality impact of arsenic discharges under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would be less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the Immediate Improvements for the WWTP would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for arsenic. These limitations are, in turn, based on the primary drinking water MCL for arsenic determined to be protective of human health in the receiving water, which is the beneficial use most sensitive to arsenic. Consequently, effluent and receiving water concentrations of arsenic in Laguna Creek would be reduced with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. This impact is considered a beneficial impact of the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Effects of Project Discharges on Copper in Receiving Waters. Under the Facilities Master Plan 4.5-8 and Immediate Improvements, effluent copper concentrations would not be expected to change relative to existing conditions. Copper concentrations in the effluent may exceed the lowest unadjusted CTR criteria for the protection of aquatic life, the beneficial use most sensitive to copper concentrations. Consequently, receiving water copper concentrations would not change with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. In consideration of a discharger-specific WER adjustment to the CTR criteria, which is appropriate for municipal wastewater effluent that provides additional metal binding capacity, the copper concentrations in effluent would be lower than the WER-adjusted CTR criteria. The expanded treatment capacity and maximum effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan buildout would result in minor degradation associated with increased receiving water copper concentrations in Laguna Creek, but receiving water copper concentrations would remain well below the applicable WER-adjusted CTR criteria. Consequently, discharges of copper would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long-term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. This is considered a less-than-significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-33 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The maximum observed effluent copper concentration of 10 µg/L, measured since January 2011 following completion of the tertiary filtration units January 2011, exceeds the CTR acute criterion (7.7 µg/L) and CTR chronic criterion (5.5 µg/L) for the protection of aquatic life (Table 4.5‐1). The average effluent copper concentration of 3.3 µg/L indicates that the routine effluent copper levels may remain below the criteria. The CTR chronic and acute criteria for copper are derived with a hardness‐dependent equation to reflect the sensitivity of aquatic life to copper (i.e., toxicity) which increases as the water’s hardness decreases. Many aspects of water chemistry such as concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, calcium, sodium, dissolved inorganic carbon (or alkalinity), magnesium, sulfate, chloride, potassium, and pH affect copper “bioavailability.” Bioavailability is a term used to refer to the fraction of total measured copper in water that is in a form capable of being taken up into the bodies of fish (across gill membranes) and other aquatic life. The most bioavailable, and thus toxic, form of copper is the free ion. Non‐bioavailable forms of copper, although measured analytically in the total recoverable and dissolved measurements, are forms where the free copper ion is bonded to carbonates, large organic molecules, or particles, thus making the copper complex too large to be taken up across membranes of organisms. Copper within the water column that is not biologically available for uptake by aquatic life is nontoxic to the aquatic life.

To address the toxicological reality of bioavailability with regard to copper, the CTR criteria include a water‐ effect ratio (WER) multiplier. The WER accounts for the effects of all aspects of water chemistry on bioavailability and thus toxicity, and is a more comprehensive mechanism for addressing copper bioavailability than simply expressing the criteria in terms of the dissolved fraction. The WER is a measure of the water’s ability to form complexes with the toxic free copper ions, thereby making them biologically unavailable and nontoxic to aquatic life. A WER value of 1.0 means that the water body has no more capacity to bind free copper ions (the most toxic form of copper) than the laboratory waters used in deriving the unadjusted CTR criteria. A WER value of 2.0 means that that water requires twice the copper concentration, relative to the EPA laboratory water used to derive the unadjusted criteria, to have the same toxic effect on aquatic life. For regulatory (e.g., NPDES permitting) purposes, the WER is assumed to be 1.0, unless site‐specific data are developed that rebut this presumption, and a site‐specific or discharger‐specific WER other than 1.0 is found to be appropriate for the site, based on site water chemistry.

Effluent from municipal WWTPs contains dissolved organic matter and inorganic constituents that are effective at binding the free copper ions, thereby increasing the WER above 1.0 for sites influenced by WWTP discharges. Copper WER values for undiluted, biologically treated municipal effluent have frequently been shown to range from about 3 to 30, and even higher (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011, Central Valley RWQCB2008, Hall et al. 1997). The 5.5 µg/L CTR chronic criterion is based on the lowest effluent water hardness of 53 mg/L (as CaCO3) and an assumed WER of 1.0 (i.e., unadjusted). Based on the hardness conditions and discharge of municipal effluent with binding capacity for free copper ions, the assessment of the effects of the project‐related discharge based on criteria that are unadjusted by a WER are overly conservative for protection of aquatic organisms in the Laguna Creek receiving water. Considering the minimum WER of 3.0 observed in literature and based on Central Valley discharger experience, the reasonably conservative chronic criterion for the effluent is estimated to be 16.5 µg/L (i.e., 5.5 µg/L x 3.0 WER). Moreover, for the purposes of assessing compliance with criteria, EPA intended for copper criteria to be hardness‐adjusted at the time of measurement rather than comparing measured copper concentrations to a static criteria based on the lowest hardness ever recorded. Thus, for all other hardness levels in the effluent, the appropriately protective criteria for the City’s effluent would be higher.

Based on this assessment, the maximum observed effluent copper concentration of10 µg/L applicable to the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would always be below the conservative WER‐adjusted chronic and acute criteria of 16.5 µg/L and 23 µg/L, respectively. Thus, the effluent discharge to Skunk Creek/Laguna Creek would not cause copper toxicity to aquatic life in the receiving water downstream of the City of Galt 4.5-34 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

effluent discharge. Table 4.5‐2 indicates that with the expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan, the downstream copper concentration in Laguna Creek would increase negligibly reflecting a minor reduction in the available assimilative capacity of about 1.1% based on the assumed minimum WER‐adjusted chronic criterion. Consequently, discharges of copper would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse impacts on one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long‐term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, copper is not a bioaccumulative constituent, thus the effluent discharges would not result in bioaccumulation impacts to aquatic life. Therefore, the potential long‐term operations‐related water quality impact of copper discharges under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would be less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the maximum observed effluent copper concentration of10 µg/L applicable to the Immediate Improvements would always be below the conservative WER‐adjusted chronic and acute criteria of 16.5 µg/L and 23 µg/L, respectively. Thus, the effluent discharge to Skunk Creek/Laguna Creek would not cause copper toxicity to aquatic life in the receiving water downstream of the effluent discharge. The effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long‐term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses. Additionally, copper is not a bioaccumulative constituent, thus the effluent discharges would not result in bioaccumulation impacts to aquatic life. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Effects of Project Discharges with Potential to Cause Degradation in Receiving Waters. Under 4.5-9 the Immediate Improvements, operations-related discharge of several constituents in the effluent would not exceed applicable regulatory criteria. However, with the expanded treatment capacity and maximum effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan buildout, the operations-related discharge of effluent would result in minor degradation associated with increased receiving water concentrations in Laguna Creek for antimony, chloride, cyanide, EC, hexavalent chromium, MBAS, sulfate, TDS, thallium, zinc, and carbofuran. Receiving water concentrations of these constituents would remain well below the lowest applicable criteria, and would not cause or contribute to bioaccumulation in aquatic life. Moreover, discharges of these constituents would not result in long-term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse effects to one or more beneficial uses. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Based on the City’s water quality monitoring data (Table 4.5‐1), the maximum concentrations of several constituents detected in effluent are lower than applicable criteria, but may exceed the background receiving water concentration in Laguna Creek (i.e., aluminum, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, 1,1,2‐Trichloro‐1,2,2‐Trifluoroethane, bis (2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, and toluene). The operations‐related effluent discharges under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would not result in these water quality criteria being exceeded, nor cause or contribute to long‐ term degradation of existing receiving water quality. Thus, the operations‐related effects of the effluent discharge containing these constituents are not assessed further.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-35 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

The water quality monitoring data (Table 4.5‐1) indicates that the maximum concentrations of several constituents in effluent are lower than applicable criteria but may exceed the background receiving water concentration in Laguna Creek (i.e., antimony, chloride, cyanide, EC, hexavalent chromium, MBAS, sulfate, TDS, thallium, zinc, and carbofuran). The operations‐related effluent discharges of these constituents under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded. Additionally, the receiving water concentrations of these constituents would not change with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. However, with the expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, operations‐related effluent discharges of these constituents could cause or contribute to long‐term degradation of existing receiving water quality. Table 4.5‐2 indicates that the downstream concentration in Laguna Creek for most of these constituents would increase only slightly resulting in minor reduction of available assimilative capacity (i.e., <10%). However, the operations‐ related discharges would result in moderate reduction of assimilative capacity for EC (i.e., 12% reduction) and TDS (i.e., 18% reduction). Moreover, the potential additional use of inorganic coagulants such as ferric chloride to improve arsenic removal for the Immediate Improvements (see Chapter 3, “Project Description”), and associated release of the dissolved chloride into the effluent via the coagulation reaction, may increase chloride and TDS concentrations by a small amount. However, the typical coagulant dose (i.e., less than 10 mg/L) would not be expected to substantially increase effluent chloride or TDS levels such that there would be any additional risk of exceeding applicable criteria. Despite the reduced assimilative capacity for these constituents, the receiving water concentration would remain well below the applicable secondary drinking water MCLs, the beneficial use likely to be most sensitive to these constituents. Therefore, the additional degradation would not be of sufficient magnitude such that exceedances of water quality criteria would be likely or result in substantially increased risk for adverse effects to the MUN or any other beneficial use. Additionally, none of the constituents that may exceed the background receiving water concentration are bioaccumulative. Thus, the operations‐related effluent discharges would not cause or contribute to bioaccumulation in aquatic life. Therefore, the operations‐related discharges of effluent under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would be considered a less than significant impact.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the water quality monitoring data (Table 4.5‐1) indicates that the maximum concentrations of several constituents in effluent are lower than applicable criteria but may exceed the background receiving water concentration in Laguna Creek (i.e., aluminum, cadmium, chromium, iron, lead, manganese, mercury, selenium, silver, 1,1,2‐Trichloro‐1,2,2‐Trifluoroethane, bis (2‐ethylhexyl) phthalate, hexachlorocyclopentadiene, toluene, antimony, chloride, cyanide, EC, hexavalent chromium, MBAS, sulfate, TDS, thallium, zinc, and carbofuran). The operations‐related effluent discharges of these constituents under the Immediate Improvements would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded. Additionally, the receiving water concentrations of these constituents would not change with implementation of the Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. This impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.5-36 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Impact Effects of Discharge of Mercury and Impairment of Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired 4.5-10 Receiving Waters. The undiluted effluent contains low concentrations of mercury, for which the eastern channels of the Delta are identified as impaired on the Section 303(d) list. Under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, effluent mercury concentrations would be well below applicable water quality criteria and would not be expected to change relative to existing conditions. With the expanded treatment capacity and maximum effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, the operations-related discharge of effluent could result in increased mercury loading to Laguna Creek, a tributary to the Cosumnes River and eastern Delta channels. However, because effluent mercury concentrations are lower than background concentrations in Laguna Creek, the operations-related effluent discharges with expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under would not cause long-term degradation of existing receiving water quality. Moreover, the increased effluent discharge would not cause measurably higher body burdens of mercury in aquatic organisms, and thus, would not substantially increase the health risks to wildlife or humans consuming those organisms. The operations-related effluent discharges would result in slightly reduced receiving water concentrations of mercury and the contribution to mercury loading would be small relative to regional mercury loading sources in the greater Cosumnes River watershed and Delta. Moreover, the City’s NPDES permit and future TMDL waste load allocations would appropriately restrict the loading of mercury from the WWTP effluent discharges (and require loading reduction, if necessary). Therefore, the operations-related effluent discharges would not further degrade water quality by measurable levels on a long-term basis, and the existing beneficial use impairment in the Delta would not be made discernibly worse. Therefore, this would be a less- than-significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The Section 303(d) list identifies the Eastern Delta channels, which include a portion of the lower Cosumnes River, as impaired from mercury and several other constituents. Of the Section 303(d) constituents identified, the City’s water quality monitoring data (Table 4.5‐1) indicates that only mercury compounds have been detected in the undiluted effluent. Detected total recoverable mercury has always been observed at concentrations much lower than the CTR total recoverable mercury criteria for human health protection of 0.05 µg/L and 0.051 µg/L applicable to consumption of water and organisms, and for consumption of organisms only, respectively. The primary drinking water MCL for total recoverable mercury of 2 µg/L is much higher than the CTR criteria. The SWRCB has proposed, but not yet adopted, a fish tissue threshold for methylmercury (State Water Resources Control Board 2006). Methylmercury has not been detected in monthly monitoring for the undiluted effluent since the tertiary filtration units became operational in January 2011.

In the aquatic environment, mercury is a toxic and bioaccumulative substance in both inorganic and methylated organic forms. Methylmercury is the most hazardous form of mercury because of its chemical stability and ionic properties that allow it to penetrate cell membranes and accumulate in tissues of aquatic organisms (Eisler 1987). Bioaccumulation of mercury in a number of rivers and other water bodies has resulted in public health advisory notices issued for selected fish species in the Delta and in San Francisco Bay to alert the public to potential health hazards of consuming contaminated organisms. Mercury is found in natural deposits or as cinnabar ore, the common ore of mercury in the form of mercury sulfide. Substantial contamination occurred in the Central Valley in association with the historical use of mercury in gold mining and refining operations. Other mercury sources may include manufactured products (e.g., batteries, fluorescent light bulbs, electrical switches, thermometers) and a variety of processes (e.g., combustion of fossil fuels, incineration of wastes, cement production, metal refining).

The SWRCB has prepared, and is implementing, a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for mercury in the Delta as required pursuant to Section 303(d) regulations (State Water Resources Control Board 2010). The TMDL is

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-37 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

designed to address the human health and wildlife concerns related to mercury levels in fish tissue. Phase 1of the TMDL will be implemented through approximately 2020 and emphasizes studies and pilot projects to develop and evaluate management practices to control methylmercury. At the end of Phase 1, the Central Valley RWQCB will conduct a Phase 1 Delta Mercury Control Program Review that considers: modification of methylmercury goals, objectives, allocations and/or the final compliance date; implementation of management practices and schedules for methylmercury controls; and adoption of a mercury offset program for dischargers who cannot meet their load and waste load allocations after implementing all reasonable load reduction strategies. Phase 2 begins after the Phase 1 Delta Mercury Control Program Review and ends in 2030 and will consist of dischargers implementing methylmercury control programs and continued inorganic (total) mercury reduction programs. Ultimately, compliance with the TMDL will require point‐source dischargers to Delta tributaries, such as municipal WWTP dischargers, to reduce their total mass discharges of mercury. It is anticipated that the Central Valley RWQCB would modify the City’s NPDES permit in the future, as necessary, to be consistent with the final waste load allocations to dischargers that are defined by the TMDL program.

Under the Immediate Improvements and Facilities Master Plan phases, there would not be any treatment improvements designed specifically to reduce effluent mercury concentrations, thus effluent mercury concentrations would not be expected to change relative to existing conditions. Furthermore, with the expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, the operations‐related effluent discharge of mercury would not cause or contribute to long‐term degradation of existing receiving water quality because background mercury concentrations in Laguna Creek are slightly higher, on average, than in the effluent. Therefore, the increased effluent discharge would not cause measurably higher body burdens of mercury in aquatic organisms, and thus, would not substantially increase the health risks to wildlife or humans consuming those organisms.

As a result of the increased effluent discharge of up to 6.0 mgd, the operations‐related increase in mass mercury discharge in effluent to Laguna Creek would increase slightly (i.e., from about 0.01 pounds per year [lbs/yr] currently to 0.03 lbs/yr), thus minimally increasing mercury loading to the Cosumnes River and Delta downstream of the discharge. However, the mass of total recoverable mercury discharged in the effluent under the Facilities Master Plan, assuming all of the mass could convert to the methylmercury form, would be negligible relative to the much larger existing methylmercury loading in the Delta of 11.5 lbs/yr (i.e., effluent is about 0.2% of the total) and proposed TMDL allocation to all sources of 6.5 lbs/yr (i.e., effluent is about 0.5% of the total)( State Water Resources Control Board 2006). Moreover, the City’s regulation of mercury discharges through the NPDES permit process, and potential future requirements to implement mercury control actions for compliance with the Delta mercury TMDL program, would reflect the City’s contribution to reduction of mercury loading to the Delta, along with other dischargers, via “compliance with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program” pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15064(h)(3).

Because the contribution from the WWTP effluent under the Facilities Master Plan buildout would be small relative to the total Delta load and future TMDL waste load allocations, the operations‐related effluent discharges would not further degrade water quality by measurable levels on a long‐term basis. Because NPDES permit terms and conditions established by the Central Valley RWQCB would be expected to appropriately limit the City’s mercury loading from the WWTP, the existing beneficial use impairment in the Delta would not be made discernibly worse. Therefore, the operations‐related discharges of effluent under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would be considered less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, under the Immediate Improvements, effluent mercury concentrations would not be expected to change relative to existing conditions. Therefore, the operations‐related effluent discharges of mercury under Immediate Improvements would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded. Consequently, receiving water mercury concentrations would not change with implementation of the

City of Galt 4.5-38 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

Immediate Improvements relative to existing conditions. This impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Effects of Project Discharges on Constituents of Emerging Concern in Receiving Waters. The 4.5-11 operations-related effluent discharge may contain constituents of emerging concern (CECs). Consequently, with the expanded treatment capacity and maximum effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan, the operations-related discharge of effluent could result in increased receiving water concentrations of these constituents. However, there are no applicable regulatory criteria for these compounds, and it may be many years before the scientific understanding of their effects is sufficient for the Central Valley RWQCB to establish permit limits for treated wastewater discharges. Because Laguna Creek is not used as a drinking water supply downstream of the proposed WWTP outfall, the potential for these compounds, if present, to affect human health would be unlikely. The available scientific evidence regarding the effects of CECs on aquatic organisms is insufficient to predict the effects of the proposed discharge on aquatic life. Moreover, monitoring of the existing WWTP discharge for CECs has not been conducted nor required; thus, the potential effects on aquatic life in the receiving water are unknown. No significance conclusion for this impact can be specified.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Several classes of compounds are considered constituents of emerging concern (CECs) when discharged in domestic wastewater: pharmaceutical and personal care products (PPCPs), natural and synthetic hormones, alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates, polybrominated diphenyl ether flame‐retardant chemicals, bisphenol A, and new unregulated pesticides. Some classes of contaminants (e.g., PPCPs and hormones) are recognized as endocrine‐disrupting compounds (EDCs) that have the potential to cause or contribute to adverse water quality effects on aquatic organisms. No applicable federal water quality criteria have been adopted or recommended for the suite of CECs, and it may be many years before regulatory criteria are developed or the state’s regional water quality control boards establish effluent limitations for CECs in wastewater discharges. The existing WWTP effluent has not been monitored for CECs, nor has monitoring been required. Consequently, this assessment is provided for informational purposes and, at this time, there is not sufficiently developed scientific evidence available to assess the potential environmental effects of CECs resulting from operations‐related effluent discharges under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvement to beneficial uses in downstream receiving water bodies.

EDCs are substances or mixtures that alter the function of the endocrine system and consequently cause adverse health effects in an intact organism or its progeny (WHO 2002). Endocrine disruption may be described as a functional change that may lead to adverse effects, not necessarily a toxicological end point. Most EDCs are human‐made synthetic chemicals, such as hormones or other drugs that are released into the environment unintentionally (e.g., as trace elements in human urine that are not removed by conventional wastewater treatment). EDCs may block, mimic, stimulate, or inhibit the production of natural hormones, disrupting the endocrine system’s natural functions. The endocrine system is a complex of glands that secrete hormones and regulate reproduction, growth, and development in vertebrates. Certain drugs, such as birth control pills, intentionally alter the endocrine system. Although some EDCs are known, many chemicals are termed “suspect” because they have not been sufficiently evaluated to allow a conclusive determination of their endocrine‐ disrupting characteristics.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-39 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

The potential ecological effects of EDCs in the aquatic environment were first reported in the 1990s. Studies suggested that the presence of natural and synthetic estrogen hormones in wastewater induced the production in male fish of vitellogenin, which is a protein involved in reproduction that is normally found only in females (Desbrow et al. 1998). Similar results were observed with alkylphenolic compounds, which are breakdown products of industrial surfactants used in products such as paints, herbicides, and cosmetics (Jobling et al. 1998). The U.S. Geological Survey (Barnes et al. 2002) found the occurrence of EDCs or potential EDCs to be high in surface waters across the country, with 80% of the streams sampled containing at least one of the 95 endocrine‐ disrupting compounds that were tested. Although the frequency of occurrence was relatively high, measured concentrations of EDCs were low, usually below drinking‐water standards for compounds that have such standards.

Human exposure and dose response to EDCs in concentrations at the low levels found in the environment is still largely unknown. The absence of adequate exposure data, especially data regarding exposure during critical development periods, is the weakest link in determining whether any observed adverse effects on humans and/or fish and wildlife are linked to EDCs. The World Health Organization’s state‐of‐the‐science assessment concludes that “…our current understanding of the effects posed by EDCs to wildlife [including fish] and humans is incomplete” (WHO 2002). The National Toxicology Program’s draft report on the Endocrine Disruptors Low‐ Dose Peer Review was released for public comment in May 2001 (66 FR 27152, May 16, 2001). As stated in this report, “the focus of this review was on ‘biological change’ rather than on ‘adverse effect’ because, in many cases, the long‐term health consequences of altered endocrine function during development have not been fully characterized.”

Some known EDCs (e.g., polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane [DDT], and chlordane) are regulated via ambient water quality criteria or drinking‐water standards based on their toxicological and carcinogenic effects. However, there are no applicable water quality criteria for natural and synthetic estrogens or related pharmaceutical chemicals. Based on the current state of knowledge regarding dose‐response relationships of CECs for various organisms at the low levels in which they can occur in surface waters, it is likely to be many years before any such standards are promulgated. The approach in the United States has been to require more definitive information to be gathered and conclusive research conducted before regulatory measures can be taken.

Municipal WWTPs are not specifically designed to treat and remove CECs, but activated sludge treatment processes are known to be effective in CEC treatment and removal. The Water Environment Research Foundation has sponsored research that investigated factors of WWTP processes that remove PPCPs (Oppenheimer and Stephenson 2006). The study evaluated monitoring data for 20 PPCP compounds in a variety of secondary biological and filtration treatment processes, including processes with nitrification and denitrification. The study determined that in general, an increase in solids residence time (SRT) was an important factor that enhanced removal efficiency for the majority of the monitored chemicals. The SRT required to achieve consistent removal above 80% is compound‐specific, with many of the target compounds well removed by activated sludge processes with SRTs of 5–15 days. Half of the 20 PPCP target compounds frequently occurred in secondary influent, but were also efficiently removed (> 80%) at SRT of less than 5 days: caffeine, ibuprofen, oxybenzone, chloroxylenol, methylparaben, benzyl salicylate, 3‐phenylpropionate, butylbenzyl phthalate, and octylmethoxycinnamate. An SRT of more than 30 days was necessary to achieve 80% removal for certain compounds. Miège et al. (2009) evaluated PPCP removal performance based on monitoring data from 117 WWTPs and determined that removal efficiency was highest in facilities using activated sludge with nitrogen removal processes. They determined that the main mechanisms involved in PPCP removal efficiency were biodegradation (e.g., oxidation, hydrolysis, demethylation, cleavage of glucuronide conjugates), sorption on sludge or particulate matter (by hydrophobic or electrostatic interactions), and filtration.

The City’s existing WWTP unit processes and process upgrades proposed for Immediate Improvements are not specifically designed to treat and remove CECs. However, the WWTP includes treatment technologies that are

City of Galt 4.5-40 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

known to enhance treatment and removal performance for CEC compounds. In particular, the existing WWTP uses an extended‐aeration/activated sludge process with long hydraulic detention time and SRT. Moreover, the proposed treatment upgrades for the Immediate Improvements would include improved oxidation and nitrogen removal that would be anticipated to enhance treatment and removal performance for CECs that may be present. Because there are no current regulatory criteria against which to evaluate concentrations of CECs in effluent, a significance conclusion on the environmental impacts of CEC discharges with implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements cannot be made. Section 15145 of the State CEQA Guidelines provides that if, after a thorough investigation, a lead agency finds that a particular impact is too speculative for evaluation, the agency should note its conclusion and terminate discussion of the impacts. This is the case for CECs that may be present in the City’s WWTP effluent. Based on the current state of knowledge about this topic, no impact conclusion can be made about CEC levels in the WWTP effluent or any potential operations‐related effects of increased effluent discharge on beneficial uses in the receiving water bodies that would occur with the Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the existing WWTP includes treatment technologies that are known to enhance treatment and removal performance for CEC compounds. In particular, the existing WWTP uses an extended‐ aeration/activated sludge process with long hydraulic detention time and SRT. Moreover, the proposed treatment upgrades for the Immediate Improvements would include improved oxidation and nitrogen removal, and these improvements are anticipated to enhance treatment and removal performance for CECs that may be present. Because there are no current regulatory criteria against which to evaluate concentrations of CECs in effluent, a significance conclusion on the environmental impacts of CEC discharges with implementation of the Immediate Improvements cannot be made.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Long-term Operations-Related Effects on Groundwater Resources and Groundwater Quality. The 4.5-12 proposed WWTP improvements for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan may result in increased onsite use of groundwater for WWTP operations, and small changes in impervious surfaces would not measurably affect groundwater recharge. Under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, the operations-related effluent discharge would meet all applicable criteria for the protection of human health in drinking water, which is the beneficial use of groundwater most sensitive to constituents in the effluent. Moreover, the Immediate Improvements would improve denitrification performance to comply with the NPDES permit effluent limitations for arsenic and nitrate. With the Facilities Master Plan, the expanded treatment capacity and effluent discharge rate to 6.0 mgd may increase the rate and amount of seepage from the Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek channels to the groundwater. Under the Facilities Master Plan, the increased effluent discharge would result in reduced nitrate concentrations in Laguna Creek downstream of the discharge. Moderate degradation would occur in association with increased arsenic, electrical conductivity, and TDS concentrations, but receiving water concentrations would remain below the applicable MCLs. Consequently, the operations-related effluent discharges would not result in groundwater quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, or geographic extent that would result in adverse effects to the drinking water beneficial use. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long-term degradation of existing groundwater quality that would cause substantial adverse effects to the drinking beneficial uses. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-41 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The WWTP is currently supplied with domestic water via an onsite groundwater well, and proposed WWTP improvements for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan may result in some, but unquantified, increase of onsite groundwater use for long‐term operations as a result of additional employees and larger facilities requiring water (e.g., equipment cleaning). The construction of WWTP improvements would increase the impervious surfaces present within the existing 17‐acre WWTP site by approximately 1 acre under the Immediate Improvements, and up to an additional 35 acres under the Facilities Master Plan. Impervious surfaces preclude rainfall from infiltrating the soil and contributing to groundwater recharge. These effects have the potential to result in locally lower groundwater levels underlying the WWTP site. However, under all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, the potential groundwater recharge at the site would not be reduced measurably because the area of increased Impervious surfaces would be incrementally small relative to the large watershed that provides recharge to the underlying aquifers. Additionally, given the relatively rural location of the WWTP site, effects to groundwater are not anticipated to affect any offsite properties.

The quantity of recharge from the streambed to the groundwater is a function of many factors: the groundwater elevation, the permeability of the streambed, the area of streambed that is inundated, and the hydrostatic head (i.e., pressure) in the stream that is available to force water into the soil. During the summer low‐flow period, the City’s existing WWTP effluent flow provides a majority of the streamflow in Laguna Creek. Laguna Creek streamflow likely contributes recharge to the groundwater through percolation of water to the soils and aquifer underlying the channel. During the winter, the surrounding soils can be saturated from rainfall and may restrict groundwater recharge, or may actually contribute to influx of groundwater into Laguna Creek. Discharge of tertiary treated effluent to Laguna Creek would have the potential to alter shallow groundwater conditions primarily during the summer through the contribution of flow, and the chemical constituents that the effluent contains.

Under the Facilities Master Plan, the expanded treatment capacity and increased effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd would provide additional flow to the Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek channels. Of the variables described above that may affect groundwater recharge, the operations‐related effluent discharges would only incrementally increase the channel flow, which could increase the area of inundation and hydrostatic head through increased water depth. However, the amount of groundwater recharge from the incremental increased streamflow is not known.

Under the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, the operations‐related effluent discharge would meet all applicable criteria for the protection of human health in drinking water, which is the beneficial use of groundwater most sensitive to constituents in the effluent. Moreover, the Immediate Improvements would improve denitrification performance to comply with the NPDES permit effluent limitations for ammonia and nitrate. With the Facilities Master Plan, the expanded treatment capacity and increased effluent discharge rate to 6.0 mgd may increase the rate and amount of seepage from Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek to the groundwater. Consequently, with reduction in effluent nitrate concentration under the Facilities Master Plan, the increased effluent discharge would result in reduced nitrate concentrations in Laguna Creek downstream of the discharge as well. Moderate degradation would occur in association with increased arsenic, electrical conductivity, and TDS concentrations, but receiving water concentrations would remain below the applicable MCLs. Consequently, the operations‐related effluent discharges would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse effects to the drinking water beneficial use. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long‐term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse effects to the drinking beneficial uses. Therefore, the operations‐related discharge of effluent under all phases of the Facilities Master Plan would be considered a less‐than‐significant impact.

City of Galt 4.5-42 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Hydrology and Water Quality

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the operations‐related effluent discharge would meet all applicable criteria for the protection of human health in drinking water, which is the beneficial use of groundwater most sensitive to constituents in the effluent. Moreover, the Immediate Improvements would improve denitrification performance to comply with the NPDES permit effluent limitations for ammonia and nitrate. Under the Immediate Improvements, the operations‐related effluent discharges would not result in water quality criteria being exceeded with a frequency, magnitude, and geographic extent that would result in adverse effects to the drinking water beneficial use. Additionally, the effluent discharge would not result in substantial, long‐term degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse effects to the drinking beneficial uses. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.5-43 Hydrology and Water Quality Ascent Environmental

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Galt 4.5-44 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

4.6 AQUATIC BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section addresses aquatic biological resources known or with potential to occur in the project vicinity and describes potential changes in condition of those resources as a result of implementing the project. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the impacts associated with implementing the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, and the mitigation measures necessary to address potentially significant impacts. The analysis also addresses issues of concern raised by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also known as NOAA Fisheries) in a scoping letter received by the City on July 2, 2012. 4.6.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Management of anadromous fish is the responsibility of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS, also known as NOAA Fisheries); management of non‐ anadromous fish and other aquatic biological resources in the project area is the responsibility of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). The CDFW acts as state trustee for aquatic species. These three agencies, either independently or in collaboration with other state and federal agencies, implement numerous fish management and restoration plans and initiatives in the region. The majority of these plans and initiatives are focused on the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, their primary tributaries, and the Delta, which are used by anadromous fishes. FEDERAL

FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) regulates threatened, endangered, and other special‐status fish species. NOAA Fisheries and USFWS jointly implement the ESA for aquatic species. Section 9 of the ESA and federal regulations prohibit the “take” of federally listed species. An incidental take permit under Section 10(a) or federal consultation under Section 7 of the ESA is required if the Project might affect a federally listed species. ESA‐listed fish species occurring in the project area are discussed in Section 4.6.2.

SECTION 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes a requirement to obtain a permit prior to any activity that involves discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Waters of the United States include “navigable” waters, interstate waters, all other waters where the use or degradation or destruction of the waters could affect interstate or foreign commerce, tributaries to any of these waters, and wetlands that meet any of these criteria or that are adjacent to any of these waters or their tributaries. Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River and the Mokelumne River meet the criteria defining waters of the United States. Activities that require a permit under Section 404 include placing fill, grading, mechanized land clearing, and dredging. Any activity that results in the deposit of dredge or fill material within the ordinary high water mark of waters of the United States usually requires a permit, even if the area is dry at the time the activity occurs. This permit is issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).

SECTION 401 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

Section 401 of the CWA requires that any person applying for a federal permit or license, which may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, must obtain a state water quality certification that the activity complies with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. The State Water

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-1 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Resources Control Board (SWRCB), via its Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs), administers this certification in California. No license or permit may be issued by a federal agency until certification required by Section 401 has been granted. Further, no license or permit may be issued if certification has been denied. Section 401 Water Quality Certifications are typically required in order to obtain a CWA Section 404 permit.

FINAL RESTORATION PLAN FOR THE ANADROMOUS FISH RESTORATION PROGRAM

Congress directed the Secretary of the Interior to develop and implement a program that makes all reasonable efforts, including increased river flows, to restore and enhance anadromous fish habitat in the rivers and streams of California’s Central Valley, excluding the San Joaquin River upstream of Mendota Pool. The program has an overall target of doubling the natural production of anadromous fish relative to the average levels attained during the period 1967–1991 (Sections 3046(b)(1) of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act; Public Law 102‐575). Section 3046(b)(1) is referred to as the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. The Secretary directed the USFWS and Reclamation to jointly implement the Central Valley Project Improvement Act. Implementation of the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program was required by the year 2002 and culminated in the Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program. This plan recommends the following actions and evaluations for the Cosumnes River (USFWS 2001: 78‐79):

1. Acquire water from willing sellers consistent with applicable guidelines or negotiate agreements to reduce water diversions or augment instream flows during critical periods for salmonids. 2. Pursue opportunities to purchase existing water rights from willing sellers consistent with applicable guidelines to ensure adequate flows for all life stages of salmonids. 3. Enforce Fish and Game codes that prohibit construction of unlicensed dams. 4. Screen all diversions to protect all life history stages of anadromous fish. 5. Establish a riparian corridor protection zone. 6. Rehabilitate damaged areas and remedy incompatible land practices to reduce sedimentation and instream water temperatures. 7. Determine and evaluate instream flow requirements that ensure adequate flows for all life stages of all salmonids. 8. Evaluate and facilitate passage of adult and juvenile salmonids at existing diversion dams and barriers. 9. Evaluate the feasibility of restoring and increasing available spawning and rearing habitat for salmonids.

In addition, this plan recommends the following actions and evaluations for the Mokelumne River:

1. Supplement flows with water acquired from willing sellers consistent with applicable guidelines or negotiate agreements to improve conditions for all life history stages of Chinook salmon and steelhead. 2. Replenish gravel suitable for salmonid spawning habitat. 3. Cleanse spawning gravel of fine sediments and prevent sedimentation of spawning gravel. 4. Reduce and control flow fluctuations to avoid and minimize effects to juvenile salmonids. 5. Screen all diversions to protect all life history stages of anadromous fish. 6. Maintain suitable water temperatures for all salmonid life stages. 7. Enhance and maintain the riparian corridor to improve stream bank and channel rearing habitat for juvenile salmonids.

City of Galt 4.6-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

8. Establish and enforce water quality standards to provide optimal water quality for all life history stages of salmonids. 9. Eliminate or restrict gravel mining operations in the Mokelumne River flood plain to prevent damage to potential spawning areas and encroachment of vegetation. 10. Evaluate the effectiveness of pulse flows to facilitate successful emigration of juvenile salmonids in the spring and determine the efficacy in all water year types. 11. Evaluate and facilitate passage of spawning adult salmonids in the fall and juvenile salmonids in the spring past Woodbridge Irrigation District Diversion Dam and Lodi Lake. 12. Evaluate the incidence of predation on juvenile salmonids emigrating past Woodbridge Dam, and investigate potential remedial actions if necessary. 13. Evaluate the effects of extending the closure of the fish season from 31 December to 31 March (and possibly to June) to protect juvenile salmonids and adult steelhead and prevent anglers from wading on redds.

The Final Restoration Plan for the Anadromous Fish Restoration Program does not recommend any specific actions or evaluations for Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek.

BAY DELTA CONSERVATION PLAN

The Bay Delta Conservation Plan (BDCP) is a planning and environmental permitting process being developed by local water agencies, environmental and conservation organizations, state and federal agencies, and other interest groups to improve habitat for Delta fisheries in a way that improves water supply reliability to the 25 million Californians and 3 million acres of irrigated agriculture that receive water delivered from the Delta. BDCP is identifying conservation strategies to improve the overall ecological health of the Delta, identifying ecologically friendly ways to move fresh water through and/or around the Delta, and addressing toxic pollutants, invasive species, and impairments to water quality.

BDCP is being developed under the federal ESA, California Endangered Species Act (CESA), and the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (NCCPA) to provide the basis for issuance of endangered species permits for the operation of state and federal water projects. At the heart of BDCP is a long‐term conservation strategy that sets forth actions needed for an ecologically viable Delta, to be implemented over the next 50 years. State and federal agencies are developing a joint Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/EIS) to determine the environmental impacts of BDCP. This extensive environmental analysis will include opportunities for public review and comment. It is anticipated that the public draft EIR/EIS will be released in 2013.

NATIONAL AND CALIFORNIA TOXICS RULES AND THE POLICY FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF TOXICS STANDARDS FOR INLAND SURFACE WATERS, ENCLOSED BAYS AND ESTUARIES OF CALIFORNIA

Criteria for priority toxic pollutants for the State of California are promulgated in the National Toxics Rule (NTR) and California Toxics Rule (CTR). The Policy for Implementation of Toxics Standards for Inland Surface Waters, Enclosed Bays and Estuaries of California (i.e., State Implementation Plan or SIP) adopted by the SWRCB on March 12, 2000 and amended in 2005 (SWRCB 2005), applies to discharges of toxic pollutants into inland surface waters, enclosed bays, and estuaries. The policy establishes implementation provisions for NTR and CTR criteria, and for priority pollutant objectives established in Basin Plans. The policy also establishes certain monitoring requirements and chronic toxicity control provisions, and includes special provisions for certain types of discharges.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-3 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

STATE

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) of the California Fish and Game Code, a CDFW permit is required for projects the implementation of which could result in the take of a species state listed as threatened or endangered (i.e., species listed under CESA). Pursuant to Section 2080, take of a listed species is prohibited without an Incidental Take Permit. Take is defined in Section 86 of the Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The CESA definition of take does not include “harm” or “harass” as is included in the federal act. As a result, the threshold for take under CESA is generally considered higher than under ESA. Two fish species listed as threatened under the CESA occur may occur seasonally in the lower Mokelumne River (Table 4.6‐1): delta smelt (Hypomesus transpacificus) and Central Valley steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss).

SECTION 1600 OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE CODE

All diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California that supports wildlife resources are subject to regulation by the CDFW, pursuant to Section 1600 of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Code. Section 1603 provides that it is unlawful for any person to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake designated by CDFW, or use any material from the streambed without first notifying CDFW of such activity. Stream is defined as a body of water that flows, at least periodically or intermittently, through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. CDFW’s jurisdiction within altered or artificial waterways is based on the value of those waterways to fish and wildlife. A CDFW Streambed Alteration Agreement must be obtained for any project that would result in impact to a river, stream, or lake.

STEELHEAD RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR CALIFORNIA

In 1996, CDFW published the Steelhead Restoration and Management Plan for California (McEwan and Jackson 1996: 178‐179). This plan identifies dam construction, water diversions, mining activities, State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) operations, impeded passage, decreased flows, and degraded water quality conditions as the primary impacts to production and survival of steelhead and other anadromous fish in the lower Mokelumne River downstream of Comanche Dam. The plan recommends the following actions to increase survival of migrating adult and juvenile steelhead in the Mokelumne River:

1. Restoration measures identified in the Lower Mokelumne River Fisheries Management Plan should be implemented as soon as possible. 2. The Mokelumne River should be managed for ocean‐run steelhead. When greater flow releases to support anadromous fish populations are obtained, the present fisheries management strategy should be reevaluated.

This plan does not identify any impacts to steelhead, nor does it recommend any actions for the Cosumnes River, Laguna Creek, or Skunk Creek.

RESTORING CENTRAL VALLEY STREAMS: A PLAN FOR ACTION

In 1993, CDFW published Restoring Central Valley Streams: A Plan for Action (Reynolds et al. 1993), which was developed to address the protection of anadromous fish habitat in Central Valley streams. This plan recommended determining the adequacy of the fish screen at the Granlees Diversion Dam as the sole action for

City of Galt 4.6-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

the Cosumnes River (Reynolds et al. 1993: VII‐121). No recommendations are provided for Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek. In addition, this plan identified the following key restoration actions and evaluations for the Mokelumne River (Reynolds et al. 1993: VII‐127):

1. Upgrade existing fish screens at Woodbridge Irrigation District diversion. 2. Improve upstream fish passage at Woodbridge Irrigation District Dam. 3. Install fish screens at North San Joaquin Water Conservation District diversions (north and south). 4. Improve spawning habitat by placement of approximately 23,000 cubic yards of gravel. 5. Require provision of the following total annual instream flow releases (acre‐feet [AF]): a. Wet water year: 284,628 AF; b. Normal water year: 236,217 AF; c. Dry water year: 161,124 AF. 6. Establish water quality objectives for the protection of spawning, rearing, and emigration. 7. Restrict gravel extraction activities within the floodplain. 8. Evaluate screening needs at small riparian diversions.

PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT

The Porter‐Cologne Water Quality Control Act, which provides the state with broad authority to regulate surface water quality, is summarized in the Regulatory Setting section of Section 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” As noted in that discussion, the Act requires basin plans that identify beneficial uses for water bodies. Relevant beneficial uses for aquatic organism protection include warm‐ and cold‐water habitat, fish migration and spawning, rare and endangered species, sport fishing, and shellfish harvesting.

WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR THE SACRAMENTO RIVER AND SAN JOAQUIN RIVER BASINS

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River Basins (Basin Plan) (RWQCB 2011) provides water quality standards for waters of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River basins. Existing beneficial uses identified in the Basin Plan for the Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers that are directly associated with aquatic resources include (RWQCB 2011: II‐1‐2):

 Warm Freshwater Habitat (WARM) – Uses of water that support warm water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.  Cold Freshwater Habitat (COLD) – Uses of water that support cold water ecosystems including, but not limited to, preservation or enhancement of aquatic habitats, vegetation, fish, or wildlife, including invertebrates.  Migration of Aquatic Organisms (MIGR) – Uses of water that support habitats necessary for migration or other temporary activities by aquatic organisms, such as anadromous fish.  Spawning, Reproduction, and/or Early Development (SPWN) – Uses of water that support high quality aquatic habitats suitable for reproduction and early development of fish.  Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (RARE) – Uses of water that support aquatic habitats necessary, at least in part, for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state or federal law as rare, threatened, or endangered.

Based on the “tributary rule” of the Basin Plan, these aquatic life beneficial uses are also designated to Laguna Creek, an unnamed water in the Basin Plan, which is tributary to the Cosumnes River.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-5 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

LOCAL

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN

The County of Sacramento General Plan (General Plan) outlines a set of goals, objectives, policies, and implementation measures to address numerous important community issues, including the protection of Sacramento County’s natural resources, and provides a framework and direction for land use planning. The Conservation Element identifies the following goals and objectives for the County’s aquatic resources:

 Goal: Preserve, protect, and manage the health and integrity of aquatic resources in Sacramento County.  Goal: Preserve and enhance self‐sustaining vernal pool habitats.  Objective: Establish vernal pool preserves that enhance and protect the ecological integrity of vernal pool resources.  Goal: Preserve, protect, and enhance natural open space functions of riparian, stream and river corridors.  Objective: Manage riparian corridors to protect natural, recreational, economic, agricultural and cultural resources as well as water quality, supply and conveyance.  Objective: Maintain the natural character of the 100‐year floodplain by limiting fill and excavation.  Objective: Maintain levee protection, riparian vegetation, function and topographic diversity by stream channel and bank stabilization projects.  Objective: Stabilize riverbanks to protect levees, water conveyance and riparian functions.  Objective: Conserve and protect the Sacramento, Cosumnes, and Mokelumne and American rivers to preserve natural habitat and recreational opportunities.  Objective: Protect and restore natural stream functions.  Objective: Land uses within and development adjacent to stream corridors are to be consistent with natural values.  Objective: Properly manage and fund the maintenance of rivers and streams to protect and enhance natural functions.  Objective: Restore concrete sections of rivers and streams to increase natural functions.  Goal: Preserve and protect fisheries in County waterways and water bodies.  Objective: Provide and protect high quality in‐stream habitat, water quality and water flows to support fisheries propagation, development, and mitigation.

CITY OF GALT 2030 GENERAL PLAN

The 2030 Galt General Plan Policy Document (2030 General Plan) sets out a long‐term vision for the City’s growth and outlines policies, standards, and programs to guide day‐to‐day decisions concerning the City’s development through the year 2030. The 2030 General Plan serves as the City’s constitution for land use and development. The Conservation and Open Space Element identifies the following goals and policies for aquatic resources:

 Goal COS‐1: To protect and enhance the qualities of the area’s rivers, creeks, sloughs, and groundwater.  Policy COS‐1.9: Stream Alteration Watershed Regulations Compliance. The City shall require proposed developments to comply with streambed alteration and watershed protection regulations as administered by the California Department of Fish and [Wildlife].  Policy COS‐1.10: Ecological Features Retention. The City shall retain to the extent feasible the ecological features of the creeks, sloughs, and river in their natural state.

City of Galt 4.6-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

 Policy COS‐1.12: Best Management Practices. The City shall require all new development and redevelopment to implement Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce pollutants to the maximum extent practicable. Additionally, the City shall require, as part of its Storm Water NPDES Permit and ordinances, to implement the Grading Plan, Erosion Control Plan, and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction activities of any improvement plans, new development and redevelopment projects for reducing pollutants to the maximum extent practicable.  Policy COS‐1.13: No Net Loss of Wetlands. The City shall review development proposals in accordance with applicable local, state, and federal statutes protecting jurisdictional wetlands (Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) and require that new developments have no net loss of existing wetland habitats.

 Goal COS‐2: To protect, restore, and enhance habitats that support fish and wildlife species.  Policy COS‐2.1: Sensitive Species Protection. The City should require minimization of impacts to protect mature trees, vernal pools, and any threatened endangered or other sensitive species when approving new development.  Policy COS‐2.2: Wetland and Riparian Communities Management. The City shall support the protection, restoration, expansion, and management of wetland and riparian plant communities for passive recreation, groundwater recharge, and wildlife habitat.  Policy COS‐2.3: Biologically Sensitive Area Development. The City should require new development in areas that are known to have particular value for biological resources to maximize preservation of sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitat.  Policy COS‐2.4: Federal, State, and Local Statutes Compliance. The City shall review development proposals in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local statutes protecting special‐status species and jurisdictional wetlands.  Policy COS‐2.5: Mitigation Measures Imposition. The City shall, in its role as lead agency, take into consideration mitigation standards and policies of resource and regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over biological resources (e.g., USFWS, CDFW, etc.).  Policy COS‐2.6: Biological Surveys. On sites that have the potential to contain critical or sensitive habitats or special species, the City shall require the project applicant to have the site surveyed by a qualified biologist. A report on the findings of this survey shall be submitted to the City as part of the application process.  Policy COS‐2.7: Regional Habitat Conservation Efforts Coordination. The City shall continue to coordinate efforts with Sacramento County to develop the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan.  Policy COS‐2.8: Habitat Conservation Easement Coordination. The City will initiate contact with private conservation trusts and work to identity trust lands within the SOI and to the extent feasible will inventory known trust lands to address potential conflicts with development in the City’s planning area. 4.6.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING OVERVIEW OF FISH COMMUNITIES

Evaluating potential impacts to fishery resources requires an understanding of fish species’ life histories and life‐ stage environmental requirements. This information is provided herein for fish species of primary management concern that have the potential to occur within the reaches of the Cosumnes River, Laguna Creek, and Skunk Creek affected by the project. Species of primary management concern include federal‐ and state‐listed species of the region and those that are considered recreationally or commercially important. Findings for this subset of all fish species present within the affected environment provide the technical basis from which to make impact determinations for the entire fish community. A list of fish species potentially existing in the lower reaches of

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-7 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

the Cosumnes River in the project area is provided in Table 4.6‐1. The following sections provide more information about special status species and their importance and environmental requirements.

Available data indicate that a combined total of 41 fish species may occur seasonally or year‐round in the lower reaches of the Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers downstream of Laguna Creek and, therefore, have the potential to occur in Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek and be affected by the proposed project (Table 4.6‐1). The numbers of fish species occurring in the Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers were 35 and 40, respectively. The fish assemblages of these rivers are comprised of a diverse variety of native and non‐native species. Only fifteen (37%) of these species are endemic to California, of which five species have been given a special‐status designation by NOAA Fisheries, the USFWS, and/or CDFW due to concern over declining numbers. The remaining 26 (63%) fish species occurring in these reaches have been introduced into California water bodies, either intentionally or unintentionally. Harris (1996: 4‐5) and Whitener and Kennedy (1998: 3) found that the fish species composition of the Cosumnes River was skewed toward non‐native taxa, which comprised 66% and 70%, respectively, of all species present. However, Whitener and Kennedy (1998: 6) noted that the relative abundance of native fish was greater than that of non‐native fish, comprising 77% of all fish documented.

The non‐native fish species present in the project area represent a diverse array of trophic levels, and adaptations. Many centrarchids (e.g., largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, sunfish) and ictalurids (i.e., catfish and bullheads) may prey on eggs, juveniles, and small‐bodied adult native and non‐native fish. Green sunfish are known to compete with native Sacramento perch by aggressively chasing them from their spawning areas (Fuller et al. 1999: 361). American shad and striped bass, both introduced intentionally to provide a sport fishery, may also feed on juvenile fish, including natives. Western mosquito fish, introduced as a mosquito‐control agent, provide a forage base for native and non‐native piscivores.

Table 4.6-1 Fish Species Occurring in the Lower Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers Downstream of the WWTP Project Site Family/Common Name Scientific Name Federal/State Status Atherinopsidae Inland silverside* Menidia beryllina ‐‐/‐‐ Catostomidae Sacramento sucker Catostomus occidentalis ‐‐/‐‐ Centrarchidae Black crappie* Pomoxis nigromaculatus ‐‐/‐‐ Bluegill* Lepomis macrochirus ‐‐/‐‐ Green sunfish* Lepomis cyanellus ‐‐/‐‐ Largemouth bass* Micropterus salmoides ‐‐/‐‐ Redear sunfish* Lepomis microlophus ‐‐/‐‐ Redeye bass* Micropterus coosae ‐‐/‐‐ Smallmouth bass* Micropterus dolomieui ‐‐/‐‐ Spotted bass* Micropterus punctulatus ‐‐/‐‐ Warmouth* Lepomis gulosus ‐‐/‐‐ White crappie* Pomoxis annularis ‐‐/‐‐ Clupeidae American shad* Alosa sapidissima ‐‐/‐‐ Threadfin shad* Dorosoma petenense ‐‐/‐‐ Cottidae Prickly sculpin Cottus asper ‐‐/‐‐

City of Galt 4.6-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

Table 4.6-1 Fish Species Occurring in the Lower Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers Downstream of the WWTP Project Site Family/Common Name Scientific Name Federal/State Status Riffle sculpin Cottus gulosus ‐‐/‐‐ Cyprinidae Common carp* Cyprinus carpio ‐‐/‐‐ Fathead minnow* Pimephales promelas ‐‐/‐‐ Golden shiner* Notemigonus crysoleucas ‐‐/‐‐ Goldfish* Carassius auratus ‐‐/‐‐ Hardhead Mylopharodon conocephalus ‐‐/SSC Hitch Lavinia exilicauda ‐‐/‐‐ Sacramento blackfish Orthodon microlepidotus ‐‐/‐‐ Sacramento pikeminnow Ptychocheilus grandis ‐‐/‐‐ Sacramento splittail Pogonichthys grandis ‐‐/SSC Speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus ‐‐/‐‐ Embiotocidae Tule perch Hysterocarpus traski ‐‐/‐‐ Gasterosteidae Threespine stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus ‐‐/‐‐ Gobiidae Yellowfin goby* Acanthogobius flavimanus ‐‐/‐‐ Ictaluridae Black bullhead* Ameiurus melas ‐‐/‐‐ Brown bullhead* Ictalurus nebulosus ‐‐/‐‐ Channel catfish* Ictalurus punctatus ‐‐/‐‐ White catfish* Ameiurus catus ‐‐/‐‐ Moronidae Striped bass* Morone saxatilis ‐‐/‐‐ Osmeridae Delta smelt Hypomesus transpacificus T/E Wakasagi* Hypomesus nipponensis ‐‐/‐‐ Percidae Bigscale logperch* Percina macrolepida ‐‐/‐‐ Petromyzontidae River lamprey Lampetra ayresi ‐‐/SSC Poeciliidae Western mosquitofish* Gambusia affinis ‐‐/‐‐ Salmonidae Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha SC/SSC Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss T/‐‐ E = Endangered T = Threatened SC = Species of Concern SSC = Species of Special Concern *Introduced Sources: Merz and Saldate 2004; Harris 1996; Crain et al. 2004; Moyle et al. 2003; CRG 2005

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-9 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

SPECIAL-STATUS FISH SPECIES

The special‐status fish species addressed in this section include those fish species or races that have been designated as endangered, threatened, Species of Special Concern/Species of Concern, or are proposed for listing (i.e., candidate species) under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) or California Endangered Species Act (CESA).

There are no documented occurrences of anadromous fishes from any fish monitoring programs occurring in Skunk or Laguna Creeks. However, anecdotal observations of fall‐run Chinook salmon occurring in Laguna Creek have been made by City staff in recent years. These fish are likely strays from the Cosumnes River as Laguna Creek has insufficient suitable habitat for supporting Chinook salmon spawning, egg incubation, and early life stage rearing. The Cosumnes River and its terminal drainage, the Mokelumne River, support annual runs of Central Valley Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) fall‐run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha). In addition, the Mokelumne River supports an annual run of Central Valley ESU steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and some of these fish may stray into the Cosumnes River each year. The life history periodicity of individual life stages of each of these fish species is discussed below.

FALL-RUN CHINOOK SALMON

Central Valley Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) fall‐run (and late fall‐run) Chinook salmon were transferred from the federal candidate species list to the federal species of concern list in 2004 (64 FR 19975; April 15, 2004). Fall‐run Chinook salmon currently maintain self‐sustaining populations in the Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers, partially supplemented by stocking from the Mokelumne River Fish Hatchery, which is owned by the East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) and operated by CDFW. The CDFW’s 2012 Grand Tab indicates that the long‐term (1952–2011) mean annual Chinook salmon escapement in the Mokelumne River was 4,321 fish. Given their status as a species of concern, natal use of the Cosumnes River, high recreational and commercial status, and likelihood of being affected by the proposed project, fall‐run Chinook salmon are a species of primary management concern and were given a high priority in the impact assessment below.

Adult fall‐run Chinook salmon migrate into the Mokelumne River from September into early January, with peak immigration occurring in November. Spawning generally occurs from late October through January. The salmon eggs incubate in the gravel and hatch between late October and April, depending on time of spawning and water temperature. Fry emerge occurs from January to April and a small portion of these fish may emigrate toward the Delta immediately following emergence as post‐emergent fry; however, the majority rear in the spawning areas for a period of several weeks. Emigration from the Mokelumne River is complete by July.

The Cosumnes River historically supported moderate size runs of Chinook salmon, with escapement ranging from several hundred to more than 4,000 fish between 1953 and 1973 (Exhibit 4.6‐1) (Snider and Reavis 2000: 1, 32). In recent decades, however, annual runs have generally been smaller, ranging from 0 to approximately 1,350 fish. Fish from the Mokelumne River Hatchery have been planted in the Cosumnes River and strays from the Mokelumne River (as identified by coded wire tags) are found annually in the Cosumnes River. Declines in the Cosumnes River populations are apparently due to the altered hydrology of the system during the critical salmon migration period coupled with a short supply of suitable spawning and rearing habitat. Adult immigration begins immediately upon hydraulic connection with the Mokelumne River and spawning begins soon after fish reach suitable spawning reaches. Snider and Reavis (2000: 6) reported that 69% of all Chinook salmon spawning during the 1998‐99 season occurred between Meiss Road and Highway 16. The upstream limit for salmonid migration is a series of high gradient cascades near Latrobe Road. Fry emergence occurs through May and emigration from the Cosumnes River may occur into June of wet years, with early emigration apparently triggered by episodic flow events and later migration triggered by increases in water temperature (Snider and Reavis 2000: 11). Sampling conducted by Whitener and Kennedy (1998: 6‐8) indicate that reconnection of the Cosumnes River to its floodplain provides valuable rearing habitat for juvenile Chinook salmon.

City of Galt 4.6-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

Source: CDFW Grand Tab 2012. Exhibit 4.6-1 Fall-Run Chinook Salmon Escapement Estimates for the Cosumnes and Mokelumne River Populations from 1952 through 2011

CENTRAL VALLEY STEELHEAD

Central Valley ESU steelhead were listed as threatened under the federal ESA on March 19, 1998 (63 FR Part 13347); no state designation has been made. Steelhead, the anadromous form of rainbow trout, was once abundant in California coastal and Central Valley drainages from the Mexican to Oregon borders. Populations have declined significantly in recent decades, primarily due to habitat loss stemming from dam construction. Given their ESA listing, potential opportunistic use of the Cosumnes River, high recreational and commercial status, and critical habitat designation in waters potentially affected by the proposed project (see the Critical Habitat section below), steelhead are a species of primary management concern and were given a high priority in the impact assessment below.

Steelhead spawning migrations into the lower Mokelumne River begin as early as August, peak in October and November, and extend into March (Merz et al. 2010: 6). Spawning occurs from December through April. The majority of fry emerge from the gravel in May and early June. Fry remain in the river for one to four years before undergoing smoltification, a physiological transformation preparing fish for living in saltwater environments, prior to emigration to the ocean. Steelhead mature in one to four years at sea before returning to their natal streams to spawn. Unlike Chinook salmon, steelhead are iteroparous (i.e., able to spawn repeatedly) and may spawn for up to four consecutive years before dying; however, it is rare for steelhead to spawn more than twice and the majority of repeat spawners are females (Busby et al. 1996: 35). Although one‐time spawners comprise the majority, Shapovalov and Taft (1954: 118) report that repeat spawners are relatively numerous (i.e., 17.2%) in California streams.

Steelhead from the Mokelumne River Hatchery are planted annually downstream of Woodbridge Dam. The number of steelhead spawning in the Mokelumne River is unknown; however, monitoring by EBMUD indicates that small numbers are detected annually at Woodbridge Dam during the Chinook salmon immigration period.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-11 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

The majority of spawning occurs in the reach extending from Woodbridge Dam upstream to Comanche Dam, where habitat suitability is greatest. Likewise, the vast majority of juvenile steelhead rear in this upstream reach, although they are found all the way down to the Cosumnes River confluence (Merz and Saldate 2004: 14).

CDFW files report that the Cosumnes River historically supported runs of steelhead (Harris 1996: 6). The current seasonal hydrology is not conducive for supporting steelhead due to the ephemeral nature of the lower reaches. Juvenile steelhead require perennial flow, as they rear in their natal stream for a period of 1 to 3 years. A short reach of river extending from Rancho Murieta to Latrobe Road flows year‐round. Thus, a potential exists for steelhead from the Mokelumne River to make opportunistic use of the Cosumnes River and anecdotal evidence indicates that this may be occurring in some years; however, the probability of juveniles surviving the summer months is low due to such factors as elevated water temperatures, depressed dissolved oxygen levels, and predation.

DELTA SMELT

The USFWS listed delta smelt as a threatened species under the ESA in March 1993 (58 FR 12854). In early 2005, the USFWS reviewed the population status of this species and, based on 37 years of data, recommended that no change in its threatened status was warranted. In April 2010, upon completion of a 12‐month finding on a petition to reclassify delta smelt as endangered under the ESA, the USFWS announced that reclassifying the status of the species from threatened to endangered was warranted, but precluded by other higher priority listing actions (75 FR 17667). The delta smelt also was listed as threatened under the CESA in 1993 and re‐ designated by the state as endangered in 2008. Delta smelt are a small, slender‐bodied euryhaline (i.e., occur in a wide range of salinities) fish endemic to the Delta. Delta smelt are pelagic (live in open waters near the surface) and tend to form large schools. Adult spawning migrations begin in late winter and last through early summer. Spawning occurs in shallow waters of dead‐end sloughs upstream of the brackish water of the estuary. Eggs sink to the bottom and adhere to the substrate. Adult fish die following spawning. Eggs incubate for 10‐14 days and, following hatching, the planktonic (drifting in the water column) larvae are transported downstream by currents to zones of freshwater/saltwater mixing from late March through July. Delta smelt occur throughout upper reaches of the Delta, including the lower reaches of the Mokelumne River (i.e., downstream of the Cosumnes River confluence), where they have been captured infrequently during fish surveys conducted by EBMUD (Merz and Saldate 2004: 14). There are no reported occurrences of delta smelt in the Cosumnes River. Consequently, the likelihood of delta smelt being adversely affected by the proposed project is low. However, because delta smelt are listed under the ESA, they are a species of primary management concern.

SACRAMENTO SPLITTAIL

Sacramento splittail are large, relatively long‐lived cyprinids (minnows) native to California. Splittail are listed as a Species of Special Concern in California and were removed from threatened status by USFWS in 2003. Reasons cited for concern include: 1) changed estuarine hydraulics, especially reduced outflows, 2) modification of spawning habitat, 3) climatic variation, 4) toxic substances, 5) introduced species, 6) predation, and 7) exploitation (Moyle et al. 1995: 167‐169).

Floodplains provide important spawning and rearing habitats for splittail (Crain et al. 2004: 139) and they are found seasonally throughout lower reaches of the Cosumnes River (Whitener and Kennedy 1998: 5; Harris 1996: 5). Splittail spawn in large numbers from January to June on flooded vegetation in the Cosumnes River floodplain (Whitener and Kennedy 1998: 5). Juveniles remain in the shallow, near‐shore areas with abundant vegetation, moving to deeper water as they grow. Juvenile emigration into the estuary begins in late winter (e.g., February) and continues throughout the summer.

City of Galt 4.6-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

HARDHEAD

The hardhead minnow is a large cyprinid species that can reach lengths of over 23 inches, and generally occurs in large, undisturbed, low‐ to mid‐elevation, cool‐ to warm‐water rivers and streams (Moyle 2002: 152‐153). Hardhead was designated CSC by CDFW in 1995, and is listed as a Class 3 Watch List species, meaning that it occupies much of its native range but was formerly more widespread or abundant within that range (CDFW 2011). Historically, hardhead were considered a widespread and locally abundant species in California, but their specialized habitat requirements, widespread alteration of downstream habitats, and predation by smallmouth bass, have resulted in population declines and isolation of populations (Moyle 2002: 154). Given their low abundance in the Mokelumne and Cosumnes rivers, hardhead are unlikely to be adversely affected by the proposed project.

Hardhead also have been abundant in reservoirs. However, most of these reservoir populations have proved to be temporary, presumably the result of colonization of the reservoir by juvenile hardhead before introduced predators became established. Brown and Moyle (1993: 105) observed that hardhead disappeared from the upper Kings River when the reach was invaded by bass. A similar situation has been documented in the South Yuba River (Moyle et al. 1995: 173).

RIVER LAMPREY

The river lamprey, a California Species of Special Concern, is relatively small (averaging 17 centimeters) and highly predaceous (Moyle 2002). They are anadromous and will prey upon other fish species in both fresh and salt water (Moyle 2002). Much of what is known about the life history of river lamprey is from populations in British Columbia, where adults migrate from the Pacific Ocean into rivers and streams in September and spawn in the winter months. During spawning, adult river lamprey excavate a depression in sand or gravel riffles where the eggs are deposited. Adults die after spawning. Juvenile river lamprey remain in backwaters for several years, where they feed on algae and microorganisms (Moyle et al. 1995). The metamorphosis from juvenile to adult begins in July and is complete by the following April. From May through July, following completion of metamorphosis, the river lamprey congregate in the Delta prior to entering the ocean.

The river lamprey is distributed in streams and rivers along the eastern Pacific Ocean from Juneau, Alaska, to San Francisco Bay. It may have its greatest abundance in the Sacramento–San Joaquin River system although it is not commonly observed in large numbers (Moyle et al. 1995). Although they may occur in the lower Mokelumne River seasonally in some years, these rivers are near the outer edge of their range and, therefore, the likelihood of this species to be directly affected by the proposed project is low. BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES

Benthic macroinvertebrates (BMIs) provide important ecological roles in lentic ecosystems and provide the primary forage base for many species of fish and other aquatic organisms. There are no available surveys of the BMI communities of Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the lower Cosumnes River, or the lower Mokelumne River downstream of the WWTP outfall. However, based on the low‐gradient habitats, fine benthic sediments, seasonal hydrology, riparian conditions, and land use, and BMI communities surveyed in similar water bodies in the northern Central Valley (e.g., Sacramento Watershed Program 2003), the affected reaches of these water bodies likely support a diverse community of BMI taxa that are classified as tolerant to moderately tolerant of environmental perturbation.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-13 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

AQUATIC HABITAT

SKUNK CREEK

The Galt WWTP discharges treated effluent via an outfall at the head of a remnant channel of Skunk Creek. The upper watershed of Skunk Creek is disconnected from the remnant channel because of the location of the WWTP. From the outfall, Skunk Creek flows approximately 3,500 feet northwesterly to its terminus at Laguna Creek. Aquatic habitat in this low‐gradient channel is maintained entirely by discharges from the Galt WWTP and seasonal rainfall. Aquatic habitat in Skunk Creek is considered low value for aquatic life.

LAGUNA CREEK

Discharges from the Galt WWTP enter Laguna Creek, via Skunk Creek, approximately 3 miles upstream of its confluence with the Cosumnes River. Laguna Creek is approximately 50 miles in length and drains approximately 185 square miles of southeastern Sacramento County and a small portion of Amador County. The Laguna Creek watershed originates at approximately 900 feet above mean sea level (msl) and ends at approximately 15 feet above msl at its confluence with the Cosumnes River. Land uses in this watershed are dominated by agriculture and grazing. Aquatic habitat in the lower reaches of Laguna Creek is typical of Central Valley low gradient creeks and, therefore, likely supports a warm water fish community, but is considered of low value for anadromous salmonids. However, anecdotal observations of adult fall‐run Chinook salmon have been made in Laguna Creek in recent years and juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon may use the lower reach of the creek during their seasonal emigration period for short‐term non‐natal rearing.

Flow in Laguna Creek is seasonal, with little or no natural flow outside the precipitation season (October through May). Laguna Creek flows are supplemented by year‐round discharges from the Sacramento Municipal Utility District’s (SMUD) Rancho Seco facility. Other discharges to Laguna Creek include rainfall and agricultural runoff. During the fall and winter months, when local irrigation demands are low (i.e., typically beginning in late September), the natural flow, plus the discharge from the Rancho Seco facility, flow unimpaired to the Cosumnes River. Conversely, during the peak irrigation season, riparian users divert nearly all of the flow in Laguna Creek for irrigation. Consequently, little or no flow reaches the lowest portion of Laguna Creek in the vicinity of the City’s discharge point.

COSUMNES RIVER

JSA (2003) provides a comprehensive characterization of habitat in the Cosumnes River watershed. This study characterizes the lower reach of the Cosumnes River in the vicinity of the Laguna Creek confluence downstream to the Mokelumne River confluence as having a relatively low‐gradient slope and unconfined sinuous channel. Substrate composition ranges from a sand/silt/gravel mixture in the upper reaches to a predominantly silt/mud/clay/rooted vascular plant mixture near the Mokelumne River confluence.

The Cosumnes River carries a high suspended sediment load, which likely has adverse impacts on anadromous salmonid eggs and fry. The water quality of the Cosumnes River has received relatively little attention and thus little information is available for the project area. Based on an examination of the relationship of water quality in the upper and lower Cosumnes River watershed, Ahearn et al. (2000: 12‐13)reported that the majority of the nutrients (i.e., nitrogen & phosphorus) and suspended sediments originates from both point (e.g., wastewater treatment facilities) and non‐point (i.e., urban and agricultural runoff) sources in the lower watershed. These investigators also reported that water temperature, conductivity, and pH levels generally increase downstream. Nutrient and sediment transport is greatest during the wet season and little transport occurs under dry season base flow conditions.

City of Galt 4.6-14 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

The hydrology of the lower reach of the Cosumnes River is characterized by an ephemeral system having an average annual flow of 312,000 acre‐feet. Flows in the lower river range from zero (0) cubic feet per second (cfs) during the summer months to winter peak flows in excess of 20,000 cfs (JSA 2003: II‐2, II‐13). Cosumnes River flows result primarily from winter storms and limited seasonal snow melt. Only approximately 16% of the watershed lies above the typical snow‐level elevation of 5,000 feet. Consequently, only a small portion of the upper reaches of the watershed receives significant snowfall; therefore, the flow regime is influenced primarily by rainfall. The hydrology of the Cosumnes River has been substantially altered in past decades. Increased use of groundwater resources since the 1950s have lowered groundwater levels throughout the County, resulting in losses of surface water from the lower Cosumnes River to the underlying aquifer. During the summer months (i.e., typically beginning in June), the lower Cosumnes River at the confluence of Laguna Creek is dry; however, the tidally influenced portion (i.e., permanently wetted and hydraulically connected to the Mokelumne River) of the Cosumnes River is located approximately 1.5 mile downstream of the Laguna Creek confluence. The tidally influenced portion of the lower Cosumnes River extends approximately 4 miles upstream of the Cosumnes River’s terminus at the Mokelumne River.

MOKELUMNE RIVER

The instream habitat of the Mokelumne River from Comanche Dam downstream to the San Joaquin River confluence was characterized most recently by Merz and Setka (2004a: 21‐22). Results of this study indicate that over 83% of the surface area of the study reach is tidally influenced. Glides, the most prevalent habitat type, comprise 100% of the channel in the lowest portion of the study reach and 42% of the overall study area. Riffles are scarce, comprising no more than 2% of available habitat types in all portions of the study area. Substrate composition ranges from gravel/cobble/sand mixture in reaches near Comanche Dam to a mixture of mud, sand, and rooted vascular plants near the San Joaquin River confluence. The shortage of riffles with suitable gravel for spawning led to a gravel addition pilot study (Merz and Setka 2004b: 402‐403), which resulted in improved conditions for and, subsequently, spawning use by Chinook salmon. The lower reaches of the Mokelumne River downstream of the Cosumnes River confluence is characterized as a large tidally influenced river with a relatively uniform channel cross‐section. This open‐water habitat is utilized by anadromous salmonids almost exclusively as a migration corridor to and from upstream spawning and rearing habitats in the Mokelumne and Cosumnes rivers. CRITICAL HABITAT

CENTRAL VALLEY STEELHEAD

Critical habitat was designated for the Central Valley Distinct Population Segment (DPS) steelhead on September 2, 2005 (70 FR 52488) and includes the lower Mokelumne River downstream of Comanche Dam, but does not include the Cosumnes River or any of its tributaries, including Laguna Creek and Skunk Creek. The Cosumnes River is designated as “occupied but excluded” from critical habitat designation within the North Valley Floor Hydrologic Unit critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead due to the “balancing process for economic impacts” associated with the critical habitat designation process (70 FR 52531).

DELTA SMELT

The USFWS designated critical habitat for delta smelt on December 19, 1994 (59 FR 65256). Critical habitat for delta smelt includes all water and all submerged lands below ordinary high water and the entire water column bounded by and contained in Suisun Bay, including the contiguous Grizzly and Honker bays; the length of Goodyear, Suisun, Cutoff, First Mallard (Spring Branch), and Montezuma sloughs; and the existing contiguous water contained within the legal boundaries of the Delta, as defined in Section 12220 of the California Water Code. The critical habitat designation includes the tidally influenced reach of the lower Cosumnes River

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-15 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

approximately 1.5 mile downstream of the Laguna Creek confluence and the lower Mokelumne River downstream of the Cosumnes River confluence. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT

The Magnuson‐Stevens Conservation and Management Act (MSA), as amended (U.S.C. 180 et seq.), requires that Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) be identified and described in federal fishery management plans (FMPs). Federal action agencies must consult with NOAA Fisheries on any activity which they fund, permit, or carry out, that may adversely affect EFH. NOAA Fisheries is required to provide EFH conservation and enhancement recommendations to the federal action agencies. EFH is defined as those waters and substrates necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding or growth to maturity. The Lower Cosumnes‐Lower Mokelumne Hydrologic Unit, which contains the tributaries Laguna Creek and Skunk Creek, are identified as EFH for Chinook salmon. Because consultation on EFH is often conducted concurrently with ESA Section 7 consultations by NOAA Fisheries, the assessments of potential adverse effects of the proposed project on listed salmonids also will apply to EFH. 4.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

Criteria for determining significant impacts are based upon the State CEQA Guidelines. In the evaluation that follows, a potential impact to aquatic biology was considered significant if the implementation of the proposed project would:

 cause changes to water quality in one or more water bodies by a sufficient magnitude, frequency, and geographic extent to cause lethality or adversely affect an aquatic species’ long‐term population level in these water bodies;  cause a reduction in habitat quantity via changes to creek/river flows or shaded riparian aquatic (SRA) cover or cause degradation in habitat quality, via changes to temperature, of sufficient magnitude, frequency and geographic extent such that it would adversely affect a species’ long‐term population level in one or more water body;  reduce or degrade habitat used by state or federal special‐status species, including habitat designated as critical habitat, to an extent that could cause a reduction in species abundance or long‐term population levels, or ability to sustain a population. Special‐status species are defined as those that are currently listed as endangered or threatened under the ESA and/or CESA and species formally proposed for federal and/or state listing as threatened or endangered;  cause sufficient change to or degradation of water quality in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River, Mokelumne River, or downstream water bodies that would substantially delay, block, falsely attract fish into suboptimal conditions, or otherwise substantially interfere with the success of upstream adult migration, spawning, egg incubation, early rearing, or downstream juvenile emigration of resident anadromous fishes, thereby resulting in adverse effects on year‐class production; or  reduce benthic macroinvertebrates (BMI) abundance within a water body downstream of the discharge by a sufficient magnitude and geographic extent as to adversely affect overall BMI community structure or function, including the fish forage base that it provides within the water body.

City of Galt 4.6-16 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS CONSTRUCTION-RELATED IMPACTS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

The WWTP Facilities Master Plan construction‐related activities with the potential to adversely affect fish and habitat resources include construction activities associated with replacement of three pump stations around the storage reservoir; removal or abandonment of an existing pipe and extending the final effluent pipeline to an appropriate discharge location in Skunk Creek; and removing an effluent flow meter near the outfall at the upstream end of Skunk Creek (the effluent flow meter would be replaced within the disturbed footprint of WWTP facilities south of the storage reservoir). The effects of construction‐related activities in all Facilities Master Plan phases on in‐channel and riparian habitat, water quality, and fish communities and migration were assessed, as described in the following sections. Impacts Associated with Alteration of Water Quality Impacts on fish and habitat resources from increases in sedimentation and turbidity that could result from construction‐related activities were assessed based on the magnitude and extent of expected changes in these water quality parameters. Toxicity impacts on aquatic life that could result from chemical spills during construction were assessed based on the potential for accidental spill events, the volumes of various contaminants likely to be spilled in any such event, and their dilution. Direct Lethality or Injury to Aquatic Organisms The potential for aquatic organisms to be directly injured or killed because of construction‐related activities was evaluated in terms of the timing and duration of construction, the spatial scale of in‐channel disturbance, the equipment to be used and construction approach implemented, the nature of disturbance, and the organisms likely to occur at each construction location, and their expected responses to the construction activity. Impacts to Habitat Impacts on fish and aquatic life from temporary changes in riparian and in‐channel habitat were evaluated in terms of the type and magnitude of the affected area, the nature and duration of effects, and how such effects could affect resident and migratory fish species and other populations and communities of aquatic life.

METHODOLOGY TO ASSESS LONG-TERM PROJECT IMPACTS TO AQUATIC RESOURCES

The long‐term operations of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan may affect the aquatic resources of Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River, and the Mokelumne River via changes in effluent quality, quantity, and discharge rate. Under the Immediate Improvements, the existing year‐round 3.0 mgd effluent discharge capacity would remain the same, but effluent water quality would be improved. Under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan (e.g., year 2030), the existing 3.0 mgd effluent discharge capacity would be increased to 6.0 mgd. The WWTP would be managed to continue to meet permitted effluent limits. The potential long‐term effects of each phase of the project on aquatic habitat availability, water quality, temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) regimes, and migration were assessed as described in the following sections. Impacts Associated with Alteration of Water Quality The effects of potential changes in chemical constituents in the undiluted WWTP effluent that would result from implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements were assessed based on the City’s available water quality monitoring data, engineering and planning information for the proposed treatment improvements, and a mass‐balance analysis of projected future changes in receiving water quality following implementation of WWTP improvements. The effects of increased discharge of chemical constituents on fish and habitat resources downstream of the outfall were evaluated by comparing potential effluent and background receiving water constituent concentrations to appropriate water quality criteria/objectives for the

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-17 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

protection of aquatic life. The potential incremental changes in receiving water concentrations, relative to existing conditions, were evaluated for reasonable worst‐case acute exposure conditions (i.e., short‐term exposure) and chronic exposure conditions (i.e., long‐term exposure). The available water quality data and specific methods of analysis and impact assessments are presented in greater detail in Section 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality.” Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Impacts The water quality standards for temperature and DO are not well supported by the scientific literature for protection of many aquatic resources. Consequently, the assessments of potential temperature and DO effects on the aquatic biological resources of Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River, and the Mokelumne River examined the temperature and DO changes that could occur under the improved treatment processes due to the Immediate Improvements and the increased effluent discharge rate under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan. The resultant temperature and DO levels that would occur under the project were then compared to thermal and DO tolerances of fish species assessed, based on federal EPA recommended criteria and other values reported in the scientific literature. For the fall‐spring period, a mass‐balance calculation was made using flow rates and temperatures recorded at the City’s R1 (i.e., 300 feet upstream from the point of discharge) and effluent monitoring stations to predict the temperatures at the City’s R2 (i.e., 100 feet downstream from the point of discharge) monitoring stations. Monthly summary statistics of these calculations were compared to predictions of R2 temperatures based on mass‐balance calculations that used the following inputs: (1) measured R1 flow, (2) measured R1 temperatures, (3) measured effluent temperatures, and (4) 6 mgd (9.2 cfs) effluent flow that would occur under the Facilities Master Plan. The City began discharging treated effluent to Skunk Creek year‐round in 2012 and, as discussed above, previously did not discharge during the late spring to early fall months (e.g., May to October). Because the City was not required to monitor effluent or receiving water flows and temperatures during periods in which the WWTP was not discharging, little or no temperature or flow data exists for the period May to October. Consequently, the assessment of temperatures utilized surrogate temperature data sets from other wastewater facilities of similar size in the Central Valley region (i.e., City of Lodi’s White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility [WPCF] and Atwater WWTP). The assessment of fall‐spring temperatures focused on Chinook salmon and steelhead, both species of management concern, because they have the lowest and narrowest thermal and DO tolerances of all fish species potentially occurring in the project area. The assessment of summer temperature effects focused on representative warmwater fishes likely to reside year‐round in Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek.

The potential DO effects of the effluent discharge under the Immediate Improvements and buildout of the Facilities Master Plan were assessed by characterizing the DO regime of the WWTP effluent, R1, and R2 monitoring stations, based on weekly DO grab measurements during periods of discharge from November 2004 through May 2012. The assessment examined the potential for the effluent to cause exceedances of DO criteria recommended by the federal EPA for the protection of coldwater and warmwater aquatic life by examining the potential for the Project‐related improvements to increase the frequency in which federal EPA DO criteria would be exceeded, relative to existing conditions. False Attraction of Anadromous Salmonids The increased effluent discharge rates that would occur under the buildout of the Facilities Master Plan may increase the potential for anadromous salmonids to be attracted into Laguna Creek by: (1) creating, or augmenting, a connection from Laguna Creek to the Cosumnes River during the September through December period in which adult anadromous salmonids may be present in the lower tidally influenced reach of the Cosumnes River, prior to a natural reconnection of the lower Cosumnes River to its upper reaches, (2) increasing attraction flows at the mouth of Laguna Creek while the lower Cosumnes River is connected to its upper reaches, or (3) increasing the potential for adverse effects on juvenile anadromous salmonids that make temporary opportunistic use of Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek.

City of Galt 4.6-18 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

The potential for each of these scenarios to falsely attract adult anadromous salmonids into Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek, thereby decreasing the likelihood of survival and successful reproduction, was evaluated by examining the change in surface water depths and flows, relative to existing conditions, that could occur at the mouth of Laguna Creek and at the upstream end of the natural occurring tidal zone of the Cosumnes River, and the likelihood that anadromous salmonids would make opportunistic use of these creeks, based on available information regarding their migration behavior. To assess this potential effect of the proposed project on fall‐ run Chinook salmon and steelhead, hydrologic conditions were assessed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC‐RAS) model which was developed and used to estimate: 1) whether surface flow continuity (i.e., continuous flows) exists throughout Laguna Creek and the lower reach of the Cosumnes River from its confluence with Laguna Creek to tidewater; and 2) the minimum depth of flows within the Cosumnes River channel during the May through December period, under both existing and 6 mgd maximum (i.e., worst‐case) year‐round WWTP effluent discharge conditions that would occur under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan. Input data for the HEC‐RAS model included channel geometry and average monthly hydrologic and climatic data including SMUD release flows, natural streamflow rates, irrigation diversions, and evapotranspiration for wet, average, and dry year‐type conditions. However, because Laguna Creek flows can be low at times in any year‐type, fixed average monthly streamflow rates were used for the critical months of salmonid migration activity of November and December to conservatively estimate the maximum effect of increased WWTP discharge on flow depth and width and related potential false attraction. The HEC‐RAS model was used to predict flows in Laguna Creek immediately downstream of Skunk Creek (i.e., “inflow”), flows in the lower Cosumnes River immediately upstream of tidewater (i.e., “outflow”), and the minimum depth that would occur in the Cosumnes River between Laguna Creek and tidewater based on available flow data for the years 2002‐2009. These values were predicted for wet, average, and dry years under existing conditions and under the maximum WWTP effluent discharges of 6 mgd that would occur under the proposed Facilities Master Plan buildout. Habitat Availability Under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, aquatic habitat availability would be marginally increased as a result of the increased effluent discharge rate at full buildout. Impacts to fish and aquatic life caused by long‐term changes in aquatic habitat were evaluated in terms of the type and magnitude of area affected, the nature and duration of effects, and how such habitat alterations could affect resident and migratory fish species and other populations and communities of aquatic life. This assessment was based on the predicted changes in water depths under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan during the period May through December, as discussed above, which encompasses the dry season when aquatic habitat availability is at its annual lowest. During the remaining months (i.e., January‐April), which encompass the wettest part of the year historically, the additional 3.0 mgd effluent that would be discharged would comprise a relatively small proportion of the flows in downstream water bodies and, therefore, this period was assessed qualitatively. ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

The facility upgrades that would occur during the Immediate Improvements phase would occur within the existing facility boundary and on uplands. Construction activities for the Immediate Improvements, including placement of staging areas, would primarily take place in previously disturbed soils within the WWTP footprint, with the possibility of some activities occurring in farmed fields immediately adjacent to the currently fenced area. No in‐channel or near‐water construction work would occur under the Immediate Improvements. Construction BMPs would be implemented to prevent runoff of chemicals, sediment, or other construction‐ related materials into Skunk Creek; therefore, construction of the Immediate Improvements would have no impact on aquatic resources of Skunk Creek or downstream water bodies. Consequently, the potential effects of the construction of the Immediate Improvements on aquatic resources are not further discussed nor assessed in this document.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-19 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Under the Immediate Improvements, the effluent quality would be improved; however, the discharge would remain at the existing permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd year‐round. As such, the hydrology of Skunk Creek and downstream water bodies would not be affected; therefore, the Immediate Improvements would have no effects on aquatic habitat availability, hydrologic connectivity, or false attraction of anadromous salmonids and these issues related to the Immediate Improvements are not discussed further nor assessed in this document.

Under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan (i.e., 6.0 mgd year‐round), the effluent discharge rate would double relative to the existing permitted discharge rate (i.e., 3.0 mgd year‐round). However, the additional 3.0 mgd (4.6 cfs) of treated effluent that would be discharged under project buildout, relative to existing conditions, would not measurably affect the volume, habitat, or quality of water in the lower Mokelumne River or Delta downstream of the tidally influenced reaches of the lower Cosumnes River. Consequently, the potential effects of the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, on the aquatic resources in the lower Mokelumne River and Delta downstream of the Cosumnes River are not assessed or discussed further in this document. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Potential for Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts on Fish and BMI Communities. 4.6-1 Construction-related disturbances in Skunk Creek would occur under the Facilities Master Plan as a result of removing or abandonment of an existing pipe, extending the final effluent pipe, and removing the effluent flow meter. The construction would involve in-water disturbances to the creek, and could introduce pollutants and/or sediments into the creek that may adversely affect the fish and BMI communities. Therefore, the potential temporary and short-term construction-related impact of the proposed project due to discharge of sediment and/or other contaminants would be potentially significant.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Under the Facilities Master Plan, three existing pump stations currently located adjacent to the existing effluent reservoir (Exhibit 3‐4) would likely be replaced. The pump stations are all located around the effluent storage reservoir and, therefore, any sediment runoff from improvements to these pump stations would be captured in the storage reservoir and not flow into Skunk Creek. However, one of these pumps is located at the upstream end of Skunk Creek and, therefore, may result in disturbance of the bank and potentially require in‐water construction work. In addition, an existing pipe (currently out of service) that terminates at the discharge point to Skunk Creek would be removed or abandoned in‐place and the final effluent pipeline would be extended to discharge at an appropriate location within Skunk Creek. The existing outfall effluent flow meter would also be removed (Exhibit 3‐4) and a new effluent flow meter would be constructed within the area of the existing treatment facilities near the effluent diversion structure south of the storage reservoir. Construction work associated with removal of these facilities from the upstream end of Skunk Creek would likely be performed with light machinery and hand tools and would likely involve in‐water work and potential disturbance of the bank, which could introduce pollutants and/or sediments to Skunk Creek, thereby adversely affecting aquatic life in the creek and downstream waters.

Potential for construction‐related disturbances in Skunk Creek may occur under the Facilities Master plan as a result of replacing three pump stations and removing the existing effluent cascade aerator outfall structure. The construction would involve in‐water disturbances to the creek, and could introduce pollutants and/or sediments into the creek that may adversely affect the fish and BMI communities in Skunk Creek and, potentially, Laguna Creek. Therefore, the potential temporary and short‐term construction‐related impact of the proposed project due to discharge of sediment and/or other contaminants would be potentially significant.

City of Galt 4.6-20 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the potential for construction‐related disturbances in Skunk Creek may occur under the Immediate Improvements as a result of replacing three pump stations and removing the existing effluent cascade aerator outfall structure. The construction would involve in‐water disturbances to the creek, and could introduce pollutants and/or sediments into the creek that may adversely affect the fish and BMI communities in Skunk Creek and, potentially, Laguna Creek. Therefore, the potential temporary and short‐term construction‐ related impact of the Immediate Improvements due to discharge of sediment and/or other contaminants would be potentially significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 4.6-1. Construction Timing

In order to avoid any impacts on special-status anadromous fishes that may potentially make temporary opportunistic use of Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek, construction-related activities associated with replacement of the three pump stations, removal of the existing effluent cascade aerator and pipe, and removal of the effluent flow meter in, or adjacent to, Skunk Creek at the outfall under the Facilities Master Plan shall occur within the period June 1 and October 15 when anadromous salmonids would not be present in Skunk Creek or Laguna Creek.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6‐1 would minimize the potential for construction‐related water quality effects to cause lethality or otherwise adversely affect an aquatic species’ long‐term population level, including those designated as special‐status species and the habitat, including EFH for fall‐run Chinook salmon, thereby reducing Impact 4.6‐1 to a less‐than‐significant level. It should also be noted that disturbances to Skunk Creek may require a CDFW 1600 permit, which would include a list of impact avoidance and minimization measures for the project, likely including the construction window listed in Mitigation Measure 4.6‐1.

Impact Potential for Direct Lethality or Injury to Fish Associated with Temporary Construction-Related 4.6-2 Activities. Direct lethality or injury to fish may occur due to implementation of the Facilities Master Plan as a result of replacing three pump stations, removing the existing effluent cascade aerator, pipe, and effluent flow meter in, or adjacent to, Skunk Creek at the outfall. The construction would involve in-water disturbances to the creek, and could result in direct injury or lethality to aquatic organisms. Therefore, the potential temporary and short-term construction- related impact of the proposed project due to direct lethality or injury would be potentially significant.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

As discussed above, the temporary construction‐related activities associated with the Facilities Master Plan may involve the use of light machinery and hand tools to replace three pump stations, to remove the existing effluent cascade aerator and pipe, extend the final effluent pipe, and remove the effluent flow meter in, or near, Skunk Creek at the outfall. Resident fishes may be present in Skunk Creek near the outfall year‐round. Although fall‐run Chinook salmon have the potential to occur in Skunk Creek from late fall or early winter through May, they are unlikely to occur in the vicinity of the construction and, if present, would likely avoid such disturbances and thus are not expected to be adversely affected by construction‐related activities. However, the construction could involve in‐water disturbances to the creek and, therefore, could potentially cause direct lethality or injury to resident fish at the project site during construction. Due to the small in‐water work area, few, if any, fish are expected to be injured or killed and thus would not occur at levels that would adversely affect populations. Nevertheless, the potential for direct injury or lethality to fishes associated with the temporary and short‐term construction‐related activities under the Facilities Master Plan would be potentially significant. City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-21 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Expansion of the facility under the Immediate Improvements may involve the use of light machinery and hand tools to replace three pump stations, to remove the existing effluent cascade aerator and pipe, extend the final effluent pipe, and remove the effluent flow meter in, or near, Skunk Creek at the outfall which could potentially cause direct lethality or injury to resident fish at the project site during construction. Due to the small in‐water work area, few, if any, fish are expected to be injured or killed and thus would not occur at levels that would adversely affect populations. Nevertheless, the potential for direct injury or lethality to fishes associated with the temporary and short‐term construction‐related activities under the Immediate Improvements would be potentially significant.

MITIGATION MEASURE

Mitigation Measure 4.6-2. Biological Monitoring and Exclusionary Netting

The potential construction-related impacts to aquatic organisms associated with in-water excavation and filling activities would be mitigated through biological monitoring and exclusionary netting during construction. Biological monitors would be on-site at the beginning and end of all construction activities that involve excavation of the creek bank to ensure that large numbers of resident fishes are not present within the construction area. Exclusionary netting shall be temporarily installed in Skunk Creek around the construction area to keep fish a safe distance from the construction area.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.6‐1, described above, and Mitigation Measure 4.6‐2 would minimize the potential for directly injuring or killing any fishes, including those designated as special‐status species, thereby reducing Impact 4.6‐2 to a less‐than‐significant level. It should also be noted that disturbances to Skunk Creek may require a CDFW 1600 permit, which would include a list of impact avoidance and minimization measures for the project. Such permit conditions may include both the construction window listed in Mitigation Measure 4.6‐1 and on‐site monitoring as in Mitigation Measure 4.6‐2 as well as potentially other more stringent monitoring and mitigation measures.

Impact Potential for Habitat Alteration or Loss Resulting from Temporary Construction-Related 4.6-3 Activities. Construction-related activities associated with the Facilities Master Plan may temporarily alter Skunk Creek’s aquatic and riparian habitat in the immediate vicinity of the WWTP outfall. The area affected would consist of the areas at and immediately surrounding the pump stations, effluent pipe and cascade aerator, and flow meter. Because the area of disturbance would be small, would occur in areas already altered by the WWTP, and the duration of habitat alteration would be temporary, the potential temporary and short-term construction-related impact of the proposed project on aquatic and riparian habitat would be less than significant.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

As discussed above, construction‐related activities associated with the Facilities Master Plan may involve work in and directly adjacent to Skunk Creek using light machinery and hand tools. These activities may temporarily alter Skunk Creek’s riparian and aquatic habitat in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. Riparian and aquatic habitat in the affected area in which construction would occur is currently in an altered state due to the presence of the existing WWTP facilities (e.g., pumps, pipes, outfall structure, stream bank and stream bed reinforcement) and is largely devoid of any SRA. The area of temporary habitat disturbance would be confined to the small footprint of the area that is already altered and has little habitat value for aquatic resources. Furthermore, construction‐ related activities would be short‐term (e.g., on the order of days or weeks); therefore, any temporary habitat effects would likewise be short in duration. Because the area of disturbance would be small, limited to areas City of Galt 4.6-22 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

already altered by the existing WWTP facilities, and short‐term in duration, the construction‐related activities associated with the Facilities Master Plan are not expected to reduce habitat quantity or quality by an extent that would adversely affect the long‐term viability or habitat availability for any aquatic organisms, including special‐status species or EFH for fall‐run Chinook salmon or critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead or delta smelt in the Mokelumne River. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Expansion of the facility under the Immediate Improvements may involve the use of light machinery and hand tools to replace three pump stations, to remove the existing effluent cascade aerator and pipe, extend the final effluent pipe, and remove the effluent flow meter in, or near, Skunk Creek at the outfall. Because the area of disturbance would be small, limited to areas already altered by the existing WWTP facilities, and short‐term in duration, the construction‐related activities associated with the Immediate Improvements are not expected to reduce habitat quantity or quality by an extent that would adversely affect the long‐term viability or habitat availability for any aquatic organisms, including special‐status species or EFH for fall‐run Chinook salmon or critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead or delta smelt in the Mokelumne River. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Potential for Increased Effluent Discharges to Attract Anadromous Salmonids into Laguna 4.6-4 Creek. In the fall months, anadromous salmonids hold in the tidally influenced reach of lower Cosumnes River downstream of the Laguna Creek confluence prior to the seasonal connection of the Cosumnes River to upstream spawning reaches. Increases in WWTP effluent discharges under the Facilities Master Plan would increase flows in the 1.5 mile reach between the confluence with Laguna Creek and the upper extent of tidewater within the Lower Cosumnes River, which would increase the potential that fall-run Chinook salmon or steelhead are attracted into Laguna Creek, where no suitable spawning or rearing habitat exists. However, because environmental conditions in Laguna Creek would be sub-optimal for passage and holding of adult fish, and because the project would not create olfactory cues that would cause false attraction of fish, increases in flows under the Facilities Master Plan is not anticipated to increase the frequency of false attraction. Furthermore, juvenile fall-run Chinook salmon moving downstream during the winter-spring emigration period may be attracted into Laguna Creek, should conditions be suitable for short-term opportunistic use. However, because the increased effluent flows would not create suitable passage or short-term holding conditions where such conditions do not already exist, the effluent flows are not expected to increase the extent of non-natal rearing of juvenile anadromous salmonids in Laguna Creek. For these reasons, the Facilities Master Plan is not expected to increase the potential for attracting anadromous salmonids into Laguna Creek. Consequently, this impact would be less than significant. Furthermore, effluent discharge rates and temperatures under the Immediate Improvements would not be altered; therefore, the Immediate Improvements would have no impact on the seasonal migrations of anadromous salmonids.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The improvements to the Galt WWTP under the Facilities Master Plan would increase the year‐round flows in Skunk and Laguna creeks by as much as 3 mgd (from the current permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd to the proposed buildout capacity of 6.0 mgd) and would incrementally increase flows in the Cosumnes River downstream of the Laguna Creek confluence. This discussion will evaluate the potential for increased flows in Laguna Creek to have

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-23 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

adverse effects on anadromous salmonids (i.e., fall‐run Chinook salmon and steelhead) by: (1) attracting adult fish holding in tidewater downstream of the Laguna Creek confluence prior to the Cosumnes River’s seasonal connection to upstream spawning habitats into Laguna Creek, and (2) attracting juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon into Laguna Creek during their downstream emigrations to the Delta.

As discussed above, fall‐run Chinook salmon is the only anadromous salmonid with a self‐sustaining natal run in the Cosumnes River. While steelhead may make opportunistic use of the Cosumnes River, there is no evidence that steelhead spawn or rear in the Cosumnes River. Opportunistic use of the Cosumnes River by adult steelhead may occur during the winter months when the Cosumnes River has substantial attraction flows. Under such conditions, the small volume of flow coming from Laguna Creek would not be substantial enough to attract adult fish from the Cosumnes River. The incremental increase in flows from the proposed project would not substantially alter flow conditions at the mouth of Laguna Creek or the Cosumnes River during the winter months; therefore, such increased flows would not have an adverse effect on the migrations of steelhead or its critical habitat. Although the lower Cosumnes River at tidewater is designated critical habitat for delta smelt, there are no records of delta smelt occurring in the Cosumnes River. Nevertheless, as discussed above for steelhead, the incremental increase in flows that would occur under the Facilities Master Plan would have negligible effects on flows in the lower Cosumnes or Mokelumne rivers and thus would not adversely affect the migrations of delta smelt, nor critical habitat for this species. Therefore, this assessment focused primarily on the potential for fall‐run Chinook salmon to stray into Laguna Creek, thereby reducing the number of adults that successfully migrate into the upper Cosumnes River and spawn, or affecting the survival of juvenile fish during their winter‐spring emigration period.

Upon their return from the ocean, the primary cues that adult fall‐run Chinook salmon use to find their natal river for spawning are: 1) olfactory cues (i.e., follow the smell of their natal river), and 2) flow and flow rate (referred to as rheotaxis). Olfactory cues are by far the dominant cues that salmonids use to find and migrate up their natal river. Rheotaxis comes into play, generally to a lesser degree than that of the olfactory cues, at tributary confluences, where channels are braided (i.e., water flows through multiple channels vs. a single channel), at dams with fish ladders, and similar situations. In such cases, the migrating salmon use rheotaxis to find a pathway to upstream spawning grounds and to avoid channels that are too shallow for passage. For example, if the channel splits in their natal river most migrating salmon will select the channel with greater flow. This behavior reduces the likelihood that adult migrating salmon get stranded in shallow, impassible riffles while attempting to reach upstream spawning habitats.

Because the Cosumnes River is ephemeral (i.e., goes dry each year) in its lower reaches, natal fall‐run Chinook salmon migrate up to tidewater in late summer and fall annually and hold there until surface water hydraulic conditions are of sufficient depth to allow successful passage to spawning habitats in the mainstem of the Cosumnes River upstream of Highway 16 (i.e., approximately 27 miles upstream of the Laguna Creek confluence). Under existing conditions, flows in Laguna Creek can create a hydraulic condition in which surface water flows in the 1.5‐mile reach between Laguna Creek and tidewater are sufficient to facilitate passage of adult fish upstream to the Laguna Creek confluence, or into Laguna Creek, prior to the natural re‐connection of the Cosumnes River, a concept commonly referred to as “false attraction.” The additional year‐round effluent discharges under the Facilities Master Plan would augment surface flows in the 1.5 mile reach between Laguna Creek and tidewater, relative to existing conditions. Should fall‐run Chinook salmon enter Laguna Creek, they would not be expected to successfully reproduce within this creek due to lack of suitable habitat for successful egg incubation and early life stage rearing. Hence, adult salmon that immigrate into Laguna Creek may fail to reproduce, unless they find their way back out of Laguna Creek and up the Cosumnes River to spawning habitats where they can reproduce successfully.

In order for fall‐run Chinook salmon to successfully migrate upstream, certain minimum hydraulic conditions must occur. Excessive velocities may prohibit passage, or make passage more difficult; however, given the low‐ gradient nature of Laguna Creek and the lower Cosumnes River, excessive velocities are not expected to reach

City of Galt 4.6-24 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

threshold levels. Insufficient water depths may preclude passage. The CDFW’s Fish Passage Evaluation at Stream Crossings (2003) recommends a minimum depth of 12 inches (1 foot) for passage of adult salmon and 6 inches for juvenile salmonids.

The HEC‐RAS model indicates that, under existing conditions, surface flow continuity in the affected reach of the lower Cosumnes River, as represented by outflow, generally does not occur in July in wet, dry, or average years, nor August in dry years (Table 4.6‐2). The minimum passage depth requirement of 1 foot for adult anadromous salmonids occurs in the months of October, November, and December in wet, average, and dry year types, and in September of wet years, months in which adult fall‐run Chinook salmon typically hold at tidewater prior to storm events connecting tidewater to upstream spawning habitats in the mainstem Cosumnes River. Minimum depths of 6 inches (0.5 foot) for juvenile anadromous occur in May of all year‐types and in June of wet years; however, the Cosumnes River is typically connected from spawning reaches to tidewater during their emigration period.

Table 4.6-2 Summary of Existing Flows in Laguna Creek at the Skunk Creek Confluence (inflow) and in the Cosumnes River Channel Downstream of the Laguna Creek Confluence (outflow), and Water Depths in the Cosumnes River Immediately Upstream of Tidewater Under Wet, Average, and Dry Year Conditions for the Period May-December (2002-2009) Wet Average Dry Month Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Depth (ft) Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Depth (ft) Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Depth (ft) May 16.12 12.71 1.34 11.11 7.80 1.09 8.82 4.40 0.82 Jun 8.77 5.24 0.88 5.21 1.10 0.39 6.10 1.37 0.45 Jul 3.88 0.00 0.00 4.25 0.00 0.00 2.70 0.00 0.00 Aug 10.60 5.71 0.92 7.13 1.21 0.43 4.67 0.00 0.00 Sep 12.15 7.41 1.07 9.34 3.15 0.69 8.41 2.33 0.60 Oct 16.50 10.29 1.23 15.97 9.78 1.21 16.36 10.15 1.23 Nov 19.89 17.49 1.52 19.89 17.49 1.52 19.89 17.49 1.52 Dec 19.29 16.95 1.50 19.29 16.95 1.50 19.29 16.95 1.50 Source: Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

Based on these modeled surface water flows and depths, sufficient conditions existed in the lower Cosumnes River and Laguna Creek to facilitate passage of adult Chinook salmon during October under existing conditions in all years assessed (i.e., 2002–2012). This surface flow continuity in October under existing conditions was further confirmed via review of available aerial photographs, which showed surface flow continuity in this reach of the lower Cosumnes River during October from 2002 to 2011. In particular, surface flow continuity was observed in 2002 and 2010, water year‐types were “dry” and “below normal,” respectively, which supports the conclusion that surface flow continuity estimated in the model is reasonable for all other water year types.

Despite the fact that conditions were sufficient for passage in most, if not all, years, only two anecdotal observations of adult Chinook salmon in Laguna Creek or Skunk Creek have ever been reported (Clarkson, pers. comm., 2012). The first of these observations occurred in November 2003 and the second was reported in the fall of 2006 or 2007 (likely October or November, but specific date was not recorded) Surface flow continuity throughout the entire Lower Cosumnes River was not likely occurring at this time because Michigan Bar flows were <50 cfs in November and less than approximately 10 cfs during October. Historically, flows at Michigan Bar need to be approximately 70 cfs or greater for surface flow continuity to occur from Michigan Bar to the area of tidal influence. No observations of salmon in Laguna Creek were recorded by plant operators during September or October 2003, despite sufficient passage conditions from tidewater to Laguna Creek likely existing in October. Likewise, in drier years (i.e., 2004 and 2007–2010) and wetter years (i.e., 2005–2006), there has been no City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-25 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

observed routine (i.e., in all years) straying of adult anadromous salmonids into Laguna Creek during the October through December migration and spawning period, despite surface flow continuity beginning in October in all years.

Despite seasonal surface water flow and depth conditions that would facilitate migration from tidewater up to the WWTP outfall in almost all years during the primary immigration period, adult fall‐run Chinook salmon do so rarely. There are three primary factors that explain the reason that adult fall‐run Chinook salmon would hold in tidewater and wait for a natural re‐connection of the Cosumnes River, rather than be falsely attracted upstream into Laguna Creek. First, a large portion of the source water flowing down Laguna Creek and wetting the lower Cosumnes River channel is primarily American River water diverted into the Folsom South Canal, delivered to Rancho Seco, and then conveyed down Clay Creek to Laguna Creek. Because the inflow source is not from the upper Cosumnes River, the appropriate olfactory cue does not exist to attract natal Cosumnes River fall‐run Chinook salmon holding at tidewater.

Second, thermal conditions in the tidewater habitats during the fall months is more suitable for fall‐run Chinook salmon. Laguna Creek flows during the summer‐fall period are comprised primarily of agricultural runoff and discharges from the Rancho Seco facility and is subject to elevated water temperatures due to its small size and lack of shading. Consequently, the temperature of water flowing down Laguna Creek and in the lower Cosumnes River channel, between its confluence with Laguna Creek and tide water, during September and October is expected to exceed temperatures that are preferable to adult salmon, compared to the cooler tidal waters. Because of Chinook salmon’s affinity for their natal streams, the fish holding in the tidally influenced waters would continue to hold and wait for the Cosumnes River to connect, rather than move upstream into warmer, non‐natal waters of Laguna Creek, despite sufficient passage conditions.

Third, the presence of treated WWTP effluent constitutes a large portion of the Laguna Creek flow in September and October. Studies conducted by Smith and Bailey (1990) have demonstrated that steelhead, another anadromous salmonid, showed strong avoidance to domestic wastewater effluent. Consequently, the addition of effluent into the American River water that flows down Laguna Creek further reduces the likelihood of falsely attracting adult fall‐run Chinook into Laguna Creek. When sufficient fall rain events have facilitated surface flow in the mainstem Cosumnes River sufficient to initiate the salmon run to upstream spawning habitats (i.e., greater than 70 cfs at Michigan Bar), the City’s discharge is a sufficiently small fraction of the Cosumnes River flow that it would not substantially affect the olfactory and other natal‐stream cues that trigger salmon migration. This is evidenced by salmon rapidly migrating to upstream spawning grounds annually in November and December when a hydraulic connection is established from tidewater to upstream spawning habitats in the Cosumnes River mainstem, while WWTP discharges into Skunk and Laguna Creeks are also occurring.

The increase in flows under the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would incrementally increase flows in Laguna Creek and in the Cosumnes River between Laguna Creek and tidewater. Increases in Cosumnes River depths in the reach between tidewater and Laguna Creek would be as little as 0.19 foot (October of dry years) and as much as 0.83 foot (July of wet years) (Table 4.6‐3). In addition, the model predicts that the increased flows resulting from the 6.0 mgd effluent discharges would maintain a surface water connection in this reach in all months and year‐ types. In general, the smallest incremental increases (≤0.20 foot) occur during the period October‐December, which coincides with the peak immigration period of fall‐run Chinook salmon. These small incremental increases in depth represent less than a 15% increase in minimum depths in the Cosumnes River, which is not expected to be sufficient to attract anadromous salmonids from tidewater or into Laguna Creek without other migration factors also making conditions more conducive to false attraction, which is not the case.

City of Galt 4.6-26 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

Table 4.6-3 Summary of Predicted (i.e., 6.0 mgd at Buildout of the Facilities Master Plan) Flows in Laguna Creek at the Skunk Creek Confluence (inflow) and in the Cosumnes River Channel Downstream of the Laguna Creek Confluence (Outflow), Water Depths in the Cosumnes River Immediately Upstream of Tidewater, and Difference in Depths Relative to Existing Conditions Under Wet, Average, and Dry Year Conditions for the Period May-December (2002-2009) Wet Average Dry Month Inflow Outflow Depth Inflow Outflow Depth Depth (ft) Diff (ft) Inflow (cfs) Outflow (cfs) Diff (ft) Diff (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) (cfs) (cfs) (ft) May 21.72 18.01 1.54 0.20 16.71 13.31 1.37 0.28 14.42 9.82 1.22 0.40 Jun 14.46 10.81 1.26 0.38 10.90 6.16 0.95 0.53 11.79 6.53 1.01 0.56 Jul 9.36 4.65 0.83 0.83 9.73 4.56 0.83 0.29 8.18 3.09 0.68 0.68 Aug 16.17 11.07 1.27 0.35 12.70 6.08 0.95 0.53 10.24 3.77 0.75 0.75 Sep 17.63 12.67 1.34 0.27 14.82 8.30 1.12 0.43 13.89 7.41 1.07 0.47 Oct 22.01 14.99 1.43 0.20 21.48 14.48 1.41 0.20 21.87 14.84 1.42 0.19 Nov 25.34 22.84 1.72 0.20 25.34 22.84 1.72 0.20 25.34 22.84 1.72 0.20 Dec 24.74 22.25 1.70 0.20 24.74 22.25 1.70 0.20 24.74 22.25 1.70 0.20 Source: Roberson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

As discussed above, three other factors reduce the likelihood that anadromous salmonids would be falsely attracted into Laguna Creek and each of these would be applicable under the Facilities Master Plan. First, the increased effluent discharge under build‐out conditions would not alter the source of the water and, because it is not derived from the Cosumnes River, it would not create olfactory cues that would falsely attract anadromous salmonids into Laguna Creek. Second, the additional effluent discharged under the proposed project may exert a small incremental increase on temperatures during the immigration period, and would not decrease them to temperatures that would be more preferable to fall‐run Chinook salmon compared to thermal conditions in tidewater habitats. Finally, the increased WWTP discharges would incrementally increase the proportion of effluent in Laguna Creek. As discussed above, anadromous salmonids typically display avoidance of domestic wastewater effluent and, as such, the increased proportion of treated effluent to the Laguna Creek may actually further reduce the already low level of straying into Laguna Creek, relative to existing conditions. Based on these factors, the likelihood of adult fall‐run Chinook salmon being falsely attracted into non‐natal waters is low and most fish would be expected to continue to hold in Cosumnes River tidewater until sufficient storms create a hydraulic connection to upstream spawning habitats in the Cosumnes River mainstem.

Juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon emigrations occur during the winter‐spring months and may last into June in wet years. Emigration occurs under high flow events (e.g., winter and spring freshets) and as water temperatures increase in the late winter and spring months. Emigration from natal streams to the Delta is typically rapid, with little holding occurring. When conditions in the primary migration corridors become inhospitable (e.g., particularly under very cold or turbid conditions, high risk of predation, low food supply), juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon may make temporary opportunistic use of the lower reaches of smaller and warmer non‐natal streams until conditions in the mainstem become more hospitable for emigration, a concept typically referred to as non‐natal rearing. The extent of non‐natal rearing by juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon in Laguna Creek is unknown. Because the confluence of Skunk Creek is located over 3 miles upstream of the Laguna Creek‐Cosumnes River confluence, no non‐natal rearing of juvenile anadromous salmonids is expected in Skunk Creek. Under the Facilities Master Plan, flows in Laguna Creek would be incrementally increased during the emigration period. Juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon have a strong affinity to move downstream to reach estuarine rearing habitats of the Delta prior to ocean entry. Non‐natal rearing occurs as a result of non‐ preferable conditions in the primary emigration corridor (e.g., the lower Cosumnes River), rather than upstream attraction into tributaries resulting from increased attraction flows. While the increase flows under the City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-27 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

proposed project may provide incrementally warmer temperatures, lower turbidity, and possibly a larger forage base, the increased proportion of treated WWTP effluent comprising Laguna Creek flows would not be expected to change the extent of non‐natal rearing of juveniles in Laguna Creek, relative to existing conditions. As discussed above, there are no records of steelhead spawning in the Cosumnes River. Should any steelhead successfully spawn in the upper reaches, the likelihood of the juveniles surviving the warm summer months is low. In the unlikely event that any juvenile steelhead survive and emigrate downstream past Laguna Creek, given their similar life histories and emigration behavior, the increased flows under the Facilities Master Plan would not be expected to change the extent of non‐natal rearing of juvenile steelhead for the same reasons discussed above for juvenile fall‐run Chinook salmon. Moreover, the improved water quality conditions that would occur in Laguna Creek due to the WWTP improvements (see Impact 4.6‐7 below) would reduce the likelihood of any adverse impacts associated with non‐natal juvenile rearing, relative to existing conditions.

The upstream immigrations of adult anadromous salmonids and downstream emigrations of juvenile anadromous salmonids are not expected to be adversely affected by the increased effluent discharges that would occur under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan for the reasons discussed above. Based on these findings, the proposed project would not be expected to:

 cause sufficient change to or degradation of water quality in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River, Mokelumne River, or downstream water bodies that would substantially delay, block, falsely attract fish into suboptimal conditions, or otherwise substantially interfere with the success of upstream adult migration, spawning, egg incubation, early rearing, or downstream juvenile emigration of resident marine or anadromous fishes, thereby resulting in adverse effects on year‐class production;  cause a reduction in habitat quantity via changes to creek or river flows by a sufficient magnitude, frequency or geographic extent such that it would adversely affect any fish species’ long‐term population level in one or more of the affected water bodies; or  reduce or degrade habitat used by state or federal special‐status species, including habitat designated as critical habitat, to an extent that could cause a reduction in species abundance or long‐term population levels, or ability to sustain a population.

For these reasons, the increased effluent discharges under the Facilities Master Plan would not be expected to adversely affect the migrations of fall‐run Chinook salmon, opportunistic use of the Cosumnes River by steelhead, or any other special‐status fish or their habitat, including EFH for fall‐run Chinook salmon or critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Effluent discharge rates under the Immediate Improvements would not be altered and, therefore, would have no impact on the migrations of any special‐status fishes, including anadromous salmonids, or their habitat.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.6-28 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

Impact Potential for Thermal Effects on Aquatic Organisms from Elevated Water Temperatures 4.6-5 Associated with Increased Effluent Discharges. Increases in WWTP effluent discharges under the Facilities Master Plan may alter the seasonal temperature regime of Laguna Creek downstream of the outfall. However, the influence of the increased effluent would only exert a small incremental effect on Laguna Creek temperatures within a short distance of the outfall and, in no cases, would it be expected to exceed the thermal tolerance thresholds of the warmwater fish and other organisms residing in the creek year-round, nor would it exceed the thermal tolerance thresholds of the coldwater salmonids that may stray into Laguna or Skunk Creeks. Consequently, the potential thermal effects of the increased effluent discharge under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan on aquatic resources would be less than significant. Effluent discharge rates and temperatures under the Immediate Improvements would not be altered; therefore, The Immediate Improvements would have no impact on aquatic biological resources, including special-status species or their habitat.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The improvements to the Galt WWTP under the Facilities Master Plan would not directly affect the temperature of the effluent discharged into Skunk Creek. Because Skunk Creek flow downstream of the outfall consists entirely of effluent, the temperature regime would not change with the increased discharge. However, increasing effluent discharge rates from the existing 3.0 mgd year‐round to 6.0 mgd year‐round under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would exert a greater influence on the thermal regime of Laguna Creek downstream of the outfall channel (i.e., downstream of the Skunk Creek confluence) by increasing relative proportion of the downstream flow that is comprised of effluent.

Historically, the City monitored temperature of its effluent and receiving water at monitoring stations in Laguna Creek located 300 ft upstream (i.e., R1) and 100 ft downstream (i.e., R2) of the confluence of Skunk Creek on a weekly basis during the periods in which the WWTP was discharging effluent to the creek only Prior to beginning year‐round discharge in 2012, the City discharged treated effluent to Skunk Creek during the fall‐spring period, typically from October through April. Consequently, weekly data is available for these monitoring stations, but there are no historic temperature data for the effluent, R1, and R2 monitoring stations during the summer non‐ discharge period (i.e., from May through October). For 2012 (i.e., when year‐round discharge was initiated), weekly temperature data are available only through the month of May.

Available temperature data from the City’s effluent, R1, and R2 monitoring locations indicate that, while effluent temperatures may be elevated relative to receiving water temperatures under current conditions, the effluent exerts a negligible effect on water temperatures in Laguna Creek at R2 (Table 4.6‐4). A comparison of concurrently measured temperatures at R2 and R1 in Laguna Creek indicate that the amount of temperature increase caused by the WWTP effluent discharge ranges on average from ‐0.3°F (i.e., effluent is cooling creek temperatures) to 1.1°F (Table 4.6‐5). The maximum instantaneous differences measured concurrently at R2 and R1 ranged from 0.0°F to 5.7°F (Table 4.6‐5).

As discussed above, discharges of treated effluent would increase from the existing 3.0 mgd year‐round discharge to 6.0 mgd year‐round discharge under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, thereby exerting a greater influence on receiving water temperatures in Laguna Creek downstream of the Skunk Creek effluent channel. To characterize the range of influence that the effluent may exert on receiving water temperatures, a mass‐balance calculation utilizing flow and temperature data collected on concurrent days at the effluent and R1 monitoring stations during discharge periods occurring between November 2009 and November 2011 was used to predict temperatures at R2 under the existing 3.0 mgd discharge rate and the future 6.0 mgd discharge rate. These mass‐balance calculations indicate that, on average, the proposed project would increase R2 temperatures from 0.5°F (April) to 2.8°F (November). Moreover, the predicted maximum R2 temperatures was 67.8°F (April), with average temperatures ranging from 55.8°F (January) to 64.0°F (April), values that are all within the thermal tolerance ranges of all fish species utilizing Laguna Creek, including coldwater obligate

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-29 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

species (i.e., Chinook salmon or steelhead) potentially occurring in the receiving waters for the period (i.e., October‐May) in which creek temperatures were monitored.

Table 4.6-4 Minimum, Average, and Maximum Temperature Readings Recorded at the Galt WWTP Effluent, R1, and R2 Monitoring Stations in Laguna Creek During Seasonal Discharge Periods From November 2009 through May 2012 at a Maximum Discharge Rate of 3 MGD R1 R2 Effluent Month (300 ft upstream of the point of discharge) (100 ft downstream of the point of discharge) Min(°F) Avg(°F) Max(°F) Count Min(°F) Avg(°F) Max(°F) Count Min(°F) Avg(°F) Max(°F) Count Jan 44.4 62.6 65.7 13 39.1 47.2 55.5 13 39.1 48.1 55.7 13 Feb 57.6 63.5 66.6 12 47.6 50.8 55.4 12 48.0 50.9 55.4 12 Mar 61.0 65.0 67.7 14 48.8 55.2 60.7 14 48.0 55.2 60.5 14 Apr 59.9 67.0 72.5 12 57.2 62.2 69.3 12 57.0 62.0 68.6 12 May 72.4 72.9 73.6 3 64.6 69.4 75.6 5 64.8 70.1 75.9 5 Oct 74.0 75.0 76.0 3 63.0 65.3 69.0 3 63.0 66.0 70.0 3 Nov 57.4 67.8 73.0 14 45.1 52.3 58.3 14 44.0 53.6 58.0 14 Dec 52.6 62.9 67.0 12 40.1 46.2 55.2 12 40.1 48.3 55.5 12 Source: Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

Table 4.6-5 Minimum, Average, and Maximum of Differences (i.e., R2 – R1) in Concurrent Temperature Readings Recorded at the Galt WWTP R2 and R1 Monitoring Stations in Laguna Creek during Seasonal Discharge Periods from November 2009 through May 2012 at a Maximum Discharge Rate of 3 MGD R2 – R1 Temperature Difference Month Min (°F) Avg (°F) Max (°F) Count Jan ‐1.0 0.9 4.1 13 Feb ‐1.5 0.1 0.9 12 Mar ‐0.8 0.0 1.5 14 Apr ‐0.8 ‐0.3 0.0 12 May ‐0.5 0.7 3.2 5 Oct 0.0 0.7 1.0 3 Nov ‐1.3 1.4 5.7 14 Dec ‐0.3 2.0 5.6 12 Source: Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

It is important to note that, when the 44 predicted R2 temperatures calculated with a mass‐balance (Table 4.6‐ 6) were compared to the 44 actual temperatures measured at R2, the mass‐balance calculation over‐estimated the thermal effect of the effluent in all but 4 measurements and predicted temperatures were, on average, 1.8°F higher than the measured temperatures (Table 4.6‐6). Consequently, the mass‐balance predictions of R2 are considered conservative for assessing the potential effects of the WWTP effluent on receiving water temperatures and, specifically, on coldwater organisms. Furthermore, given the relatively small size of Laguna Creek, any increases in temperature associated with the higher discharges under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan during the fall‐spring months are likely to be attenuated by ambient air conditions rather quickly and are expected to reach equilibrium within Laguna Creek. As such, any temperature increases occurring under the Facilities Master Plan would be limited to Laguna Creek within a short distance of the outfall and would not be expected to have any measurable effects on temperatures on downstream water bodies, including the Cosumnes or Mokelumne rivers. Therefore, buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would have no adverse effect

City of Galt 4.6-30 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

on delta smelt or designated critical habitat for this species in the lower Cosumnes and Mokelumne rivers, nor would it have any adverse effect on steelhead or critical habitat for this species in the lower Mokelumne River.

As discussed above, the City has not monitored effluent or receiving water temperatures during the periods in which the WWTP was not discharging to Skunk Creek. Consequently, there is no baseline temperature data for the R1, R2, and effluent monitoring stations during the months of June through September and limited data for the months of May and October (Table 4.6‐4). However, an examination of other wastewater facilities in the Central Valley indicate that wastewater effluent temperatures are similar for the period May‐October between the two facilities examined (i.e., the City of Lodi’s White Slough Water Pollution Control Facility [WPCF] and Atwater WWTP; Table 4.6‐7). On average, effluent temperatures for this period ranged from 71.5°F in May (Atwater WWTP) to 81.9°F in August (White Slough WPCF), with a maximum recorded temperature of 84.7°F (Atwater WWTP in August) (Table 4.6‐7).

Table 4.6-6 Predicted Monthly Temperatures at R2 in Laguna Creek Under Existing ≤3.0 mgd Effluent Discharge Conditions and Future 6.0 mgd Effluent Discharge Conditions Based on Mass Balance Calculations of Concurrently Measured Effluent and Receiving Water Flows and Temperatures from November 2009 through November 2011 R2 Temperatures at ≤3.0 mgd R2 Temperatures at 6.0 mgd Future Difference Month Count Measured Conditions Condition Min (°F) Avg (°F) Max (°F) Min (°F) Avg (°F) Max (°F) Min (°F) Avg (°F) Max (°F) Jan 8 49.3 53.2 54.8 52.7 55.8 57.5 2.2 2.6 3.4 Feb 8 52.9 55.4 59.1 55.0 57.6 61.0 1.9 2.1 2.7 Mar 10 53.1 58.2 62.8 55.2 59.7 63.9 0.3 1.5 2.5 Apr 5 58.0 63.5 67.9 58.4 64.0 67.8 ‐0.1 0.5 0.8 Nov 7 51.0 56.8 63.2 53.9 59.6 65.7 2.4 2.8 3.3 Dec 6 48.0 53.9 59.7 51.3 56.5 56.5 2.0 2.6 3.2 Source: Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

Table 4.6-7 Summary of Monthly Effluent Temperatures from the Lodi Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) and the Atwater WWTP for the Period May through October White Slough WPCF 1 Atwater WWTP2 Month Min (°F) Avg (°F) Max (°F) Count Min (°F) Avg (°F) Max (°F) Count May 73.3 76.3 80.0 744 63.9 71.5 77.0 157 June 76.9 78.9 82.4 720 75.2 77.7 82.9 275 July 78.8 81.3 83.6 935 75.4 78.9 83.9 744 August 75.7 81.9 83.7 901 74.1 79.4 84.7 744 September 78.6 81.1 82.9 1440 73.4 77.6 81.8 720 October 69.3 77.3 81.2 1487 64.7 72.4 78.6 576 1 Based on hourly temperature data recorded from July 22, 2008 through March 31, 2010. 2 Based on hourly temperature data recorded from May 1, 2008 through May 31, 2009. Source: Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

The effluent temperatures from these wastewater facilities are within the ranges of thermal tolerance for the warmwater fishes that likely occur in Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek. The resident fish species believed to occur in Skunk and Laguna Creeks are warmwater species with broad temperature tolerance ranges that, collectively, are considered representative of the range of tolerance in most warmwater fish communities of the Central Valley. Representative species likely occurring in Skunk and Laguna Creeks include common carp, bluegill, and

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-31 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

western mosquito fish, Sacramento pike minnow, hitch, and Sacramento sucker. Maximum temperature tolerance for carp ranges from 88°F to 97°F, depending on acclimation temperature; however, carp can also withstand extreme and rapid changes in water temperature (Moyle 2002: 173). Bluegill have among the broadest temperature tolerance ranges of the fish species likely occurring in Skunk and Laguna Creeks. Moyle (2002: 382) reports that bluegill can survive winter temperatures as low as 36–41°F and summer temperatures of 106°F, when properly acclimated; however, their physiologically optimum temperature is reported to be 81– 90°F. Bluegill begin spawning when spring temperatures reach 64–70°F (Moyle 2002: 383) and continue spawning throughout the summer months. Western mosquito fish are common in water bodies ranging from 50°F to 95°F on an annual basis, although the optimal reported temperature range for reproduction and growth is 77–86°F (Moyle 2002: 319). Sacramento pike minnow, a California native minnow, have upper temperature tolerances of 100.4°F (Moyle 2002: 155). Likewise, hitch, another California native minnow, have upper temperature tolerances of 100.4°F (Moyle 2002: 137). Sacramento sucker, a native sucker species, has the lowest temperature tolerance of the native fishes likely occurring in Skunk and Laguna Creeks with an upper temperature tolerance of 96.8°F (Moyle 2002: 186).

Based on representative effluent temperatures from the Atwater and Lodi wastewater facilities, the expected Galt WWTP effluent temperatures are not anticipated to exceed the thermal thresholds for the warmwater fish communities of Skunk and Laguna Creeks downstream of the outfall. Furthermore, as discussed above, any temperature effects associated with the increased effluent discharges under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would occur within Laguna Creek and would not be expected to have any effect on the temperatures of downstream water bodies, including the Cosumnes or Mokelumne rivers.

The mass‐balance predictions of the increased effluent discharges under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan conservatively estimated that water temperatures in Skunk and Laguna Creeks during the fall‐spring period would not exceed the thermal thresholds of any fishes, including fall‐run Chinook salmon or steelhead, should they stray into these creeks. Based on an examination of effluent temperatures from similar wastewater facilities in the region, summer effluent temperatures are not expected to exceed the thermal tolerance thresholds of the warmwater aquatic organisms residing in these creeks. Consequently, the increased discharges of effluent under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan are not anticipated to:

 cause changes in receiving water temperatures that would adversely affect a species’ long‐term population levels, including any special‐status fishes potentially occurring in the affected water bodies or habitat, including EFH for Chinook salmon or critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead or delta smelt in the Mokelumne River;  cause a reduction in habitat quantity via changes to creek or river flows or shaded riparian aquatic (SRA) cover or cause degradation in habitat quality, via changes to temperature, of sufficient magnitude, frequency and geographic extent such that it would adversely affect a species’ long‐term population level in one or more water body, including EFH for Chinook salmon or critical habitat for Central Valley steelhead or delta smelt in the Mokelumne River;  cause sufficient change to or degradation of water quality in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River, or downstream water bodies that would substantially delay, block, falsely attract fish into suboptimal conditions, or otherwise substantially interfere with the success of upstream adult migration, spawning, egg incubation, early rearing, or downstream juvenile emigration of resident marine or anadromous fishes, thereby resulting in adverse effects on year‐class production; or  reduce BMI abundance within a water body downstream of the discharge by a sufficient magnitude and geographic extent as to adversely affect overall BMI community structure or function, including the fish forage base that it provides within the water body.

Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

City of Galt 4.6-32 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Effluent discharge rates and temperatures under the Immediate Improvements would not be altered and, therefore, would have no impact on aquatic biological resources, including special‐status species or their habitat.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Potential for Long-term Changes in Habitat Availability and Predator Abundance Resulting from 4.6-6 Altered Flow Regimes. Increases in WWTP effluent discharges under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan (up to 6.0 mgd) may alter aquatic habitat availability year-round in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, and, to a much lesser extent, the Cosumnes River. However, because the discharges would be increased year-round, aquatic habitat availability would be increased and, under no circumstances, would it be decreased relative to existing flow conditions. The increase in habitat would be small and likely immeasurable under most conditions and, therefore, would not cause increases in predator abundance or holding habitat, nor would it have adverse effects on aquatic biological resources, including special-status species or their habitat, including critical habitat. Consequently, the potential effects of the increased effluent discharge under the Facilities Master Plan Phases 2 and 3 on aquatic and riparian habitat would be less than significant. Furthermore, effluent discharge rates under the Immediate Improvements would not be altered and, therefore, would have no impact on aquatic biological resources, including special-status species or their habitat.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

As discussed above, the increased effluent discharge rates up to 6.0 mgd year‐round under the Facilities Master Plan would measurably increase flows in Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek year‐round, with the largest relative change in flows and aquatic habitat availability occurring during the summer months. Flows would also be measurably increased in the lower Cosumnes River between Laguna Creek and tidewater during the summer and fall months in which the Cosumnes River has little or no background flow. The increased flows in these reaches would be beneficial by increasing the amount of available habitat for resident fish and other aquatic organisms, including BMIs. However, such increases in aquatic habitat may have a secondary effect, by increasing holding habitat and abundance of piscivorous fishes and other animals that prey upon fish. Flows in the lower Mokelumne River and in the tidally influenced reach of the lower Cosumnes River would not be measurably affected relative to existing conditions and, therefore, neither habitat availability nor predator abundance would be measurably affected due to buildout of the Facilities Master Plan in these areas.

As discussed above and shown in Table 4.6‐3, flows in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, and the reach of the Cosumnes River upstream of the tidally influenced reach would be increased at buildout under the Facilities Master Plan, relative to existing conditions. Because the Facilities Master Plan would increase discharges of treated effluent to these water bodies by up to 3.0 mgd (from the currently permitted capacity of 3.0 mgd to 6.0 mgd), aquatic habitat availability in these reaches would be increased relative to existing conditions. Under no circumstances would aquatic habitat availability be decreased under the Facilities Master Plan. The increase in habitat availability would be most noticeable in Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek, where the increase in discharge would comprise a larger proportion of the overall flow, and the effect of the flows would be decreased as losses (e.g., evaporation, transpiration, seepage) occurs with increasing distance from the WWTP outfall. Comparing the flow rates in Laguna Creek under existing conditions, as indicated by “inflow” in Table 4.6‐2 to expected creek flows under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, as indicated by “inflow” in Table 4.6‐3Table 4.6‐3, indicates that Laguna Creek flows would typically be increased by approximately 5.6 cfs. In some summer City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-33 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

months (e.g., July), the buildout flow conditions could more than double the flows in Laguna Creek downstream of the outfall. For example, existing flows in Laguna Creek for the months of June, July, and August, which currently average 5.21, 4.25, and 7.13 cfs, respectively, under average year‐type conditions (Table 4.6‐2), would increase to 10.90, 9.73, and 12.70 cfs, respectively, under the proposed project (Table 4.6‐3). However, in wet months, when background flows in Laguna Creek increase (e.g., December), the proportion of downstream flows contributed by the WWTP effluent discharge would comprise a small proportion of the flow.

The small incremental increase in WWTP effluent discharge under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would not have measurable effects on habitat availability in the Cosumnes River, at tidewater during the summer months or while it is hydraulically connected to upstream waters, nor on the Mokelumne River downstream of the Cosumnes River confluence. The additional flows that would occur under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, which would typically be between 5 and 6 cfs (Table 4.6‐3), would exert the greatest effect on downstream habitat availability during the summer period, in which the Cosumnes River is dry upstream of Laguna Creek. While there are no flow gauges on the Cosumnes River downstream of Laguna Creek, satellite images indicate that the average width of the river channel in the tidally influenced (i.e., permanently wetted) reaches are approximately 60 feet and the channel geometry consists of a uniform U‐shaped cross‐section. Consequently, the additional 5‐6 cfs flows contributed by the proposed project would incrementally increase the depths of water in the tidally influenced4.5‐mile reach of the lower Cosumnes River from the Mokelumne River to the upstream end of tidewater. However, given the relatively small incremental increase contributed by project flows under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan, the increase in depths would not be measurable, nor would it have any appreciable effect on habitat availability for predators or other aquatic organisms in this lower reach of the Cosumnes River or any other downstream water body, including the Mokelumne River.

The HEC‐RAS modeling and aerial photo analysis demonstrate that channel is wet within the area affected by WWTP (i.e., Laguna confluence to tidewater) under the current regime of year‐round WWTP discharge. Therefore, flows and habitat availability would be most notable in Skunk and Laguna Creeks, where the incremental increase in flows from the increased effluent discharge would comprise a larger proportion of the flows and would have a measurable effect on habitat availability, particularly in the dry months. The increase in habitat availability would provide greater habitat for both predatory fish and prey fish, thereby increasing the carrying capacity of these water bodies and possibly resulting in larger populations of all aquatic organisms. However, the incremental increase in habitat availability would not be sufficient as to alter the fish species composition or the ecology of the food web, nor would it favor piscivorous fishes over prey fish.

Increases in aquatic habitat availability would increase the carrying capacity of Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, and the Cosumnes River immediately downstream of Laguna Creek. However, any increases in the available habitat would not be expected to reach a magnitude that would alter the fish species composition or the ratio of predators to prey fish. As discussed above, the increased flows under the proposed project are not expected to increase the opportunistic use of Laguna or Skunk Creeks by juvenile anadromous salmonids. As such, the increase in aquatic habitat that would occur under the proposed project would not be expected to:

 cause a reduction in habitat quantity via changes to creek or river flows or shaded riparian aquatic (SRA) cover or cause degradation in habitat quality of sufficient magnitude, frequency and geographic extent such that it would adversely affect a species’ long‐term population level in one or more water body;  reduce or degrade habitat used by state or federal special‐status species, including habitat designated as critical habitat, to an extent that could cause a reduction in species abundance or long‐term population levels, or ability to sustain a population;  cause “take” of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA, cause direct lethality or injury to a special‐status species, or cause sufficient lethality to a species by an extent that could cause a reduction in its abundance or long‐term population levels; or

City of Galt 4.6-34 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

 reduce BMI abundance within a water body downstream of the discharge by a sufficient magnitude and geographic extent as to adversely affect overall BMI community structure or function, including the fish forage base that it provides within the water body.

Therefore, any long‐term changes in habitat availability and increases in predator abundance associated with buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would not adversely affect populations of any fishes, including special‐ status fishes, nor would it have any substantial adverse effects on habitat, including EFH for Chinook salmon or critical habitat for steelhead. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Effluent discharge rates under the Immediate Improvements would not be altered and, therefore, would have no impact on aquatic habitat availability or predator abundance, or otherwise affect aquatic biological resources, including special‐status species or their habitat.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Potential for Operations-Related Impacts on Fish and BMI Communities from Contaminants. 4.6-7 The WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for ammonia and conventional parameters for which the treatment processes are designed to meet (i.e., pH, biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, and total suspended solids). The permit limitations, in turn, are derived from applicable water quality criteria determined to be protective of aquatic life in the receiving waters. Of all constituents detected in the effluent, copper concentrations in the effluent is the only constituent that may exceed the lowest unadjusted California Toxics Rule (CTR) criteria for the protection of aquatic life from chronic toxicity. However, in consideration of a discharger-specific Water Effect Ratio (WER) adjustment to the CTR criteria, which is appropriate for municipal wastewater effluent that provides additional metal binding capacity, the copper concentrations in effluent would be lower than the WER-adjusted CTR copper criteria due to contaminant levels. Thus, the discharge would not cause adverse long-term population or community level effects on any aquatic species. Further, the potential operations-related effects of contaminant discharges on the receiving water bodies under the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would not adversely affect beneficial uses related to aquatic life and this impact would be less than significant for all phases of the project.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Section 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” provides an assessment of the City’s water quality monitoring data, which identifies the projected maximum concentrations of all contaminants known to occur in the effluent. The water quality assessment determined that the undiluted effluent has the potential to contain a variety of chemical constituents that, under sufficiently high concentrations, can adversely affect aquatic life. The current WWTP treatment unit processes provide reliable performance for achieving compliance with regulatory limits for conventional physical and chemical constituents derived from water quality criteria that have been determined to be protective of aquatic life in the receiving waters (i.e., pH, biochemical oxygen demand, turbidity, and total suspended solids). The projected maximum concentrations of all other constituents monitored in undiluted effluent would be less than the lowest applicable water quality criteria, with the exception of the trace metal copper.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-35 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Upon construction of the Immediate Improvements, the WWTP would provide improved performance for achieving compliance with NPDES permit effluent limitations for ammonia. The federal EPA‐recommended water quality criteria for ammonia provide the lowest relevant guidance values for protection of aquatic life and include long‐term chronic criteria (i.e., average monthly criteria) based on pH and temperature, and short‐term acute criteria (i.e., 1‐hour average criteria) based on pH of the receiving water. Therefore, the applicable criteria protective of aquatic life in the receiving water vary as receiving water pH and temperature conditions change. The NPDES permit effluent limitations for ammonia are based on conservative assumptions of the expected most restrictive combination of receiving water temperature and pH conditions. The construction of the Immediate Improvements would include improved nitrification performance for compliance with ammonia limitations specified in the City’s NPDES permit. Compliance with ammonia effluent limitations would become more reliable with concentrations not exceeding approximately 2.0 mg/L as nitrogen (N). With the expansion of the WWTP capacity to 6.0 mgd under the Facilities Master Plan, the ammonia concentration in Laguna Creek downstream of the effluent discharge would increase slightly (i.e., 0.22 mg/L to 0.46 mg/L). Despite any negligible reductions in assimilative capacity, the receiving water ammonia concentration would remain well below the applicable federal EPA ammonia criteria and, thus, would not cause toxicity to aquatic life.

The maximum observed effluent copper concentration of 10 µg/L, measured since January 2011 following completion of the tertiary filtration units, exceeds the CTR acute criterion (7.7µg/L) and CTR chronic criterion (5.5 µg/L) for the protection of aquatic life. These criteria are developed for the protection of all forms of aquatic life, including fish and BMIs. The average effluent copper concentration of 3.3 µg/L indicates that the routine effluent copper levels may remain below the criteria. Many aspects of water chemistry such as concentrations of dissolved organic carbon, calcium, sodium, dissolved inorganic carbon (or alkalinity), magnesium, sulfate, chloride, potassium, and pH affect copper “bioavailability.” Bioavailability is a term used to refer to the fraction of total measured copper in water that is in a form capable of being taken up into the bodies of fish (across gill membranes) and other aquatic life, including BMIs. The most bioavailable, and thus toxic, form of copper is the free ion. To address the toxicological reality of bioavailability with regard to copper, the CTR criteria include a water‐effect ratio (WER) multiplier. The WER accounts for the effects of all aspects of water chemistry on bioavailability and thus toxicity, and is a more comprehensive mechanism for addressing copper bioavailability than simply expressing the criteria in terms of the dissolved fraction. The WER is a measure of the water’s ability to form complexes with the toxic free copper ions, thereby making them biologically unavailable and nontoxic to aquatic life. A WER value of 1.0 means that the water body has no more capacity to bind free copper ions (the most toxic form of copper) than the laboratory waters used in deriving the unadjusted CTR criteria. A WER value of 2.0 means that that water requires twice the copper concentration, relative to the EPA laboratory water used to derive the unadjusted criteria, to have the same toxic effect on aquatic life.

Effluent from municipal WWTPs contains dissolved organic matter and inorganic constituents that are effective at binding the free copper ions, thereby increasing the WER above 1.0 for sites influenced by WWTP discharges. Copper WER values for undiluted, biologically treated municipal effluent have been shown to range from about 3 to 10, and even higher. Considering the minimum WER of 3.0 observed in literature (North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board 2011) and based on Central Valley discharger experience, a reasonably conservative chronic criterion for the proposed project is estimated to be 16.5 µg/L (i.e., 5.5 µg/L x 3.0 WER). Based on this assessment, the maximum observed effluent copper concentration of10 µg/L applicable to the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would always be below the conservative WER‐adjusted chronic and acute criteria of 16.5 µg/L and 23 µg/L, respectively. Thus, the effluent discharge to Skunk Creek/Laguna Creek would not cause copper toxicity to aquatic life, including fish and BMI communities, in the receiving water downstream of the effluent discharge. Furthermore, the increased flows under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would have no measurable water quality effects on delta smelt or designated critical habitat for this species in the lower Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers, nor would it have any adverse effect on steelhead or critical habitat for this species in the lower Mokelumne River. Additionally, the effluent discharge

City of Galt 4.6-36 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

would not result in substantial, long‐term permanent degradation of existing water quality that would cause substantial adverse impacts to one or more beneficial uses.

Based on these findings, the impacts of the discharge on receiving water ammonia and copper concentrations do not:

 cause changes to water quality in one or more water bodies by a sufficient magnitude, frequency, and geographic extent to cause lethality or adversely affect an aquatic species’ long‐term population level in these water bodies;  reduce or degrade habitat used by state or federal special‐status species, including habitat designated as critical habitat, to an extent that could cause a reduction in species abundance or long‐term population levels, or ability to sustain a population;  cause sufficient change to or degradation of water quality in Skunk Creek, Laguna Creek, the Cosumnes River, or downstream water bodies that would substantially delay, block, falsely attract fish into suboptimal conditions, or otherwise substantially interfere with the success of upstream adult migration, spawning, egg incubation, early rearing, or downstream juvenile emigration of resident anadromous fishes, thereby resulting in adverse effects on year‐class production; and  reduce BMI abundance within a water body downstream of the discharge by a sufficient magnitude and geographic extent as to adversely affect overall BMI community structure or function, including the fish forage base that it provides within the water body.

Based on the findings that operations under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would result in meeting all NPDES permit limits and comply with all applicable Basin Plan objectives, CTR criteria, and federal EPA recommended criteria for ammonia and copper, this impact is considered a less‐than‐significant impact.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

Likewise, the operations‐related effects of the effluent discharge on these constituents under the Immediate Improvements are considered a less‐than‐significant impact.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

Impact Potential for Operations‐Related Impacts on Fish and BMI Communities from Oxygen 4.6-8 Demanding Substances. The Immediate Improvements and Facilities Master Plan facilities and operations would be designed to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, and nitrate. Relative to existing conditions, the proposed nitrification process improvements would result in reduced effluent ammonia concentrations and associated oxygen demand, and reduced oxygen demand in Laguna Creek. The proposed denitrification process improvements would result in substantial reduction in average effluent nitrate concentrations which may reduce potential nutrient biostimulation of aquatic plants and algae in Laguna Creek, and the related periods of respiration‐related low dissolved oxygen (DO). This impact is considered less than significant for buildout of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and beneficial under the Immediate Improvements.

A detailed description of the assessment of potential project‐related effects on dissolved oxygen (DO) conditions downstream of the effluent discharge is provided in Appendix D. The City monitors receiving water dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations on a weekly basis when discharging to Skunk Creek, which, up until October 2011,

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-37 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

occurred only during the months of November through April. With the City implementing year‐round discharge to Skunk Creek beginning in October 2011, receiving water DO data for the May through October period is limited to the data collected in 2012 (shown in Table 4.6‐8).

The City’s NPDES permit has the following DO limitations for the receiving water, which states that the WWTP’s effluent is prohibited from causing Laguna Creek DO (as measured at RSW‐002) to go below:

 A daily minimum limitation of 7.0 mg/L,  A monthly median limitation of 85% saturation, and  A 95th percentile minimum limitation of 75% saturation.

The NPDES permit limitations are based on DO objectives contained in the Basin Plan for the protection of the “WARM” and “COLD” aquatic life occurring in surface water bodies. The 7.0 mg/L Basin Plan objective is highly conservative when applied to Laguna Creek via the NPDES permit, as cited above, because it does not recognize warmwater versus coldwater aquatic life DO requirements nor does it recognize DO requirements based on exposure duration.

The current Basin Plan DO objectives appear to be based, in large part, on the U.S. EPA’s 1976 “Red Book” recommended DO criteria. It should be noted that the current Basin Plan DO objectives are not consistent with U.S. EPA’s 1973 national DO criteria (published prior to the Red Book), nor are they consistent with EPA’s current DO criteria, published originally in the 1986 “Gold Book” and subsequently carried forward into more recent EPA documents (e.g., National Recommended Water Quality Criteria: 2002 [EPA‐822‐R‐02‐047 November 2002]; 2009). In the American Fisheries Society review of the U.S. EPA’s 1976 “Red Book” DO criteria, several of the nation’s leading experts on the DO requirements of aquatic life strongly disagreed with the use of a single minimum concentration (e.g., 5.0 mg/L or 7.0 mg/L) for regulating DO for the protection of aquatic life. These experts concluded that use of a single minimum value failed to consider the natural seasonal and diurnal conditions in a given water body. These reviewers advised against EPA recommending a single minimum protective value in its “Red Book,” as they found it not to be scientifically sound. U.S. EPA revised its national recommended DO criteria consistent with input from the American Fisheries Society reviewers and others when it published its “Gold Book” criteria in 1986. U.S. EPA’s national recommended freshwater DO criteria have remained the same since 1986.

In order to apply the best available science regarding DO at the project site, this impact assessment evaluates the effects of the project on creek DO levels, and effects of resultant creek DO levels on aquatic life, based on U.S. EPA’s national recommended DO criteria for the protection of warmwater aquatic organisms (EPA 1986: 211) (Table 4.6‐9), rather than basing the assessment on the conservative, non‐scientifically supportable DO limitations in the NPDES permit.

The City’s effluent and Laguna Creek DO data indicate that Laguna Creek DO concentrations vary widely at the monitoring stations located both upstream (RSW‐001) and downstream (RSW‐002) of Skunk Creek, where the effluent discharge enters Laguna Creek. Observed average DO concentrations in Laguna Creek appear to generally be satisfactory for aquatic life in the cooler winter and spring months (i.e., February through June of the monitoring period). Existing Laguna Creek DO concentrations indicate that sub‐optimal short‐term conditions for warmwater fish and other aquatic organisms that are sensitive to low DO occur both upstream and downstream of Skunk Creek in June through September, and were low on a monthly average basis during the months of July through September. The minimum and average DO concentrations in the effluent discharge are routinely adequate for aquatic warmwater organisms (i.e., always near or above 6 mg/L), with only one sample date in March 2012 measuring less than 5 mg/L.

The term saturation is a measure of the percentage DO in water relative to the maximum possible concentration the water can contain at a given temperature. Table 4.6‐8 also shows the calculated minimum, average, and maximum DO saturation in effluent and Laguna Creek based on daily temperature and DO data collected since City of Galt 4.6-38 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

February 2012. The effluent is routinely highly saturated (i.e., 86% on average). The Laguna Creek data indicate periods of severe undersaturated conditions (i.e., as low as 10%) and supersaturation (i.e., as high as 142%) both upstream and downstream of the Skunk Creek inflow. A review of the daily concurrent DO and saturation values at the upstream (RSW‐001) and downstream (RSW‐002) monitoring locations during the July through September period with depressed DO indicate that the values are often similar, and that the downstream location is not influenced appreciably by the Skunk Creek inflow with higher effluent DO/saturation values. Such extreme variability in DO is most likely related to aquatic plants, where daily photosynthesis produces oxygen and can lead to periods of daily supersaturation (i.e., oxygen produced at a rate greater than the rate of loss or demand in the stream). Nightly plant respiration uses oxygen, which can lead to conditions of oxygen depletion or near‐depletion.

Table 4.6-8 Minimum, Maximum, and Monthly Average DO Conditions in Effluent and Laguna Creek During the Periods February through September 2012 Effluent (EFF-001) Laguna Creek (RSW-001) Laguna Creek (RSW-002) Month DO (mg/L) Upstream DO (mg/L) Downstream DO (mg/L) Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Feb ‐‐ ‐‐ ‐‐ 12.0 2.2 16.1 11.9 2.9 15.4 Mar 7.1 4.6 8.7 9.5 5.7 11.8 8.5 4.5 10.7 Apr 6.9 6.4 7.8 8.0 7.0 9.3 7.5 6.5 8.9 May 6.9 6.6 7.5 8.3 6.8 10.1 8.1 6.0 10.7 Jun 7.7 6.5 9.1 6.6 2.1 11.7 6.3 3.2 9.4 Jul 8.8 8.1 9.6 3.3 1.3 6.6 4.7 1.7 8.0 Aug 7.4 6.1 8.2 1.6 1.2 1.9 1.7 0.9 2.6 Sep 7.4 6.7 8.5 3.1 1.4 5.5 3.8 2.9 5.9 Monitoring Period Minimum, Average, and Maximum Values for DO Concentration and DO Saturation (%) DO (mg/L) 7.5 4.6 9.6 6.6 1.2 16.1 6.6 0.9 15.4 Sat. (%) 86 48 114 65 12 142 66 10 137 --: Data not collected Note: DO measurements collected on a once per week basis and are presented beginning in February 2012 following the City of Galt’s implementation of uniform and improved sampling procedures with new field DO equipment.

Table 4.6-9 Ambient Water Quality Criteria Recommended by the U.S. EPA for Dissolved Oxygen for Protection of Warmwater Aquatic Life Warmwater Criteria (mg/L) Parameter Early Life Stages 1 Other Life Stages 30‐Day Mean N/A 5.5 7‐Day Mean 6.0 N/A 7‐Day Mean Minimum N/A 4.0 1‐Day Minimum 2, 3 5.0 3.0 1Includes all embryonic and larval stages and all juvenile forms to 30 days following hatching. 2For highly manipulable discharges, further restrictions apply (see pg. 37 of EPA 1986). 3All minima should be considered as instantaneous concentrations to be achieved at all times. Source: Robertson-Bryan, Inc. 2012

The effects of the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan on DO concentrations in Laguna Creek and the lower Cosumnes River depend on many environmental variables and complex biotic and abiotic processes. This impact assessment addresses the potential long‐term operations‐related effects on DO concentrations in Laguna Creek as affected by two main processes: (1) directly through exertion of oxygen demanding substances in the

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-39 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

effluent; and (2) indirectly through potential aquatic plant biostimulation effects from nutrients in the effluent. The first process considers the discharge of oxidizable carbonaceous organic material and ammonia in the effluent which can exert a biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) in receiving waters, primarily as a result of oxygen uptake by bacteria in the effluent and receiving stream. The total theoretical oxygen demand of treated effluent was estimated from the sum of ultimate carbonaceous biochemical oxygen demand (uBOD) and nitrogenous BOD (nBOD). The uBOD, which represents the BOD exerted over a span of about 30‐60 days, can be estimated from the BOD value (BOD5) that is the test method that measures the BOD expressed in 5 days from an average uBOD/BOD5 factor of 1.9 as presented in Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, Disposal, and Reuse (Metcalf and Eddy 2005). The theoretical nBOD is typically estimated as 4.57 multiplied by the ammonia concentration (as N) which reflects the amount of oxygen required to chemically convert all ammonia to nitrate nitrogen.

Instream DO concentrations reflect the balance between the rate of oxygen demand and inputs (e.g., atmospheric re‐aeration, photosynthesis). For this assessment, the project‐related changes in the short‐term and long‐term effluent oxygen demand associated with the Immediate Improvements and buildout of the Facilities Master Plan in Phase 3 were used to evaluate potential effects to DO in Laguna Creek and downstream. Short‐term oxygen demand (i.e., computed as BOD5 plus nBOD) and long‐term demand (i.e., uBOD plus nBOD) were based on existing and future anticipated effluent BOD5 and ammonia concentrations. As described in Impact 4.5‐5, “Effects of Project Discharges on Ammonia and Nitrate in Receiving Waters” (Chapter 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality”), the Immediate Improvements to the oxidation ditch system would result in reliable nitrification and denitrification processes. Expansion of the WWTP to a capacity of 6.0 mgd in Phase 3 would include no additional specific treatment improvement to remove oxygen demanding substances. However, the long‐term average ammonia concentrations with the Immediate Improvements would decrease to concentrations ranging from about 0.7 mg/L, which is a conservative modeled performance estimate (West Yost Associates 2009), to 0.4 mg/L, which is the current measured performance calculated by eliminating the occasional elevated spikes in ammonia values in the monitoring record to reflect the proposed treatment improvements for full nitrification.

Table 4.6‐10 shows the effluent and receiving water BOD5 and ammonia concentrations under existing and projected future effluent discharge operations. Table 4.6‐10 also shows the balance in long‐term and short‐term oxygen demand and DO in Laguna Creek based, respectively, on (1) total oxygen demand (uBOD + nBOD) exerted over the long‐term; and (2) short‐term oxygen demand (i.e., BOD5 + nBOD) assuming it is exerted in the travel time of Laguna Creek downstream to the confluence with the Cosumnes River. The results of these two assessments are summarized below:

 Effluent DO – Total BOD Balance: Under buildout of the WWTP to 6.0 mgd in Phase 3 of the Facilities Master Plan, total BOD would decrease slightly compared to the existing conditions. The average effluent DO concentration, which is assumed to not change under any phase of the Facilities Master Plan, is greater than the total BOD resulting in a positive balance (i.e., surplus) of effluent DO of 1.2 to 2.6 mg/L for higher and lower assumed future effluent ammonia concentrations, respectively. Moreover, the DO surplus would be slightly higher than the surplus under existing conditions, thereby reducing the amount of oxygen that would be needed to assimilate the BOD in the effluent discharge. Thus, the discharge of the effluent BOD would not cause any net deficit in the Laguna Creek DO concentration, or require any oxygen from the stream, to assimilate any of the BOD that is discharged.

City of Galt 4.6-40 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

Table 4.6-10 Effluent and Laguna Creek Oxygen Demand Balance Phase 3 Facilities Master Plan Variable Existing Conditions Immediate Improvements Buildout Assessment of Effluent DO Balance with Long-term Oxygen Demand Effluent Ammonia (as N)1, 2 0.8 <0.7 to 0.4 <0.7 to 0.4 Effluent nBOD3 3.7 <3.2 to 1.8 <3.2 to 1.8 4 Effluent BOD5 1.7 1.7 1.7 Effluent uBOD5 3.2 3.2 3.2 Effluent uBOD+nBOD 6.9 <6.4 to 5.0 <6.4 to 5.0 Effluent DO6 7.5 7.6 7.6 Effluent Oxygen Balance Balance7 +0.7 +1.2 to 2.6 +1.2 to 2.6 Assessment of Changes in Receiving Water Short-term Oxygen Demand RSW‐001 Ammonia (as N)1 0.2 0.2 0.2 8 RSW‐001 BOD5 0 0 0 3 RSW‐001 BOD5 + nBOD 1.0 1.0 1.0 Receiving Water Oxygen Demand Downstream of Skunk Creek 9

RSW‐002 BOD5+nBOD 5.1 4.7 to 3.4 4.8 to 3.5

Change (BOD5+nBOD) ‐0.4 to ‐1.7 ‐0.3 to ‐1.6 Notes: RSW-001 = Laguna Creek upstream of Skunk Creek and the effluent discharge. RSW-002 = Laguna Creek downstream of Skunk Creek and the effluent discharge. 1 Existing Conditions ammonia is the measured long-term average effluent ammonia concentration since November 2009. 2 Design treatment performance for ammonia under Immediate Improvements and Facilities Master Plan Expansion based on West Yost Associates modeling of worst-case combination of effluent and receiving-water pH and temperature values (West Yost Associates 2009). Average concentration would range from modeled <0.7 mg/L (West Yost Associates 2009) to about 0.4 mg/L, which is the current average WWTP performance with occasional spikes exceeding 3.3 mg/L (i.e., NPDES permit maximum daily effluent limit) deleted to represent future performance. Concentration for samples recorded as “non-detect” were assumed to equal one-half the method detection limit (i.e., 0.25 mg/L based on most typical known detection limit of 0.5 mg/L). 3 nBOD = Ammonia (as N) * 4.57 4 Existing Conditions BOD5 is the measured long-term average effluent BOD5 since tertiary treatment improvements became operational in January 2011. Non-detect data were assumed to equal one-half the method detection limit (i.e, from 0.5-1.5 mg/L based on typical detection limits of 1-3 mg/L). No improvement in effluent BOD5 is assumed as part of any project phase. 5 uBOD = BOD5 * 1.9 6 Existing Conditions DO is long-term average effluent DO since uniform sampling and analysis methods were implemented in February 2012. No improvement in effluent DO is assumed as part of any project phase. 7 Oxygen Balance = DO – (uBOD + nBOD); positive value indicates theoretical oxygen surplus 8 BOD5 not measured in Laguna Creek; for purpose of assessment, concentration was conservatively assumed to be zero. 9 Oxygen demand mass balance calculated based on a critical low upstream Laguna Creek streamflow rate of 0.2 cfs (i.e., 7Q10 flow), current and effluent flow rate of 2.3 mgd (3.6 cfs), and Facilities Master Plan phase effluent rate of 6 mgd (9.3 cfs).

 Change in Short‐term Laguna Creek BOD Concentrations: Under buildout of the WWTP to 6.0 mgd in Phase 3 of the Facilities Master Plan, the mass‐balance of the combined Laguna Creek water and increased effluent discharge would result in changed downstream BOD that could be assimilated over the short‐term. The mass‐balance calculation of downstream receiving water BOD concentration was calculated based on the increased effluent discharge rate, combined effluent BOD5 and nBOD fractions (with projected reduced nBOD concentrations associated with nitrification improvements), and existing background Laguna Creek nBOD concentrations and worst‐case low streamflow conditions (i.e., 7‐day average low flow). The assessment indicates that the combined BOD5 and nBOD concentration in Laguna Creek downstream of the effluent discharge would decrease by a range of about 0.3 to 1.6 mg/L compared to existing conditions for higher and lower assumed future effluent ammonia concentrations, respectively. Thus, the reduced

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-41 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

downstream BOD concentration would further reduce the potential for low stream DO concentrations to develop in association with the oxygen demand that might be exerted to assimilate any of the effluent BOD.

Changes in the travel time of streamflow under the Facilities Master Plan with increased effluent discharge up to 6.0 mgd also influences the amount of BOD that can be exerted at any location downstream of the discharge. With the increased effluent discharge, streamflow velocity would increase and result in an overall decrease in effluent residence time in Laguna Creek relative to existing conditions. For the months of July through September, which have the lowest average monthly upstream Laguna Creek streamflows, the estimated travel time would decrease from a range of 1.2 to 1.6 days under existing conditions to a range of 1.0 to 1.2 days under the expanded effluent discharge rate of 6.0 mgd. Given the relatively short travel time of streamflow in Laguna Creek, little oxygen demand is likely exerted in Laguna Creek overall, and even less oxygen demand would be exerted under the Facilities Master Plan compared to existing conditions due to the decrease in residence time. The reduced residence for streamflow in Laguna Creek would result in a greater fraction of the effluent BOD being exerted further downstream in the much larger Cosumnes River and Mokelumne River channels, and eastern Delta beyond, where the effluent would mix with the flow in these additional channels, and be exposed to daily tidal exchange providing greater dilution compared to Laguna Creek. Thus, along with reduced receiving water BOD concentrations downstream of the discharge described above, the increased effluent and associated streamflow would be anticipated to increase DO concentrations in Laguna Creek and receiving water downstream compared to existing conditions.

With respect to the indirect effects of nutrients discharged in the effluent, and potential to affect photosynthesis‐related oxygen production and respiration in the aquatic plant and algae community of Laguna Creek, the increased discharge rate of up to 6.0 mgd of fully nitrified and denitrified effluent under buildout of the Facilities Master Plan would result in a substantial reduction in the average nitrate concentration in Laguna Creek downstream of the effluent discharge, as described in Impact 4.5‐6, “Effects of Project Discharges on Nutrient Biostimulation in Receiving Waters” (Chapter 4.5, Hydrology and Water Quality). Therefore, it is anticipated that the project‐related discharge of nutrients under both buildout of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements may contribute to reduced biostimulation conditions that currently exist in Laguna Creek, and, at a minimum, would not be expected to cause additional nutrient biostimulation, relative to existing conditions. Consequently, the adverse effects of nightly low receiving water DO concentrations from aquatic plant and algae respiration may be reduced under the Facilities Master Plan.

The assessment of direct project‐related effects on effluent and receiving water oxygen demand, and indirect effects on nutrient biostimulation‐related effects, indicate that implementation of the Facilities Master Plan would reduce any potential adverse effects of the effluent discharge on DO concentrations in Laguna Creek and the lower Cosumnes River, relative to existing conditions. At a minimum, the project‐related effects would not result in a decline in effluent quality relative to oxygen demanding substances such that an increase in exceedences of water quality objectives would occur, nor would an increased risk of adverse effects to aquatic life beneficial uses be expected. The effluent is routinely above applicable EPA objectives for protection of warmwater aquatic organisms and, with the improved conditions, is unlikely to cause or contribute to exceedances of the objectives relative to existing conditions. Additionally, oxygen demanding substances are not bioaccumulative constituents; thus, the effluent discharges would not result in adverse bioaccumulation effects to aquatic life or humans. Therefore, the potential operations‐related water quality impacts of oxygen demanding substances and nutrients in the discharge would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

As described above, the Immediate Improvements for the WWTP would be designed and operated to comply with the NPDES permit’s effluent limitations for BOD5, ammonia, and nitrate. Consequently, carbonaceous and nitrogenous oxygen demand in effluent and receiving water downstream of the effluent discharge would be

City of Galt 4.6-42 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Aquatic Biological Resources

reduced relative to existing conditions. Additionally, the substantial reduction in average effluent nitrate concentrations would potentially reduce nutrient biostimulation in aquatic plants and algae and thus reduce periodic low DO concentrations in Laguna Creek caused by high levels of plant respiration. This impact is considered a beneficial impact of the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.6-43 Aquatic Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

This page intentionally left blank.

City of Galt 4.6-44 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

4.7 TERRESTRIAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

This section addresses terrestrial biological resources known or with potential to occur in the project vicinity and describes potential changes in condition of those resources as a result of implementing the project. The analysis includes a description of the existing environmental conditions, the methods used for assessment, the impacts associated with implementing the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements, and the mitigation measures necessary to address potentially significant impacts. 4.7.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FEDERAL

FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

As discussed in section 4.6, pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) (16 U.S.C. Section 1531 et seq.), the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries Service (NOAA Fisheries) regulate the taking of a species listed as threatened or endangered under the ESA. In general, persons subject to ESA (including private parties) are prohibited from “taking” endangered or threatened fish and wildlife species on private property, and from “taking” endangered or threatened plants in areas under federal jurisdiction or in violation of state law. Under Section 9 of the ESA, the definition of “take” is to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” USFWS has also interpreted the definition of “harm” to include significant habitat modification that could result in take.

If a proposed project would result in take of a federally‐listed species and federal discretionary action is involved, the federal agency consults with USFWS under Section 7 of the ESA. Because this project involves federal funding, interagency cooperation under Section 7 of the ESA is required. Section 7 of the ESA outlines procedures for federal interagency cooperation to protect and conserve federally listed species and designated critical habitat. Section 7(a)(2) requires federal agencies to consult with USFWS and NOAA Fisheries to ensure that they are not undertaking, funding, permitting, or authorizing actions likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or destroying or adversely modifying designated critical habitat.

SECTIONS 401 AND 404 OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT

Please refer to the discussion of Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act in Section 4.6, “Aquatic Biological Resources,” of this Draft Program EIR.

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 U.S.C. Section 703, et seq.), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all birds native to the United States.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-1 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

STATE

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

Please refer to Section 4.6, “Aquatic Biological Resources,” of this Draft Program EIR for a discussion of the California Endangered Species Act.

SECTION 1600 OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE CODE

Please refer to Section 4.6, “Aquatic Biological Resources,” of this Draft Program EIR for a discussion of Section 1600 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code.

PORTER-COLOGNE WATER QUALITY CONTROL ACT

Please refer to Sections 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” and Section 4.6, “Aquatic Biological Resources,” of this Draft Program EIR for a discussion of the Porter‐Cologne Act (California Water Code Section 13000, et seq.).

CALIFORNIA FISH AND WILDLIFE CODE SECTIONS 3503 AND 3503.5

Section 3503 of the Fish and Wildlife Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (i.e., species in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes), including their nests or eggs. Typical violations include destruction of active nests as a result of tree removal and failure of nesting attempts, resulting in loss of eggs and/or young. These violations can be caused by disturbance of nesting pairs by nearby human activity. LOCAL

CITY OF GALT GENERAL PLAN

Please see Section 4.6 of this Draft Program EIR for a discussion of relevant local policies. In addition, Vegetation Policy COS‐3.2, Mature Tree and Woodland Preservation, states that the City shall encourage retention of mature trees and woodlands to the maximum extent possible.

PROPOSED SOUTH SACRAMENTO HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

The proposed project is located within the proposed South Sacramento County Habitat Conservation Plan (SSCHCP) area. With the exception of specific infrastructure projects, all SSHCP covered activities will occur within a region of the Plan Area designated the SSHCP Urban Development Area (UDA). The UDA comprises all land within Sacramento County’s Urban Services Boundary (USB) and lands outside the USB but within the city limits of Rancho Cordova, Elk Grove, and Galt and their adopted spheres of influence. The SSCHCP is intended to provide a regional approach to issues related to urban development, habitat conservation, agricultural production, and open‐space planning. The SSCHCP would provide strategies to conserve habitat for nine special‐ status plants and 42 special‐status wildlife species. The conservation strategy has four components: conservation (habitat acquisition), restoration, enhancement, and a limited amount of avoidance and minimization. If adopted, it would serve as a multi‐species, multi‐habitat conservation plan addressing the biological impacts of future urban development within the UDA. The emphasis of the SSCHCP is to secure large, interconnected blocks of habitat that focus on protecting intact subwatersheds while minimizing edge effects and maximizing heterogeneity. Habitat mitigation for impacts resulting from a particular project must take place on the same geological formation as the affected area. As currently conceived, land developers that convert habitat within the USB would pay a defined per‐acre fee to mitigate impacts. These fees would be used to

City of Galt 4.7-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

protect, restore, maintain, and monitor habitat. The process for developing the SSCHCP was initiated in 1992. The City of Galt has formally agreed to participate in the SSHCP; however, the plan is currently (2012) undergoing environmental review and is not an adopted plan. 4.7.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is located in a predominately rural portion of south Sacramento County north of the City of Galt. The site is an incorporated island for municipal purposes and is surrounded by unincorporated county land. Site elevation ranges from approximately 33 to 43 feet above mean sea level. The project site and much of the surrounding area is characterized primarily by active agricultural fields. Adjacent properties to the north and west, however, consist of natural habitats, including vernal pool grasslands that are held in conservation trusts or mitigation banks. The UPRR tracks border the east side of the property and there is undeveloped property beyond. The west and south sides are in agricultural production with crops. The project site contains a remnant channel of Skunk Creek at the north end of the WWTP’s 18‐acre storage reservoir. Skunk Creek flows approximately 3,500 feet northwesterly to its terminus at Laguna Creek. Laguna Creek is an intermittent tributary of the Cosumnes River, which flows into the Mokelumne River. The WWTP discharges effluent into Skunk Creek through an outfall pipe structure located at the toe of the reservoir’s earthen dam. The channel of Skunk Creek is lined with cobble and boulders around the outfall structure. Downstream of the outfall structure the channel substrate is composed of clay loam. During the reconnaissance survey, Skunk Creek was dry and the channel was devoid of vegetation both where the outfall structure and artificial substrate occur and downstream where natural substrate is present. In previous years, discharges into Skunk Creek were permitted only from November to May; however, in September 2010, the WWTP received approval to discharge into the creek year round. Even so, there is generally little to no discharge into Skunk Creek during spring and early summer because the treated effluent is being used for crop irrigation. For example, on May 10, 2012, off‐site discharge was stopped to fill the reservoir in anticipation of summer irrigation demand. Discharge to Skunk Creek resumed in June 2012 and will continue indefinitely.

The WWTP also contains a number of smaller, square to rectangular wastewater storage basins, as well as irrigation ditches created to convey treated effluent to the agricultural crops and recapture runoff from the crops and deliver it back to on‐site storage facilities (Exhibit 4.7‐1). Operations and maintenance activities at the reservoir and basins are implemented on an as needed basis and include drawing down water to remove sediment and removing vegetation from the reservoir, basins, and surrounding berms. The irrigation ditches are dredged and reshaped annually to maintain full drainage capacity. There are three large basins used for temporary storage. These basins are generally drawn down as quickly as possible and are, therefore, dry the majority of time.

As a condition of the City’s NPDES permit for operation of the WWTP, on‐site irrigation ditches are not allowed to contact other off‐site wetlands or waters of the United States; water conveyed in the ditches is treated effluent that may be discharged to the agricultural crops or other upland habitat types, but may not flow into surrounding waters. The ditches are used both for crop irrigation and to deliver return flow from the agricultural fields back to the effluent storage reservoir so it does not flow off site. Therefore, the on‐site ditches are fragmented and discontinuous. Although temporary ditches may be constructed during the crop‐growing season, only one irrigation ditch was present at the time of the reconnaissance survey. This ditch extends along a portion of the existing treatment facility’s southern fence line (Exhibit 4.7‐1) and, at the time of the survey, contained a dense stand of cattails within the channel. At the time of the survey, the soil in the ditch was saturated but no surface water was present.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-3 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012 Exhibit 4.7-1 Potential Jurisdictional Waters

City of Galt 4.7-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

VEGETATION

Vegetation on the project site consists of field crops and ruderal vegetation surrounding the WWTP facilities. There is also a row of large eucalyptus trees along the access road to the WWTP. Ongoing vegetation management on the project site includes herbicide application, mowing, and plowing for weed abatement and fire control; therefore, native vegetation is generally not allowed to establish on the site. However, one ditch fragment extending approximately 1,200 feet along a portion of the existing treatment facility’s southern fence line contained cattail marsh vegetation and two additional stands of cattail marsh (perimeters measuring 95 feet and 69 feet, respectively) were present in the northwest corner of the effluent storage reservoir. The band of cattail marsh in the ditch is approximately 6 feet wide. With these two exceptions, no native plant communities were observed on the project site.

During the reconnaissance survey, vegetation around the effluent flow meter on the banks of Skunk Creek and on the face of the earthen dam was composed of dead weeds that appeared to have been treated with herbicide. The channel of Skunk Creek was devoid of vegetation at the time of the reconnaissance survey and the banks downstream of the outfall structure were characterized by a mix of weedy wetland and upland species. Although some wetland plant species are present on the banks, this area did not meet any of the three USACE criteria of a wetland when a formal delineation was conducted in 2008 (EDAW 2008). The portion of Skunk Creek downstream of the outfall structure is outside of the project site, but within the WWTP property. The area surrounding the Skunk Creek channel within the WWTP property is also subject to periodic mowing and plowing to remove vegetation and is therefore characterized primarily by weedy annual plants that are adapted to frequent disturbance. WILDLIFE

In general, the project site provides low value habitat for most wildlife species because of an overall lack of vegetative cover and high level of disturbance from agricultural activities and vegetation management such as seasonal mowing and disking. In addition, regular maintenance activities include use of permitted baits and traps several times a year to control rodents. Wildlife species most likely to use the project site are primarily common species that are adapted to highly disturbed, ruderal, or agricultural environments. The wildlife species or their signs that were observed on the site during the reconnaissance survey are noted in Table 4.7‐1.

Table 4.7-1 Wildlife Species Observed During the 2012 Field Reconnaissance Survey Scientific Name Common Name Birds Agelaius phoeniceus Red‐winged blackbird Anas cyanoptera Cinnamon teal Anas platyrhynchos Mallard Ardea herodias Great blue heron Ardea alba Great egret Buteo jamaicensis Red‐tailed hawk Buteo swainsoni Swainson’s hawk Cathartes aura Turkey vulture Charadrius vociferus Killdeer Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s blackbird Fulica americana American coot Hirundo rustica Barn swallow

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-5 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Table 4.7-1 Wildlife Species Observed During the 2012 Field Reconnaissance Survey Scientific Name Common Name Mimus polyglottos Northern mockingbird Passer domesticus House sparrow Sayornis nigricans Black phoebe Tyrannus verticalus Western kingbird Zenaida macroura Mourning dove Mammals Lepus californicus Black‐tailed jackrabbit Procyon lotor Raccoon Source: Ascent 2012

Agricultural fields and other open areas provide foraging opportunities for a number of raptor species including American kestrel (Falco sparverius), white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucurus), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), red‐ tailed hawk, Swainson’s hawk, great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), and barn owls (Tyto alba). Potential prey species for raptors that may be present in the agricultural fields include deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), California vole (Microtus californicus), and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). A red‐tailed hawk and a Swainson’s hawk were both observed foraging over the WWTP agricultural fields and dry storage basins during the reconnaissance survey. SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

Special‐status species are defined as species that are legally protected or that are otherwise considered sensitive by federal, state, or local resource agencies. Special‐status species are species, subspecies, or varieties that fall into one or more of the following categories, regardless of their legal or protection status:

 officially listed by California or the federal government as endangered, threatened, or rare;  a candidate for state or federal listing as endangered, threatened, or rare;  taxa (i.e., taxonomic category or group) that meet the criteria for listing, even if not currently included on any list, as described in California Code of Regulations (CCR) Section 15380 of the State CEQA Guidelines;  species identified by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) as Species of Special Concern;  species afforded protection under local planning documents; and  taxa considered by the CDFW to be “rare, threatened, or endangered in California” and assigned a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR). The CDFW system includes five rarity and endangerment ranks for categorizing plant species of concern, which are summarized as follows:  CRPR 1A ‐ Plants presumed to be extinct in California;  CRPR 1B ‐ Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere;  CRPR 2 ‐ Plants that are rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere;  CRPR 3 ‐ Plants about which more information is needed (a review list); and  CRPR 4 ‐ Plants of limited distribution (a watch list).

All plants with a CRPR are considered “special plants” by CDFW. The term “special plants” is a broad term used by CDFW to refer to all of the plant taxa inventoried in CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), regardless of their legal or protection status. Plants ranked as CRPR 1A, 1B, and 2 may qualify as endangered, rare, or threatened species within the definition of State CEQA Guidelines CCR Section 15380. CDFW recommends, and local governments may require, that CRPR 1A, 1B, and 2 species be addressed in CEQA projects. In general, CRPR 3 and 4 species do not meet the definition of endangered, rare, or threatened City of Galt 4.7-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

pursuant to CEQA Section 15380; however, these species may be evaluated by the lead agency on a case by case basis to determine significance criteria under CEQA.

The term “California species of special concern” is applied by CDFW to animals not listed under the federal ESA or CESA, but that are nonetheless declining at a rate that could result in listing, or historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. CDFW’s fully protected status was California’s first attempt to identify and protect animals that were rare or facing extinction. Most species listed as fully protected were eventually listed as threatened or endangered under CESA; however, some species remain listed as fully protected but do not have simultaneous listing under CESA. Fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no take permits can be issued for these species except for scientific research purposes or for relocation to protect livestock.

A list of special‐status species that could potentially occur on the project site or immediate vicinity was developed through a review of the CNDDB (2012) and CNPS Inventory (CNPS 2012) records of previously documented occurrences of special‐status species in the Bruceville, Clay, Elk Grove, Florin, Galt, Lockeford, Lodi North, Sloughhouse, and Thornton U.S. Geological Survey 7.5‐minute quadrangles (quads).

SPECIAL-STATUS PLANTS

Table 4.7‐2 provides a list of the special‐status plant species that have been documented in the CNDDB and CNPS Inventory 9‐quad search area and describes their listing status, habitat, and their potential for occurrence on the project site.

Because vegetation management practices on the project site preclude the establishment of native plant communities, there is no suitable habitat for special‐status plants. Routine mowing, plowing, water draw down, and other disturbances result in periodic vegetation clearing in uplands as well as within the storage reservoir and basins. Furthermore, the unnatural hydrologic regime is inconsistent with the requirements of special‐status aquatic and wetland plants that occur in the region. In other words, the periods of inundation and drying are not consistent with what is needed for these species to complete their life cycles. Although cattail marsh has established in one ditch fragment and in the northwest corner of the storage reservoir, this marsh community consists exclusively of cattails below the high water mark. A botanist completed a floristic inventory of the site during the reconnaissance survey in May 2012 and no special‐status plant species were found. The timing of the survey was within the blooming period of most of the marsh‐associated special‐status plant species that are known from the region as evidenced from the blooming periods noted in Table 4.7‐2. A list of all plant species observed on the project site during the reconnaissance survey is provided in Appendix D.

Table 4.7-2 Special-status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Status 1 Habitat and Blooming Species Potential for Occurrence USFWS CDFW CRPR Period Watershield _ _ 2.1 Freshwater marshes and Unlikely to occur; periodic draw down and Brasenia schreberi swamps; 0 to 7,000 feet vegetation removal at the storage reservoir and elevation; blooms June‐ basins precludes establishment of this species. September. The only documented occurrence in Sacramento County is a 1976 record from the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge west of I‐5.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-7 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Table 4.7-2 Special-status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Status 1 Habitat and Blooming Species Potential for Occurrence USFWS CDFW CRPR Period Bristly sedge _ _ 2.1 Lake margin marshes; ‐ Unlikely to occur; periodic draw down and Carex comosa 15 to 3,300 feet vegetation removal at the storage reservoir and elevation; blooms May‐ basins precludes establishment of this species. September. The only known occurrences in Sacramento County are from the Stone Lakes National Wildlife Refuge west of I‐5. Succulent owl’s T E 1B.2 Vernal pools; often in Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal pools or clover acidic conditions; 80 to other seasonal wetlands on the project site that Castilleja campestris 2,500 feet elevation; provide suitable habitat for this species and the ssp. succulent blooms April‐May. site is lower than the species’ known elevation range. Species not known from Sacramento County. Bolander’s water _ _ 2.1 Freshwater and brackish Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, hemlock marshes, mostly along and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable Cicuta maculata var. banks of tidal creeks; 0 habitat conditions for this species. Furthermore, bolanderi to 650 feet elevation; periodic draw down and vegetation removal at blooms July‐September. the storage reservoir and basins precludes establishment of this species and the species is known only from coastal and Delta waterways west of I‐5. Peruvian dodder _ _ 2.2 Freshwater marshes and Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Cuscuta obtusiflora swamps; 50 to 1,000 and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable var. glandulosa feet elevation; blooms habitat conditions for this species. Furthermore, July‐October. there is only one reported occurrence from Sacramento County and it is an unconfirmed record from the Elk Grove area. Nearest confirmed occurrence is from Merced County. Dwarf downingia – – 2.2 Vernal pools or other Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal pools or Downingia pusilla seasonal wetlands in other seasonal wetlands on the project site that annual grasslands; below provide suitable habitat for this species. 1,500 feet elevation; blooms March–May. Bogg’s Lake hedge – E 1B.2 Lake margin marshes Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir does not hyssop and swamps, vernal provide a suitable hydrologic regime for this Gratiola pools, and other species to complete its life cycle and there are no heterosepala seasonal wetlands, vernal pools or other seasonal wetlands on the primarily in clay soils; 30 project site that provide suitable habitat for this to 8,000 feet elevation; species. Furthermore, periodic draw down and blooms April–August. vegetation removal at the storage reservoir and basins precludes establishment of this species. Woolly rose‐mallow _ _ 1B.2 Margins of freshwater Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Hibiscus lasiocarpus marshes, wet riverbanks, and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable and on low, peat islands habitat conditions for this species. Furthermore, in sloughs of the Delta; 0 periodic draw down and vegetation removal at to 400 feet elevation; the storage reservoir and basins precludes blooms June–September. establishment of this species.

City of Galt 4.7-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

Table 4.7-2 Special-status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Status 1 Habitat and Blooming Species Potential for Occurrence USFWS CDFW CRPR Period Delta tule pea _ _ 1B Freshwater and brackish Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Lathyrus jepsonii var. marshes, usually along and irrigation ditches do not provide a suitable jepsonii the edges. Found in the hydrologic regime for this species and the species San Joaquin delta region is known only from lower elevations in Delta at 0 to15 feet elevation; waterways. Furthermore, periodic draw down and blooms May – vegetation removal at the storage reservoir and September. basins precludes establishment of this species. Greene’s legenere – – 1B.1 Relatively deep and wet Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal pools or Legenere limosa vernal pools (Witham other seasonal wetlands on the project site that 2006:39); below 3,000 provide suitable habitat for this species. feet elevation; blooms April–June. Mason’s lilaeopsis _ R 1B.1 Flooded tidal zones on Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Lilaeopsis masonii mud‐banks and flats and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable along erosional creek‐ habitat conditions for this species, which is known banks, sloughs, and only from tidally influenced waterways. rivers with freshwater marsh, brackish marsh, or riparian scrub influenced by saline water; 0 to 35 feet elevation; blooms April‐ November. Delta mudwort _ _ 2.1 Intertidal mudflats in Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Limosella subulata freshwater and brackish and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable marshes and riparian habitat conditions for this species, which is known scrub; 0 to 10 feet only from lower elevations in tidally influenced elevation; blooms May‐ Delta waterways. August. Slender Orcutt grass T E 1B.1 Vernal pools; 100 to Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal pools or Orcuttia tenuis 5,800 feet elevation; other seasonal wetlands on the project site that blooms May–October. provide suitable habitat for this species. Sacramento Orcutt E E 1B.1 Vernal pools; 95 to 325 Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal pools or grass feet elevation; other seasonal wetlands on the project site that Orcuttia viscida blooms April–July. provide suitable habitat for this species. Sanford’s arrowhead – – 1B.2 Shallow freshwater Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Sagittaria sanfordii marshes and swamps; and irrigation ditches do not provide a suitable below 2,200 feet hydrologic regime for this species. Furthermore, elevation; blooms May– periodic draw down and vegetation removal at October. the storage reservoir and basins precludes establishment of this species.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-9 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Table 4.7-2 Special-status Plant Species Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential for Occurrence on the Project Site Status 1 Habitat and Blooming Species Potential for Occurrence USFWS CDFW CRPR Period Marsh skullcap _ _ 2.2 Freshwater marshes and Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Scutellaria swamps, meadows and and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable galericulata seeps; 0 to 7,000 feet habitat conditions for this species. Furthermore, elevation; blooms June‐ periodic draw down and vegetation removal at September. the storage reservoir and basins precludes establishment of this species. The only records of this species in Sacramento County are from the Snodgrass slough area northeast of Walnut Grove. Side‐flowering _ _ 2.2 Freshwater marshes and Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, skullcap swamps, meadows and and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable Scutellaria lateriflora seeps; 0 to 7,000 feet habitat conditions for this species. Furthermore, elevation; blooms June‐ periodic draw down and vegetation removal at September. the storage reservoir and basins precludes establishment of this species. The only records of this species in Sacramento County are an 1892 record from Bouldin Island and a current record from Delta Meadows River Park. There are no known occurrences east of I‐5. Suisun Marsh aster _ _ 1B.2 Brackish and freshwater Unlikely to occur; the storage reservoir, basins, Symphyotrichum marshes along the banks and irrigation ditches do not provide suitable lentum of sloughs and other habitat conditions for this species and the species waterways; 0‐10 feet is generally known from lower elevations in Delta elevation; blooms waterways. Furthermore, periodic draw down and May–November. vegetation removal at the storage reservoir and basins precludes establishment of this species. Saline clover _ _ 1B.2 Salt marshes and in Unlikely to occur; suitable habitat is not present Trifolium alkaline soils in moist on the project site. hydrophilum valley and foothill grasslands and vernal pools; 0 to 1,000 feet elevation; blooms April‐ June. Notes: USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife; CRPR = California Rare Plant Rank; CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; ESA = Federal Endangered Species Act; CESA = California Endangered Species Act 1 Legal Status Definitions U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: California Rare Plant Ranks: E Endangered (legally protected) 1B Plant species considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere (protected under T Threatened (legally protected) CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA) California Department of Fish and Wildlife: 2 Plant species considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere E Endangered (legally protected) (protected under CEQA, but not legally protected under ESA or CESA) CRPR Extensions: .1 Seriously endangered in California (>80% of occurrences are threatened and/or high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20 to 80% of occurrences are threatened) Sources: CNDDB 2012; CNPS 2012; data compiled by Ascent Environmental in 2012

City of Galt 4.7-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

SPECIAL-STATUS WILDLIFE

Table 4.7‐3 provides a list of the special‐status wildlife species that have been documented in the CNDDB 9‐ quadsearch area and describes their listing status, habitat, and their potential for occurrence on the project site.

Based on the results of the CNDDB search, environmental documents prepared for past WWTP projects, and the reconnaissance‐level surveys conducted by Ascent on May 18, 2012, it was determined that eight special‐status wildlife species have potential to be present on the project site. An additional 12 species were determined to be unlikely to occur on the project site because requisite habitat features are lacking.

Table 4.7-3 Special-status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential to Occur on the Project Site Listing Status1 Species Habitat Potential for Occurrence2 Federal State Invertebrates Valley elderberry T – Elderberry shrubs below 3,000 Unlikely to occur; no elderberry shrubs are longhorn beetle feet in elevation, typically in present on the project site. Desmocerus californicus riparian habitats. dimorphus Vernal pool fairy shrimp T – Vernal pools and other seasonal Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal Branchinecta lynchi wetlands in valley and foothill pools or other seasonal wetlands on the grasslands. project site that provide suitable habitat for this species. Vernal pool tadpole E – Vernal pools and other seasonal Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal shrimp wetlands in valley and foothill pools or other seasonal wetlands on the Lepidurus packardi grasslands. project site that provide suitable habitat for this species. Midvalley fairy shrimp E – Vernal pools and other seasonal Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal Branchinecta wetlands in valley and foothill pools or other seasonal wetlands on the mesovallensis grasslands. project site that provide suitable habitat for this species. Amphibians and Reptiles Western pond turtle – SC Forage in ponds, marshes, slow‐ Could occur; marginally suitable habitat is Emys marmorata moving streams, sloughs, and present in the effluent storage reservoir irrigation/drainage ditches; nest and the species has been documented in nearby uplands with low, approximately 1.5 miles north of the sparse vegetation. project site in Badger Creek. Foothill yellow‐legged SC Perennial streams with rocky Unlikely to occur; no suitable habitat frog bottoms. Tadpoles require present on the project site. Rana boylii permanent water for a minimum of 3 months to complete metamorphosis. Western spadefoot – SC Vernal pools and other seasonal Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal Spea hammondii ponds with a minimum 3‐week pools or other seasonal wetlands on the inundation period in valley and project site that provide suitable habitat foothill grasslands. for this species.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-11 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Table 4.7-3 Special-status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential to Occur on the Project Site Listing Status1 Species Habitat Potential for Occurrence2 Federal State Giant garter snake T T Slow‐moving streams, sloughs, Could occur; marginally suitable habitat is Thamnophis gigas ponds, marshes, inundated present in the effluent storage reservoir floodplains, rice fields, and and ditch and the species has been irrigation/drainage ditches on the documented approximately 1.5 miles Central Valley floor with mud north of the project site in Badger Creek. bottoms, earthen banks, Although individuals could be encountered emergent vegetation, abundant on site, the site is not suitable to support small aquatic prey and absence or breeding populations due to regular low numbers of large predatory vegetation removal, lack of upland refugia, fish. Also require upland refugia and unreliability of water during the active not subject to flooding during the season. snake’s inactive season. California tiger T T Vernal pools and seasonal Unlikely to occur; there are no vernal salamander wetlands with a minimum 10‐ pools or other seasonal wetlands on the Ambystoma californiense week inundation period and project site that provide suitable habitat surrounding uplands, primarily for this species. grasslands, with burrows and other belowground refugia (e.g., rock or soil crevices). Birds Tricolored blackbird – SC Forages in agricultural lands and Could nest on site; cattail marsh in the Agelaius tricolor grasslands; nests in marshes, reservoir provides marginally suitable (nesting colony) riparian scrub, and other areas habitat for nesting and the agricultural that support cattails or dense fields provide foraging habitat. This thickets of shrubs or herbs. species has been documented at Requires open water and numerous locations in the project vicinity, protected nesting substrate, such including a 1992 record of 100 birds as flooded, spiny, or thorny nesting in blackberry bushes next to the vegetation (Schuford and Gardali railroad tracks adjacent to the storage 2008: 439). basin in the southeast corner of the project site. Burrowing owl – SC Nests and forages in grasslands, Unlikely to occur; periodic vegetation Athene cunicularia agricultural lands, open removal alternating with dense (burrow sites) shrublands, and open woodlands overgrowth of tall weeds create poor with existing ground squirrel habitat conditions for this species. In burrows or friable soils. Suitable addition, no ground squirrels or potentially burrow sites consist of short, suitable burrows were observed on the herbaceous vegetation with only project site, the soils are not particularly sparse cover of shrubs or taller friable, and regular rodent control herbs (Schuford and Gardali 2008: measures are applied. However, this 221) species has been documented at several locations within 5 miles of the WWTP and there could be active burrows adjacent to the project site.

City of Galt 4.7-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

Table 4.7-3 Special-status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential to Occur on the Project Site Listing Status1 Species Habitat Potential for Occurrence2 Federal State Swainson’s hawk – T Forages in grasslands and Known to occur; this species was observed Buteo swainsoni agricultural lands; nests in riparian foraging over project agricultural fields (nesting) and isolated trees. and dry basins during reconnaissance surveys (May 2012). Large eucalyptus trees along the WWTP entrance road provide potential nest sites. There are numerous documented nest sites in the project vicinity, the closest less than 1 mile away. Yellow warbler _ SC Nests and forages in riparian Unlikely to occur, no woody riparian plant Dendroica petechia communities, preferably with communities present. brewsteri willow, cottonwood, aspen, (nesting) sycamore, or alder. White‐tailed kite – FP Forages in grasslands and Could occur; suitable foraging habitat Elanus leucurus agricultural fields; nests in present and large eucalyptus trees along (nesting) riparian zones, oak woodlands, the WWTP entrance road provide and isolated trees. potential nest sites. The nearest documented occurrence is approximately 2.5 miles north of the project site. Lesser sandhill crane _ SC Annual and perennial grassland Known to occur. Winters in the area and is Grus canadensis habitats, moist croplands with rice routinely observed on site. Does not breed canadensis or corn stubble, and open, in California. (wintering) emergent wetlands. Greater sandhill crane _ T Annual and perennial grassland Known to occur. Routinely observed Grus canadensis tabida FP habitats, moist croplands with rice wintering on site from September through (nesting and wintering) or corn stubble, and open, February. Known to breed only in Siskiyou, emergent wetlands. Typically Modoc and Lassen counties and in Sierra nests in mounds of wetland plants Valley, Plumas and Sierra counties. Does or hummocks in remote portions not breed on the project site. of extensive wetlands. Sometimes nests in grass‐lined depressions on dry sites. American white pelican _ SC Nests at large salt or freshwater Known to occur. The project site is outside Pelecanus lakes, usually on small islands or of the species’ known breeding range, but erythrorhynchos remote dikes with loose soil for migrating and overwintering individuals (nesting) nest mounds and free from have been observed on the site. human disturbance. Feeds Nonbreeding individuals may also be primarily on fish, but occasionally present in summer. on amphibians and crustaceans. Roosts at water edges on beaches, sandbars, and driftwood.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-13 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Table 4.7-3 Special-status Wildlife Known to Occur in the Project Region and their Potential to Occur on the Project Site Listing Status1 Species Habitat Potential for Occurrence2 Federal State Bank swallow – T Nests in colonies in unvegetated Unlikely to occur; there is no suitable Riparia riparia vertical banks with fine‐textured, habitat present for this species. The (nesting) sandy soils, typically next to nearest known occurrence is on the streams, rivers, or lakes, Cosumnes River over 20 miles from the occasionally in gravel quarries or project site. other eroding bluffs. Forages in a variety of habitats near nests. Yellow‐headed blackbird _ SC Nests in freshwater emergent Unlikely to occur; although large ponds Xanthocephalus wetlands with dense vegetation, and reservoirs are present, these do not xanthocephalus deep water, and an abundance of support substantial enough marsh (nesting) large insects, typically on the vegetation for nesting. The nearest edges of lakes, reservoirs, or large documented occurrence is an 1899 record ponds. from near Freeport approximately 13 miles northwest of the project site. Mammals American badger – SC Drier open shrub, forest, and Unlikely to occur; although badgers could Taxidea taxus herbaceous habitats with friable occasionally forage on the site, regular soils. Needs open, uncultivated agricultural disturbance and WWTP land. facilities on the project site make it generally unsuitable for this species to den and the soils are not particularly friable. There is only one record of this species in the nine quads containing and surrounding the project site and that is a 1938 collection from approximately 10 miles northwest of the project site near Stone Lakes Wildlife Refuge. Note: CNDDB = California Natural Diversity Database; USFWS = U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1 Legal Status Definitions Federal: State: E Endangered (legally protected) FP Fully protected (legally protected) T Threatened (legally protected) SC Species of special concern (no formal protection other than CEQA consideration) T Threatened (legally protected) 2 Potential for Occurrence Definitions Unlikely to occur: Species is unlikely to be present on the project site due to poor habitat quality, lack of suitable habitat features, or restricted current distribution of the species. Could occur: Suitable habitat is available on the project site; however, there are little to no other indicators that the species might be present. Known to occur: The species, or evidence of its presence, was observed on the project site during reconnaissance surveys, or was reported by others. Source: CNDDB 2012; Shuford and Gardali 2008; California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) 1988-1990 + updates; data compiled by Ascent in 2012

SENSITIVE HABITATS

Sensitive habitat types include those that are of special concern to CDFW, or that are afforded specific consideration through CEQA, Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code, the Porter‐Cologne Act, and/or Section 404 of the CWA, as discussed in the Regulatory Setting section, above. Sensitive habitats may be of special concern to regulatory agencies and conservation organizations for a variety of reasons, including their locally or regionally declining status, or because they provide important habitat to common and special‐status species.

City of Galt 4.7-14 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

RIPARIAN HABITAT AND OTHER SENSITIVE NATURAL COMMUNITIES

CDFW maintains a list of plant communities that are native to California. Within that list, CDFW identifies special‐status plant communities (a.k.a. sensitive natural communities), which they define as communities that are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects (CDFW 2012: viii). These communities may or may not contain special‐status species or their habitat. Special‐status plant communities are tracked in the CNDDB, a statewide inventory of the locations and conditions of the state’s rarest plant and animal taxa and vegetation types. Many wetland and riparian plant communities are included on CDFW’s list of special‐status plant communities and importance of protecting and preserving riparian habitats is recognized in the City’s general plan policies. There are no riparian communities or other sensitive natural communities present on the project site. However; Skunk Creek provides potential habitat for wildlife species and is therefore subject to regulation under Section 1602 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. Additionally, the 2030 Galt General Plan (City of Galt 2009b) contains policies applicable to the protection of Skunk Creek, including Policy COS‐1.9 Streambed Alteration and Watershed Regulations Compliance and Policy COS‐1.10 Ecological Features Retention.

WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AND WATERS OF THE STATE

Skunk Creek would be considered a water of the United States because it is hydrologically connected to the Cosumnes River thence the Mokelumne River via Laguna Creek. Skunk Creek would also be considered waters of the state subject to regulation under the Porter‐Cologne Act. The irrigation ditch on the south side of the existing treatment facilities may also be considered waters of the state and subject to regulation because it may not qualify for the water treatment and storage basin exemptions under the Porter‐Cologne Act. 4.7.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would result in a significant impact related to terrestrial biological resources if it would do any of the following:

 have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special‐status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;  have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;  have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters of the United States, including wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;  interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;  conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance;  conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan; or  substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-15 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

Information regarding terrestrial biological resources on or near the project site was based on the results of a reconnaissance survey and botanical inventory conducted on March 18, 2012 by an Ascent biologist and review of the following documents:

 Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Pipeline Project (EDAW 2008a);  Preliminary Delineation of Waters of the United States, Including Wetlands, City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Effluent Pipeline Project (EDAW 2008b);  Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Filtration, Ultraviolet Disinfection, and Biosolids Dewatering Project (Robertson‐Bryan Inc. 2009); and  Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Summer Surface Water Discharge Project (Robertson‐Bryan Inc. 2011).

The following analysis of impacts on terrestrial biological resources resulting from implementation of the proposed project is based on review of existing biological resources documented on or near the project site, including CNDDB and CNPS records, the draft SSHCP, the 2030 Galt General Plan (City of Galt 2009), and the Sacramento County General Plan (Sacramento County 1993); and reconnaissance surveys conducted by Ascent biologists. Impacts on fisheries are addressed in Section 4.6, Aquatic Biological Resources, of this Draft Program EIR. ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

Special‐status Plants – No suitable habitat for special‐status plants is present on the project site because the entire project site consists of man‐made and managed habitats that are subjected to regular vegetation removal, plowing or disking, and dramatically fluctuating water levels. Therefore, impacts to special‐status plants are not discussed further in this Draft Program EIR.

Riparian Habitat or Other Sensitive Natural Communities ‐ There are no riparian habitats or other sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS present on the project site. Skunk Creek is regulated by CDFW as a California stream that provides habitat for wildlife. The Facilities Master Plan (Immediate Improvements) proposes replacing the existing effluent flow metering facility at Skunk Creek with a new facility located near the effluent diversion structure (within the upland area of existing WWTP facilities). Following completion of the new metering facility, the existing outfall junction structure and effluent flow metering facilities near the storage reservoir dam would be demolished and removed, and the existing 36‐inch final effluent pipeline would be extended to discharge at an appropriate location within the existing Skunk Creek stream bed. This extension would replace the existing 18‐inch outfall pipe between the outfall junction structure and Skunk Creek. No alteration of the channel or banks of Skunk Creek would be required. Therefore, there would be no impact on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities and this issue is not discussed further in this Draft Program EIR. (Note: potential effects on fish resources from removal of facilities and replacement of the pipeline in Skunk Creek are addressed in Section 4.6 of this Draft Program EIR.)

Conflict with Local Policies or Ordinances Protecting Biological Resources ‐ The proposed project would not include the removal of trees; therefore, it would not conflict with any tree retention policies as defined by the City of Galt General Plan (Policy COS‐3.2 Mature Tree and Woodland Preservation). Road maintenance activities would be carried out within the existing roadway footprint and would not involve ground disturbance that could affect trees adjacent to the road. Further, the project would adhere to the policies set forth in the City of Galt General Plan regarding water resources, fish and wildlife, and vegetation; including complying with

City of Galt 4.7-16 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

requirements of the agencies that regulate biological resources. The proposed project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, this issue is not discussed further in this EIR.

Conflict with an Adopted Habitat Conservation Plan –The City has formally agreed to participate in the SSHCP, which is currently being drafted by Sacramento County and is in the initial stages of environmental review; however, the plan has not been adopted. Since the SSCHCP is still being drafted, it would be premature to attempt to analyze the project’s consistency with the SSCHCP. Also, since it is not an adopted plan, the project’s consistency is not required to be analyzed under CEQA. Therefore, an analysis of the project’s consistency with the SSCHCP is not included in this Draft Program EIR.

Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self‐sustaining levels; threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community; or substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare, or threatened species – The project site provides only low‐value habitat to wildlife species and development of the site would not eliminate any habitat important to the long‐ term survival of any species or community and would not substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of any species. Therefore, this issue is not discussed further in this EIR. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Giant Garter Snake. Marginally suitable habitat for giant garter snake exists in Skunk Creek, the 4.7-1 effluent storage reservoir, and the ditch fragment with cattail marsh. In addition, this species could be found in upland habitats within 200 feet of suitable aquatic habitat. Constructing new facilities and facility upgrades could result in direct mortality of individuals if they are present on the project site. Therefore, implementing the project could have an adverse effect on this species that is state- and federally-listed as threatened. This impact would be potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan; however, this impact can be reduced to less than significant through mitigation. No take would be expected.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Habitat on the project site is poor quality for giant garter snake due to a lack of suitable foraging habitat and escape cover, the fragmented nature of the irrigation ditch, lack of permanent water in the ditch and Skunk Creek during the active season (i.e., convey effluent releases intermittently), relative isolation from known populations, periodic draw down of the reservoir and other storage basins to remove vegetation and sediment, ongoing vegetation management activities (i.e., periodic mowing and disking),annual dredging of the irrigation ditch, and agricultural disturbance (i.e., disking, planting, harvesting). The effluent reservoir and other storage ponds lack emergent and bank vegetation that would provide desirable cover for giant garter snakes. Also, rodent burrows and other potential winter refugia are limited. Rip‐rap on the reservoir banks is below the high water level and does not provide winter escape cover.

Despite these poor habitat conditions, there is potential to encounter giant garter snakes on the project site due to proximity and intermittent connectivity to a known population in Badger Creek, which is tributary to Laguna Creek. Snakes from Badger Creek could migrate to the project site when water is being discharged to Skunk Creek providing a hydrologic link via Laguna Creek. Giant garter snakes could be present in Skunk Creek, the storage reservoir, or irrigation ditches when water is present and upland habitats within 200 feet of these aquatic habitats. Therefore, construction activities in these habitats could result in mortality of individuals if they are present. Take of giant garter snake is a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-17 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Implementing the Facilities Master Plan and operating the WWTP could ultimately result in an increase of capacity up to 6.0 mgd. This increased capacity could result in permanent discharge into Skunk Creek providing a continual hydrologic connection between source populations of giant garter snake in Badger Creek and the WWTP. However, this increased flow in Skunk Creek would not change the poor habitat conditions on the project site making it more attractive to giant garter snakes because the flow could be unreliable or intermittent during the snake’s active season, vegetation would be lacking, and upland basking sites and refugia would not be available. Periodic draw down of the storage reservoir as well as vegetation removal would still occur and the storage basins would continue to be wetted only for short periods of time during or immediately following storms. There would continue to be potential to encounter individual giant garter snakes on the project site and any construction in or within 200 feet of aquatic habitat could result in direct mortality of individuals if they are present. Take of giant garter snake is a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

Off‐site indirect impacts on giant garter snake are not expected to result from implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, either during construction or long‐term operations for a number of reasons. First, neither the Facilities Master Plan nor Immediate Improvements would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion nor siltation on‐ or off‐site (see Impact 4.5‐3 discussion in “Hydrology and Water Quality”). Second, no giant garter snake populations are known to occur downstream of the project site in Laguna Creek or the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers and these two rivers do not provide suitable habitat downstream of the site because they are too wide and fast moving for giant garter snake, and the banks are characterized by riparian forest habitat, which giant garter snakes do not typically inhabit. Third, the Facilities Master Plan, specifically the Immediate Improvements, would improve water quality of effluent discharged to surface receiving water (i.e., primarily Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) to meet the requirements of the 2010 NPDES Permit; therefore the additional effluent discharge water quality would not have an adverse effect on giant garter snake. Fourth, Mitigation Measure 4.7‐1 to protect water quality would reduce potential impacts during construction from disturbance of soils and sediments and accidental discharges of construction‐related fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous substances to a less‐than‐significant level.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. Immediate Improvements (to construct an oxidation ditch) could result in the fill of the irrigation ditch containing cattail marsh south of the existing facilities fence line. The irrigation ditch conveys water only intermittently during the snake’s active season, is isolated from other aquatic habitat, and is typically dredged on an annual basis to remove sediment and vegetation and maintain drainage capacity. Therefore, this ditch does not represent permanent giant garter snake habitat. As described above, activities related to construction and operation of the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, has the potential to encounter individual giant garter snakes on the project site, and any construction in or within 200 feet of aquatic habitat could result in direct mortality of individuals if they are present. Removal of this habitat, as well as construction of new facilities within 200 feet of this habitat, could result in direct mortality of giant garter snakes if they are present. Take of giant garter snake is a potentially significant impact for the Immediate Improvements. This impact is within the scope of impacts analyzed for the Facilities Master Plan.

No Downstream indirect impacts on giant garter snake are expected during construction of the Immediate Improvements because these upgrades would not increase the treatment capacity or effluent discharged from the WWTP and no giant garter snake populations are known to occur downstream of the project site in Laguna Creek or the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers. Furthermore, the Immediate Improvements would improve water quality effluent, as required to meet the 2010 NPDES Permit and Mitigation Measure 4.7‐1 to protect City of Galt 4.7-18 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

water quality would reduce potential impacts during construction from disturbance of soils and sediments and accidental discharges of construction‐related fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous substances to a less‐than‐significant level.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-1. Giant Garter Snake

The following measures shall be implemented to avoid potentially significant impacts on giant garter snake:

 All construction activities within 200 feet of aquatic habitat suitable for giant garter snakes shall be conducted during the snake’s active season of May 1 to October 1 so that snakes can move and avoid danger. For any construction outside of this period, USFWS will be consulted to determine whether additional measures are necessary to avoid or minimize potential impacts during the inactive season and avoid take.  Heavy equipment and vehicular movement within 200 feet of the banks of aquatic habitat shall be restricted to existing access roads and the predetermined staging and construction sites to minimize habitat disturbance.  In areas where wetlands, irrigation ditches, or other potential giant garter snake habitats are being retained on the site: o A qualified biologist shall install temporary exclusion fencing around suitable upland habitat within 200 feet of aquatic habitat to prevent giant garter snakes from entering the work area during construction. The fencing shall be maintained for the duration of the construction activities; o Ground disturbance, spoils, and equipment storage and other project activities shall not be allowed within the fenced area; and o The water quality shall be maintained and construction runoff into wetland areas shall be limited through the use of hay bales, filter fences, vegetative buffer strips, or other accepted equivalents. However, no plastic, monofilament, jute, or similar matting to control erosion that could entangle snakes shall be placed in the project area.  If wetlands, irrigation ditches, or other potential giant garter snake habitat would be filled, the aquatic habitats shall be dewatered at least 15 days before fill. Dewatering of aquatic habitat for construction purposes shall not occur between October 1 and April 15, with the exception of any areas within a cofferdam, unless authorized by USFWS. Any dewatered habitat must remain dry for at least 15 consecutive days after April 15 and before excavation or filling of the dewatered habitat.  Before ground disturbance, all on-site construction personnel shall be instructed by a qualified biologist regarding the potential presence of giant garter snakes, the importance of avoiding impacts on this species and its habitat, and recognition of giant garter snakes and their habitat(s).  Within 24 hours before beginning construction activities within 200 feet of suitable aquatic habitat for giant garter snakes, a qualified biologist shall inspect areas of anticipated disturbance for the presence of giant garter snakes. The construction area shall be reinspected whenever a lapse in construction activity of 2 weeks or more has occurred. The monitoring biologist shall be available thereafter; if a snake is encountered during construction activities, the monitoring biologist shall have the authority to stop construction activities until appropriate corrective measures have been completed or it is determined that the snake will not be harmed. Giant garter snakes encountered during construction activities should be allowed to move away from construction activities on their own. Any sightings or incidental take must be reported within 24 hours to the USFWS by telephone at (916) 414-6600.  After completion of project-related construction activities, any temporary fill and construction debris shall be removed, and wherever feasible, disturbed areas shall be restored to pre-project conditions. For any fill or debris that could be used as snake refugia, removal shall occur prior to giant garter

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-19 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

snake inactive season (October 2 to April 30), or potential refugia removed after that date must be surveyed for the presence of snakes by a qualified biologist prior to removal.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.7‐1 would reduce potentially significant impacts on giant garter snake to a less‐than‐significant level for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan because it would ensure that project construction would not result in take of giant garter snakes.

Impact Western Pond Turtle. Implementing the proposed project would result in construction of new 4.7-2 facilities and facility upgrades in the effluent storage reservoir and other storage basins that provide marginally suitable aquatic habitat for western pond turtle, a California species of special concern. Construction activities, including in or adjacent to suitable aquatic habitats could result in death of individuals if they are present on the project site. This impact would be a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Habitat on the project site is poor quality for western pond turtle because the ponds lack vegetation, rocks, woody debris, or other potential basking substrate and therefore, it is not expected to support large numbers of turtles. The irrigation ditch conveys water only intermittently and is subject to annual dredging. Furthermore, the storage basins are generally dry and only hold water temporarily during or immediately following storms. Nonetheless, western pond turtles have been documented near the project site in Badger Creek, which is hydrologically connected to the site via Laguna and Skunk creeks, and the storage reservoir and basins could attract individual turtles from time to time. It is unlikely that turtles would nest on the project site due to the high level of disturbance from agricultural activities and vegetation management, and unsuitable upland cover types (crops; developed surfaces; tall, dense weeds). Regardless, individual turtles could be present in the reservoir and construction activities in this habitat could result in death of turtles. Death of western pond turtles is a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. Immediate Improvements (to construct an oxidation ditch) could result in the fill of the irrigation ditch containing cattail marsh south of the existing facilities fence line. There is some potential to encounter western pond turtles in the irrigation ditch and draining and filling the ditch could result in turtles being stranded and smothered or run over by construction equipment. Therefore, death of western pond turtles is a potentially significant impact for the Immediate Improvements. This impact is within the scope of impacts analyzed for the Facilities Master Plan.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-2. Western Pond Turtle

The following measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize potentially significant impacts on western pond turtle:

 A preconstruction survey for western pond turtle shall be conducted by a qualified biologist prior to work in suitable aquatic habitat. If no pond turtles are observed, no further mitigation is necessary.

 If pond turtles are observed, a qualified biologist, with approval from CDFW, shall relocate pond turtles to the nearest area with suitable aquatic habitat that will not be disturbed by project-related construction activities.

City of Galt 4.7-20 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.7‐2 would reduce potentially significant impacts on western pond turtle to a less‐than‐significant level for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan because it would ensure that western pond turtles are removed from the site so that project construction would not result in mortality of individuals.

Impact Swainson’s Hawk and Other Nesting Raptors. Implementation of the WWTP Facilities Master 4.7-3 Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, could result in loss of suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk and could disturb nesting Swainson’s hawks, white-tailed kites, and other nesting raptors. Project construction could disturb active nests near the construction area, potentially resulting in nest abandonment by the adults and mortality of chicks and eggs. Therefore, implementing the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, could result in a substantial adverse effect on Swainson’s hawk and other nesting raptors. This impact would be significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Swainson’s hawks have not been documented nesting on the project site, but large eucalyptus trees along the main entrance to the WWTP provide suitable nest sites and numerous Swainson’s hawk nest sites have been documented within 5 miles of the WWTP, including two within approximately 1 mile. A Swainson’s hawk was observed foraging over the project site during the reconnaissance survey in May 2012.

The eucalyptus trees would not be removed as a part of project implementation, but the adjacent roadway could be resurfaced under the Facilities Master Plan, and this activity could disturb Swainson’s hawks or other raptors if they are nesting in these trees. In addition, project construction activities could disturb Swainson’s hawks and other raptors nesting in the project vicinity resulting in nest failure and mortality of chicks or eggs. Although Swainson’s hawk is the only listed raptor species expected in the project vicinity, white‐tailed kite, a fully protected species, could also nest on or near the site and all raptor species and their nests are protected under California Fish and Wildlife Code. Other raptors that could nest in the project vicinity include American kestrel, red‐tailed hawk, great horned owl, and barn owl. Fallow fields, pastures, low‐growing field and row crops, and grain crops are considered suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks when there is an active nest within ten miles. Since 2006, the only crops grown on the WWTP fields have been corn, Sudan grass, and sweet clover due to stipulations in the NPDES permit to use effluent for irrigation of fodder, fiber, or feed crops that are not directly used for human consumption. In 2004 and 2005, approximately 45 acres of fallow fields were available in addition to these three primary crops. Prior to 2004, the fields were used primarily for irrigated pasture. After 2005, the fallow fields were planted in corn, sweet clover, or Sudan grass. In 2011, the crop ratios were 40% corn, 37% sweet clover, and 23% Sudan grass. While Swainson’s hawks will use these fields for foraging early in the season and following harvest, these crop types do not provide good foraging habitat as they mature through the growing season because the tall, dense cover becomes impenetrable and prey abundance is low (Estep 1989: 34‐35, CDFW 1994: 2). Therefore, the site provides generally poor foraging quality during the portion of the year when Swainson’s hawks are rearing young and have the highest energy demands. Regardless, these crops are considered suitable foraging habitat by CDFW and implementing the Facilities Master Plan could remove up to 35 acres of the 186 existing acres of cropland. However, the majority of the WWTP property would continue to provide the same quality of foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawks after project implementation as it currently does and the property is surrounded by suitable foraging habitat, including several thousand acres of grassland habitat and crops that provide far better foraging quality than the project site. Therefore, conversion of these habitats would not result in a substantial loss of Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat and this impact would be less than significant. Loss of raptor nests, however, would be a significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-21 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. The Immediate Improvements would be constructed primarily within the existing facilities footprint with the exception of an oxidation ditch that would be constructed within a ditch and corn field that do not provide suitable foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk. Therefore, no Swainson’s hawk foraging habitat would be lost under the Immediate Improvements. However, as described above, construction activities for the Immediate Improvements could disturb raptors nesting in the project vicinity. Loss of raptor nests would be a significant impact for the Immediate Improvements. This impact is within the scope of impacts analyzed for the Facilities Master Plan. No additional impacts on raptor nests would occur under the Immediate Improvements.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-3. Swainson’s Hawk and Other Nesting Raptors

The following measures shall be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts on Swainson’s hawk and other raptors:

 The City shall retain a qualified biologist to conduct preconstruction surveys for Swainson’s hawk and other nesting raptors and to identify active nests on and within 0.5 mile of the project site. The surveys shall be conducted before the beginning of any construction activities between March 1 and September 15, following the Recommended Timing and Methodology for Swainson’s Hawk Nesting Surveys in the Central Valley (Technical Advisory Committee 2000).

 Impacts on nesting Swainson’s hawks and other raptors shall be avoided by establishing appropriate buffers around active nest sites identified during preconstruction raptor surveys. No project activity shall commence within the buffer areas until a qualified biologist has determined, in coordination with CDFW, the young have fledged, the nest is no longer active, or until reducing the buffer would not result in nest abandonment. CDFW guidelines recommend implementation of 0.25- or 0.5-mile-wide buffers, but the size of the buffer may be adjusted if a qualified biologist and the City, in consultation with CDFW, determine that such an adjustment would not be likely to adversely affect the nest. Monitoring of the nest by a qualified biologist during and after construction activities will be required if the activity has potential to adversely affect the nest.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.7‐3 would reduce potentially significant impacts on Swainson’s hawk, white‐tailed kite, and other nesting raptors due to implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements to a less‐than‐significant level because it would ensure that these species are not disturbed during nesting so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young.

Impact Tricolored blackbird. Project implementation could result in loss or disturbance of cattail marsh 4.7-4 and weedy vegetation that provides marginally suitable nesting habitat for tricolored blackbird. Disturbance of suitable nest habitat could result in loss of occupied nests, nest abandonment, and direct mortality of chicks and eggs. This impact would be potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

Tall thorny weed patches, such as large patches of Italian thistle or blessed milk thistle, north of the effluent storage reservoir adjacent to Skunk Creek, as well as cattail patches in the effluent storage reservoir, could support nesting tricolored blackbirds. However, the linear stand of cattails in the irrigation ditch is unlikely to support nesting tricolored blackbirds because it is not protected from predators by open water or thorny or

City of Galt 4.7-22 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

impenetrable vegetation. Tricolored blackbirds are not known to nest on the project site, and available nesting habitat on site is limited, consisting of relatively small patches of emergent marsh vegetation and small patches of thorny weeds that are subject to removal at any time and, therefore, not always available during the nesting season. However, there are numerous records of tricolored blackbird colonieswithin5 miles of the WWTP, including one record from immediately adjacent to the easternmost storage basin next to the UPRR tracks. Despite the limited availability and poor quality of habitat, there is still some potential for tricolored blackbirds to nest on the project site and for nesting colonies to be disturbed during construction of facilities upgrades. Disturbance of potentially suitable habitat during construction could result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young if an active tricolored blackbird nesting colony were to be present during ground‐disturbing activities. Loss of an active nesting tricolored blackbird colony would be a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above, despite the limited availability and poor quality of habitat, there is still some potential for tricolored blackbirds to nest on the project site and for nesting colonies to be disturbed during construction of the Immediate Improvements. Disturbance of potentially suitable habitat during construction could result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young if an active tricolored blackbird nesting colony were to be present during ground‐disturbing activities. Loss of an active nesting tricolored blackbird colony would be a potentially significant impact for the Immediate Improvements. This impact is within the scope of impacts analyzed for the Facilities Master Plan. No additional impacts on tricolored blackbird would occur under the Immediate Improvements.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-4. Tricolored Blackbird

The following measures shall be implemented to avoid impacts on nesting tricolored blackbirds:

 To avoid and minimize impacts to tricolored blackbird, the City shall conduct a preconstruction survey for any project activity that would occur during the tricolored blackbird’s nesting season (March 1– August 31). The preconstruction survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist before any activity occurring within 500 feet of suitable nesting habitat, including freshwater marsh and patches of thorny or prickly vegetation. The survey shall be conducted within 14 days before project activity begins.

 If no tricolored blackbird colony is present, no further mitigation is required. If a colony is found, the qualified biologist shall establish a buffer around the nesting colony. No project activity shall commence within the buffer area until a qualified biologist confirms that the colony is no longer active. The size of the buffer shall be determined in consultation with CDFW. Buffer size is anticipated to range from 100 to 500 feet, depending on the nature of the project activity, the extent of existing disturbance in the area, and other relevant circumstances as determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with CDFW.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.7‐4 would reduce potentially significant impacts related to implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements on tricolored blackbird to a less‐than‐significant level because it would ensure that tricolored blackbird colonies are not disturbed during nesting so that project construction would not result in nest abandonment and loss of eggs or young.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-23 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Impact Waters of the United States. Removal of the existing outfall junction structure and effluent flow 4.7-5 metering facilities near the storage reservoir dam and extension of the existing 36-inch final effluent pipeline to discharge at an appropriate location within the existing Skunk Creek stream bed (to replace the existing 18-inch outfall pipe ) could result in discharge of dredge or fill material into Skunk Creek, a federally protected water of the United States and a water of the state. Therefore, implementing the Facilities Master Plan could result in a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters. These impacts would be potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The project site includes a portion of Skunk Creek below the effluent storage reservoir dam where the existing outfall junction structure and effluent flow metering facilities near the storage reservoir dam would be removed. In addition, the existing 36‐inch final effluent pipeline would be extended to discharge at an appropriate location within the existing Skunk Creek stream bed (to replace the existing 18‐inch outfall pipe ). These activities could result in discharges of dredge or fill material into Skunk Creek, a federally protected water of the United States. Construction of other project facilities and upgrades could result in fill of an irrigation ditch along the south fence line of the existing facilities yard that is a water of the state. The potential discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States or waters of the state is a potentially significant impact for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

The Facilities Master Plan, specifically the Immediate Improvements, would improve water quality of effluent discharged to surface receiving water (i.e., primarily Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) to meet the requirements of the 2010 NPDES Permit. However, implementation of the Facilities Master Plan could ultimately result in an increase in the quantity of effluent discharges into Skunk Creek to 6.0 mgd to serve anticipated growth in the City of Galt through buildout of the 2030 General Plan. This increased discharge could alter hydrology through increases in peak flow volume, which can cause geomorphic changes to drainage channels, and could result in potentially significant impacts on water quality through elevated discharges of effluent containing constituent pollutants. However, impacts on water quality are expected to be less than significant because proposed increased discharges into Skunk Creek would comply with applicable water quality standards (see Section 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” and Section 4.6, “Aquatic Biological Resources” for additional details), as required by the City’s NPDES permit for this WWTP. Therefore, increased effluent discharge would not result in long‐term water quality degradation that could cause substantial adverse effects to the aquatic biological resources of receiving waters.

Impacts on hydrology are also expected to be less than significant because the project‐related discharges from the WWTP would not substantially alter the range and magnitude of channel flows currently resulting from background storm events, which are much larger than the additional effluent that would be discharged from the WWTP. In addition, stormwater generated onsite would be routed to the WWTP headworks for treatment, routed through conventional stormwater conveyance and treatment features (i.e., swales and the treated effluent storage reservoir), or a combination of the methods. Because the WWTP unit processes and effluent storage pond provide a large volume for storage of elevated wastewater flows, the discharge of stormwater would be attenuated and minimized consistent with stormwater management policies and regulations. Therefore, project‐related increased discharge of effluent and stormwater would not cause substantial changes in the existing conditions of minor erosion and sedimentation associated with background storm events. Thus, neither the Facilities Master Plan nor Immediate Improvements would substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on‐ or off‐site (See Section 4.5, “Hydrology and Water Quality,” for additional details).

City of Galt 4.7-24 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Terrestrial Biological Resources

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above, the Immediate Improvements could result in removal of the effluent flow meter and extension of the existing 36‐inch final effluent pipeline in Skunk Creek, and fill of a portion of the irrigation ditch containing cattail marsh south of the existing facilities fence line to construct an oxidation ditch. The potential discharge of dredge or fill material into waters of the United States or waters of the state constitutes a significant impact on a water of the state due to the Immediate Improvements. This impact is within the scope of impacts analyzed for the Facilities Master Plan. No additional impacts on waters of the United States or waters of the state would occur under the Immediate Improvements.

Mitigation Measure 4.7-5. Waters of the United States and Waters of the State

The following measures shall be implemented to avoid and minimize potentially significant impacts on waters of the United States and Waters of the State:

 Prior to construction within the channel of Skunk Creek, the City shall hire a qualified biologist to delineate the extent of waters of the United States within the project site and submit the delineation to USACE for verification and preliminary jurisdictional determination. A verified wetland determination is required as part of a Section 404 permit application so this step must be completed prior to applying for a permit to work in Skunk Creek.

 Work within the channel of Skunk Creek shall be conducted when the channel is dry.

 Upon completion of construction in Skunk Creek, all work areas shall be restored to pre-existing contours and conditions so that flow lines and natural hydrology and topography remain unchanged.

 The City shall obtain a USACE Section 404 permit and Central Valley RWQCB Section 401 certification before any groundbreaking activity within 50 feet of, or discharge of fill or dredge material into, Skunk Creek, a water of the United States. The City shall implement all permit requirements.

 The City shall file a report of waste discharge with the Central Valley RWQCB prior to filling the irrigation ditch along the south fence line, and comply with all waste discharge requirements prescribed by the Central Valley RWQCB.

Implementing Mitigation Measure 4.7‐5 would reduce significant impacts related to implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements on waters of the United States or waters of the state to a less‐than‐significant level because it would ensure no net loss of functions and acreage of wetlands, other waters of the United States, and waters of the state.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.7-25 Terrestrial Biological Resources Ascent Environmental

Impact Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites. The project site is located within the Pacific flyway; 4.7-6 however, the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species or alter the character of existing habitat available to migrating birds. This impact would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

The project site is located within the Pacific flyway, which is a major north‐south route for migratory birds along western North America. Large numbers of waterfowl, shorebirds, and cranes may move through the area seasonally and may congregate in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields for winter or use them as resting grounds during longer migrations from the Arctic to Central or South America. However, the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species or alter the character of existing habitat available to migrating birds. The project site does not contain native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This impact would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above, the Immediate Improvements would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. This impact would be less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.7-26 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

4.8 CULTURAL RESOURCES

This section evaluates the potential impacts on cultural resources from implementation of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements. Cultural resources are places or objects that are important for historical, scientific, or religious reasons and are of concern to cultures, communities, groups, or individuals. Cultural resources may include buildings and architectural remains, archaeological sites, or other artifacts that provide evidence of past human activity. This section also assesses the potential of earth‐moving activities that could adversely affect scientifically important fossil remains. Paleontological resources (fossils) are the remains or traces of prehistoric animals and plants. 4.8.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FEDERAL

NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT

The National Historic Preservation Act established the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) to recognize resources associated with local, state, and national history and heritage. Structures and features must usually be at least 50 years old to be considered for listing on the NRHP, barring exceptional circumstances. However, the Office of Historic Preservation has established criteria that call for the potential recordation of resources 45 years or older to account for the time lag in listing the resource. Criteria for listing on the NRHP, which are set forth in Title 26, Part 63 of the Code of Federal Regulations (36 CFR Part 63), are significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, engineering, and culture as present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and that are:

a) associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history;

b) associated with the lives of persons significant in our past;

c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction; represent the work of a master; possess high artistic values, represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d) have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Criterion D is usually reserved for archaeological and paleontological resources.

SECTION 106

Federal regulations for cultural resources are primarily governed by Section 106 of the NHPA (16 United States Code [USC] 470f), which applies to actions taken by federal agencies. The goal of the Section 106 review process is to offer a measure of protection to sites that are determined eligible for listing on the NRHP. The criteria for determining NRHP eligibility are found in 36 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 60. Section 106 requires that prior to the approval of the expenditure of any federal funds or the issuance of any license, the head of any federal agency having direct or indirect jurisdiction over a proposed federal or federally assisted undertaking and the head of any federal department or independent agency having authority to license any undertaking shall take into account the effect of the undertaking on any district, site, building, structure, or object that is included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register. The head of any such federal agency shall afford the

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-1 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

Advisory Council on Historic Preservation established under Title II of this Act a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertaking.

The Council’s implementing regulations, “Protection of Historic Properties,” are found in 36 CFR Part 800. The NRHP criteria (contained in 36 CFR 60.4), used to evaluate resources when complying with NHPA Section 106, state that eligible resources comprise districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and:

a) are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or

b) are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or

c) embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or

d) have yielded or may be likely to yield, information important to history or prehistory.

Archaeological site evaluation assesses the potential of each site to meet one or more of the criteria for NRHP eligibility based upon visual surface and subsurface evidence (if available) at each site location, information gathered during the literature and records searches, and the researcher’s knowledge of and familiarity with the historic or prehistoric context associated with each site. STATE

CALIFORNIA REGISTER OF HISTORIC RESOURCES

The California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) was created to identify resources deemed worthy of preservation on a state level and was modeled closely after the NRHP. The criteria are nearly identical to those of the NRHP, which includes resources of local, state, and region or national levels of significance. The CRHR automatically includes resources listed on the NRHP. The most up‐to‐date listings can be found in a variety of sources including the Sacramento Register of Historic & Cultural Resources, the National Register Information System maintained by the National Park Service (http://www.nps.gov/history/nr/research/nris.htm), and the North Central Information Center at the California State University, Sacramento.

CALIFORNIA HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE

The purpose of the California Historical Building Code (CHBC) (California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 8) is to provide regulations for the preservation, restoration, rehabilitation, relocation, or reconstruction of buildings or structures designated as qualified historical buildings or properties by a local, state or federal jurisdiction. The CHBC intends to provide alternative solutions for the preservation of qualified historical buildings or properties, to provide access for persons with disabilities, to provide a cost‐effective approach to preservation, and to provide for the reasonable safety of the occupants or users.

The CHBC defines “qualified historical building” as “any building, site, structure, object, district or collection of structures, and their associated sites, deemed of importance to the history, architecture or culture of an area by an appropriate local, state or federal governmental jurisdiction. This includes designated buildings or properties on, or determined eligible for, official national, state or local historical registers or official inventories, such as the National Register of Historic Places, California Register of Historical Resources, State Historical Landmarks,

City of Galt 4.8-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

State Points of Historical Interest, and officially adopted city or county registers, inventories, or surveys of historical or architecturally significant sites, places or landmarks.”

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT

Under CEQA, public agencies must consider the effects of their actions on both “historical resources” and “unique archaeological resources.” Pursuant to Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1, a “project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.” “Historical resource” is a term with a defined statutory meaning (see Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 (a) and (b)). The term embraces any resource listed in or determined to be eligible for listing in the CRHR, as described above. Properties of local significance that have been designated under a local preservation ordinance (local landmarks or landmark districts) or that have been identified in a local historical resources inventory may be eligible for listing in the CRHR and are presumed to be “historical resources” for the purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise (Public Resources Code, Section 5024.1; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 4850). Unless a resource listed in a survey has been demolished, lost substantial integrity, or there is a preponderance of evidence indicating that it is otherwise not eligible for listing, a lead agency should consider the resource to be potentially eligible for the CRHR.

In addition to assessing whether historical resources potentially affected by a proposed project are listed or have been identified in a survey process, lead agencies have a responsibility to evaluate them against the CRHR criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project’s impacts on historical resources (Public Resources Code, Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064.5(a)(3)). In general, an historical resource, under this approach, is defined as any object, building, structure, site, area, place, record, or manuscript that:

a) Is historically or archaeologically significant; or is significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, political or cultural annals of California; and

b) Meets any of the following criteria:

1. is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage;

2. is associated with the lives of persons important in our past;

3. embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values; or

4. has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history.

For historic structures, CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3) indicates that that following the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings, or the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (1995), mitigates impacts to a less than significant level. Potential eligibility also rests upon the integrity of the resource. Integrity is defined as the retention of the resource’s physical identity that existed during its period of significance. Integrity is determined through considering the setting, design, workmanship, materials, location, feeling, and association of the resource.

As noted above, CEQA also requires lead agencies to consider whether projects will affect “unique archaeological resources.” Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2(g) states that “unique archaeological resource” means an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that,

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-3 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets any of the following criteria:

a) Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information.

b) Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type.

c) Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person” (Public Resources Code, Section 21083.2 (g)).

Treatment options under Section 21083.2 of the Public Resources Code include activities that preserve such resources in place in an undisturbed state. Other acceptable methods of mitigation under Section 21083.2 include excavation and curation or study in place without excavation and curation (if the study finds that the artifacts would not meet one or more of the criteria for defining a “unique archaeological resource”).

Advice on procedures to identify cultural resources, evaluate their importance, and estimate potential effects is given in several agency publications, such as the series produced by the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). The technical advice series produced by OPR strongly recommends that Native American concerns and the concerns of other interested persons and corporate entities, including but not limited to, museums, historical commissions, associations and societies, be solicited as part of the process of cultural resources inventory. In addition, California law protects Native American burials, skeletal remains, and associated grave goods regardless of their antiquity and provides for the sensitive treatment and disposition of those remains. Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety code specifies protocol when human remains are discovered. The code states:

In the event of discovery or recognition of any human remains in any location other than a dedicated cemetery, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent remains until the coroner of the county in which the human remains are discovered has determined, in accordance with Chapter 10 (commencing with Section 27460) of Part 3 of Division 2 of Title 3 of the Government Code, that the remains are not subject to the provisions of Section 27492 of the Government Code or any other related provisions of law concerning investigation of the circumstances, manner and cause of death, and the recommendations concerning treatment and disposition of the human remains have been made to the person responsible for the excavation, or to his or her authorized representative, in the manner provided in Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources Code.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e) requires that excavation activities be stopped whenever human remains are uncovered and that the county coroner be called in to assess the remains. If the county coroner determines that the remains are those of Native Americans, the NAHC must be contacted within 24 hours. At that time, the lead agency is required to consult with the appropriate Native Americans as identified by the NAHC and directs the lead agency (or applicant), under certain circumstances, to develop an agreement with the Native Americans for the treatment and disposition of the remains.

City of Galt 4.8-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

LOCAL

CITY OF GALT 2030 GENERAL PLAN

The following 2030 Galt General Plan (City of Galt 2009b) policies, which are designed to preserve and maintain City historic resources and establish a framework for the preservation of Galt’s archeological resources, are applicable to the proposed project. Historic Resources Element

Historic Preservation  Policy HRE‐1.7: Environmental Review of Historic Resources: The City shall require that environmental review consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) be conducted on demolition permit applications for buildings designated as, or potentially eligible for designation as, historic structures and shall continue to implement the requirement for a Certificate of Appropriateness as set forth in Appendix A of the Downtown Revitalization and Historic Preservation Specific Plan.

Archeological Resources  Policy HRE‐4.1 Archaeological Resource Surveys: For future development projects on previously un‐ surveyed lands, the City shall require a project applicant to have a qualified archeologist conduct the following activities: (1) conduct a record search at the North Central Information Center located at California State University, Sacramento and other appropriate historical repositories, (2) conduct field surveys where appropriate, and (3) prepare technical reports, where appropriate, meeting California Office of Historic Preservation Standards (Archeological Resource Management Reports). These requirements shall be completed prior to the approval of the specific project.  Policy HRE‐4.2 Native American Resources: The City shall consult with Native American representatives regarding cultural resources to identify locations of importance to Native Americans, including archeological sites and traditional cultural properties. Consistent with state requirements, consultation shall occur at the onset of an amendment to the City’s General Plan or a specific plan.  Policy HRE‐4.3 Discovery of Archaeological Resources: In the event that archaeological/paleontological resources are discovered during site excavation, the City shall require that grading and construction work on the project site be suspended until the significance of the features can be determined by a qualified archaeologist/ paleontologist. The City will require that a qualified archeologist/paleontologist make recommendations for measures necessary to protect a site or to undertake data recovery, excavation, analysis, and curation of archaeological/paleontological materials.  Policy HRE‐4.4 Discovery of Human Remains: Consistent with CEQA Guidelines (Section 15064.5), if human remains of Native American origin are discovered during development project construction, it is necessary to comply with state laws relating to the disposition of Native American burials, which fall within the jurisdiction of the Native American Heritage Commission (Public Resources Code Sec. 5097). If any human remains are discovered or recognized in any location on the project site, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until: a. The Sacramento County Coroner/Sheriff has been informed and has determined that no investigation of the cause of death is required; and

b. if the remains are of Native American origin,

1. The descendants of the deceased Native Americans have made a timely recommendation to the landowner or the person responsible for the excavation work, for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources Code Section 5097.98, or

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-5 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

2. The Native American Heritage Commission was unable to identify a descendant or the descendant failed to make a recommendation within 24 hours after being notified by the commission. 4.8.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING GEOLOGY/PALEONTOLOGY

The relatively flat Sacramento Valley consists predominantly of Pleistocene alluvium, often disturbed historically or currently by agriculture. The project site is located within the region mapped by Helley and Harwood as having Holocene alluvium (Qal) and late Pleistocene alluvium of the upper (Qru) and lower (Qrl) members of the Riverbank Formation. Only the lower Riverbank Formation is mapped on the project site. It consists of red semi‐ consolidated gravel, sand and silt. (Windmiller and Finger 2009).

Paleontological resources are fossils, the remains or traces of prehistoric plants and animals. Fossils are important scientific and educational resources because they can help document the presence and evolutionary history of particular groups of organisms, reconstruct the environments in which these organisms lived, and provide a history of environmental change. Geologists also use fossils to determine the ages of sedimentary units in which they occur, and the nature of the geologic events that resulted in the deposition of the sediments. A paleontologically important rock unit is one that (1) has a high potential paleontological productivity rating and (2) is known to have produced unique, scientifically important fossils.

The Riverbank Formation is geographically broad and includes the project site, includes several vertebrate fossil localities in Sacramento County and is therefore considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Previously recovered fossils include those of horse, camel, Columbian mammoth, ground sloth, dire wolf, coyote, bison, pocket gopher, wood rat, broad‐footed mole, garter snake and blackfish. PREHISTORIC OVERVIEW

The archaeology of California’s Sacramento Valley, Sacramento River‐San Joaquin River Delta (Delta), and San Joaquin Valley is divided into five temporal periods: Paleoindian (11,500–8550 cal [calibrated] B.C.), Lower Archaic (8550–5550 cal B.C.), Middle Archaic (5550–550 cal B.C.), Upper Archaic (550 cal B.C.–cal A.D. 1100), and Emergent or Late Prehistoric Period (cal A.D. 1100–Historic Contact) (Fredrickson 1973, 1974, 1994; Rosenthal 2007). The timeframes for each period are adjusted for modern calibration curves for radiocarbon dates. Variations in climate and environment, such as the drying of pluvial lakes at the transition from the Paleoindian to Lower Archaic periods, generally coincide with these broad chronological divisions.

Although the prehistoric period is estimated to extend from at least 12,000 years ago to historic contact, there are few recorded archaeological sites in the region that predate 5,000 years ago. Recent geoarchaeological studies (e.g., Rosenthal and Meyer 2004a, 2004b; White 2003) confirm periodic episodes of deposition or erosion have buried or removed large segments of the Late Pleistocene landscape. These studies support earlier estimates that Paleoindian and Lower Archaic sites along the lower stretch of the Sacramento River and San Joaquin River drainage systems had been buried during the last 5,000–6,000 years by deposits of Holocene alluvium up to 33 feet (10 meters) thick (Moratto 1984:214).

Throughout the central California lowlands there were periods of climate change and associated alluvial deposition at the end of the Pleistocene (approximately 9050 cal B.C.) and the early Middle Holocene (approximately 5550 cal B.C.) and, according to Rosenthal et al. (2007:151), the Middle Holocene episode buried many of the earliest known archaeology sites in central California. The beginning of the Middle Holocene also witnessed the development of the Delta (Atwater and Belknap 1980; Goman and Wells 2000), after which there was renewed alluvial fan and floodplain deposition during the Late Holocene after approximately 1,000 cal B.C. (Rosenthal et al. 2007:155–156). City of Galt 4.8-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

Just above the valley floor in the foothills, one of the few Early Holocene sites in the region has a record of human occupation dating to 8,500 years ago during the Lower Archaic Period (Meyer and Rosenthal 1998). Located in eastern Contra Costa County, the cultural deposits at CA‐CCO‐637 are situated approximately two meters below the surface within an alluvial fan near Kellogg Creek. Other Lower Archaic Period sites have been excavated in the foothills of Calaveras County, notably at the Skyrocket site (CA‐CAL‐629/630) (LaJeunesse and Pryor 1996).

Subsequent to the Paleoindian and Lower Archaic periods, the cultural framework within the greater project region is further divided into regionally based “patterns” that mark changes in distinct artifact types, subsistence orientation, and settlement patterns. Windmiller, Berkeley, and Augustine are the regionally based patterns defined by Fredrickson (1973, 1974) that are specific to Central Valley prehistory and the current project region. A general pattern of resource exploitation, beginning circa 5,550 cal B.C. and lasting until historic contact in the early 1800s, is represented by each pattern. The patterns were initially identified at specific archaeological sites: the Windmiller site (CA‐SAC‐107) near the Cosumnes River in Sacramento County; the West Berkeley site (CA‐ ALA‐307) in Alameda County on the east side of the Bay; and the Augustine site (CA‐SAC‐127) in the Delta. The patterns generally conform to the following temporal divisions: Middle Archaic Period/Windmiller Pattern, Upper Archaic Period/Berkeley Pattern, Late Prehistoric Period/Augustine Pattern.

MIDDLE ARCHAIC PERIOD/WINDMILLER PATTERN (5550–550 CAL B.C.)

Archaeological sites dating to the Middle Archaic are relatively scarce on the valley floor, but more common in the foothills, particularly in buried contexts between circa 4,050 and 2,050 cal. B.C. (Rosenthal et al. 2007:153). The archaeological record indicates the subsistence system included plant resources, fish, waterfowl, and a variety of large and small mammals (Fredrickson 1973; Heizer 1949; Ragir 1972; Moratto 1984). This mixed procurement strategy of a wide range of natural resources indicates people followed a seasonal foraging strategy. Moratto (1984:206) suggests that populations likely occupied higher elevations in the summer and shifted to lower elevations during the winters. Rosenthal et al. (2007:153) suggest the period witnessed increasing residential stability within the Central Valley along river corridors.

Abundant faunal remains recovered from Windmiller Pattern sites include deer, tule elk, pronghorn, and rabbits; fish remains include sturgeon, salmon, and smaller fishes. Large quantities of projectile points, which have a triangular blade and contracting stems, and are classified within the Sierra Contracting Stem and Houx Contracting Stem series, are common at Windmiller Pattern sites. Recovered fishing implements include angling hooks, composite bone hooks, spears, and baked clay artifacts, which may have been used as net or line sinkers. The combination of milling implements found at Windmiller Pattern sites—grinding slabs (metates) and handstones (manos) as well as many mortar fragments—indicate seeds or acorns formed an important part of the diet during the Middle Archaic Period (Moratto 1984:201; Rosenthal et al. 2007:153, 155). Acorn and pine nut remains have been recovered from foothill sites in Calaveras (CA‐CAL‐629/630 and CA‐CAL‐789) and Fresno (CAL‐FRE‐61) counties.

In addition to net sinkers, baked clay items found at Windmiller Pattern sites include discoids and pipes, as well as cooking “stones.” The variety of recovered artifacts also includes bone tools, shell beads, and ground and polished charmstones, as well as impressions of twined basketry. Materials, such as obsidian tools, quartz crystals, and Olivella shell beads, indicate there was an established trade network. During the Middle Archaic, obsidian sources included quarries in the Cascades, North Coast Ranges, and eastern Sierra (Rosenthal et al. 2007:153, 155). A variety of grave goods accompanied burials in cemetery areas, which were separate from habitation areas.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-7 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

UPPER ARCHAIC PERIOD/BERKELEY PATTERN (550 CAL B.C.–CAL A.D. 1100)

During the Upper Archaic Period, the Windmiller Pattern shifted to a more specialized, adaptive pattern over a 1,000‐year period. Archaeologists generally agree that milling slabs and handstones may have been used primarily for grinding wild grass grains and seeds, while mortars and pestles are better suited to crushing and grinding acorns (Moratto 1984:209–210). An increase in mortars and pestles, accompanied by a decrease in slab milling stones and handstones, indicates there was a shift to a greater reliance on acorns as a dietary staple during the Berkeley Pattern (Fredrickson 1974:125; Moratto 1984:209; Wohlgemuth 2004).

In addition to seeds and acorns, Berkeley Pattern populations continued to exploit a variety of other natural resources. The artifact assemblage demonstrates hunting persisted as an important aspect of food procurement (Fredrickson 1973:125–126). Numerous large shell midden/mounds dated to this period are located near fresh or salt water and indicate exploitation of a variety of aquatic resources was relatively intensive. Numerous types of bone tools, as well as Olivella shell beads and Haliotis ornaments, characterize the artifact assemblages. A few cremations have been discovered from Berkeley Pattern sites, but mortuary practices continue to be dominated by interment.

Based on the data gathered from the artifact assemblages and associated radiocarbon dates, the subsistence pattern characteristic of the Berkeley Pattern may have developed initially in the San Francisco Bay region. The pattern then spreads to the surrounding coastal areas and central California. Moratto (1984:207–211) suggests this pattern is likely related to Eastern Miwok population expansion, spreading from the San Francisco Bay area to the Sacramento Valley and Sierran foothills.

LATE PREHISTORIC PERIOD/AUGUSTINE PATTERN (CAL A.D. 1100–HISTORIC CONTACT)

During the Late Prehistoric Period, there is a substantial increase in the intensity of subsistence exploitation combined with a growth in population associated with the Augustine Pattern (Moratto 1984:211–214). Subsistence practices continue to focus on fishing, hunting, and gathering plant foods; the acorn in particular was intensively harvested. Artifact assemblages include hopper mortars, and shaped mortars and pestles, as well as bone awls that were used for producing coiled baskets. The Augustine Pattern toolkit included harpoons, bone fish hooks, and gorge hooks for fishing and the bow and arrow for hunting—evidenced by the early occurrence of small Gunther barbed series projectile points and Desert‐side notched points later in the period (Rosenthal et al. 2007:158). A unique arrow point style (Stockton serrated) also developed during this period. In addition, in some parts of the lower Sacramento Valley, archaeological assemblages from this period include Cosumnes Brownware. It seems likely that the appearance of ceramics during this period is a direct improvement on the prior baked clay industry.

The increase in sedentism and population growth during this period led to the development of social stratification, with an elaborate ceremonial and social organization. The occurrence of flanged tubular pipes and baked clay effigies representing humans and animals are examples of items associated with ceremonials and rituals. Clamshell disk beads were used as a form of currency during this period, and accompanied the development of extensive exchange networks. Mortuary practices included the cremation of high‐status individuals, flexed burials, and pre‐interment burning of offerings in a grave pit (Fredrickson 1973:127–129; Moratto 1984:211). At some sites, the archaeological deposits preserved house floors or other structural remains (e.g., CA‐CAL‐1180/H, CA‐SAC‐29, CA‐SAC‐267) (Rosenthal et al. 2007:158).

The subsistence and land use patterns accompanied by an increase in sedentism and development of social stratification typical of the Augustine Pattern begin to reflect the cultural patterns known from historic period Native American groups in the area (Rosenthal et al. 2007:157). The southward expansion of Wintu populations may be represented by the Augustine Pattern (Moratto 1984:211–214).

City of Galt 4.8-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

ETHNOGRAPHIC OVERVIEW

The Plains Miwok (also Me‐wuk) historically occupied the project area (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978). They are one of four other Miwok groups (Bay, Northern Sierra, Central Sierra, and Southern Sierra) whose Eastern Miwok language is a subfamily of the Miwokan branch of the Utian language family, Penutian stock. Prior to Euro‐ American contact, the Plains Miwok occupied the lower Mokelumne River, Cosumnes River, and the Sacramento River from Rio Vista to Freeport (Levy 1978:398‐399). Neighboring groups included the Nisenan to the north, Washoe to the east, and Northern Valley Yokuts to the south. On the west, Patwin territory was north of Rio Vista but at least 15 miles west of the project and excluded the banks of the Sacramento River until north of its fork with the Feather River. The Bay Miwok occupied the lands south of Rio Vista to Mount Diablo and westward to Walnut Creek.

The most comprehensive study of the Miwok comes from Spanish mission records, diaries, and journals, as well as ethnographical studies done in the first half of the twentieth century (Bennyhoff 1977; Levy 1978:399). Much of the history of the Plains Miwok, however, is incomplete.

Political units among the Mi‐wuk were structured by similarities in language and ethnicity, termed “tribelets” by ethnographers (Levy 1978:410). Tribelets controlled specific lands and the natural resources within that territory. The population size of Plains Miwok tribelets averaged between 300 and 500 individuals. The territory of each tribelet typically included a main village and smaller satellite villages. Plains Miwok tribelets and villages were clustered along the lower portions of the Sacramento, Cosumnes and Mokelumne river drainages. Traditional houses were semi‐subterranean or aboveground conical houses made with tule matting (Levy 1978:548–549). Villages also contained acorn granaries, winter grinding houses, and conical sweathouses.

The WWTP is located within the former Olonapatme triblet territory (Bennyhoff 1977). Their principal village was located along Laguna Creek and was probably near a marshy area formed by the confluence of Laguna and Skunk creeks about 1 mile northeast of the project area. In 1846, the population of the tribelet was 54 people. During the Gold Rush era, it appears the triblet either lost their identity or were absorbed by the Amuchamne tribelet, which had resettled at Elk Grove during this period.

Seasonally mobile hunter‐gatherers with semi‐permanent villages, the Delta and surrounding areas provided the Plains Miwok with an abundance of natural resources (Levy 1978:542‐ 543). Acorns, particularly from the prevalent valley oak (Quercus lobata), were of particular importance to the diet and were stored in conical‐ shaped granaries prior to processing. Mule deer, pronghorn antelope, and tule elk, as well as smaller mammals such as cottontails, jackrabbits, beaver, squirrels, and woodrats, were regularly hunted. Waterfowl and fish, particularly salmon, were also important components of the Plains Miwok diet. They also fished for sturgeon and lamprey, captured many types of game birds, such as mountain and valley quail, and consumed river mussels and freshwater clams.

Similar to other California Native American groups, the Miwok employed a variety of tools, implements, and enclosures for hunting and collecting natural resources (Levy 1978:543–546). The bow and arrow, snares, traps, nets, and enclosures or blinds were used for hunting land mammals and birds. Fish were caught with nets, seines, hook and line, harpoons, and basketry traps. The principal water craft was the tule balsa canoe. A variety of wooden tools were used to collect plants, such as fire‐hardened digging sticks for roots, beaters for dislodging seeds, and long poles for dislodging acorns and pinecones. Woven burden baskets were used to transport the seeds, roots, or nuts for processing or storage. Both twined and coiled basketry were made by the Miwok.

To process food resources, the Miwok used an array of tools and implements (Levy 1978:545). Bedrock mortars, cobblestone pestles, anvils, and portable stone mortars and pestles were used to grind or mill acorns and seeds. Knives, leaching and boiling baskets, woven strainers and winnowers, and woven drying trays, among others, were used during food preparation. Earth ovens were used to bake acorn bread.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-9 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

The Eastern Miwok participated in an extensive east‐west trade network between the coast and the Great Basin (Levy 1978:411–412). From coastal groups marine shell (olivella and abalone) and steatite moved eastward, while salt and obsidian traveled westward from the Sierras and Great Basin. Basketry, an important trade item, moved in both directions.

The Eastern Miwok came into contact with European culture beginning in the late 1700s, as a result of increased incursions into the area by the Spanish. Traditional lifeways were drastically altered during the early to mid‐ 1800s as Spanish colonization and proselytization, Mexican land grants, and the American takeover and settlement pushed indigenous peoples into the rugged California interior and reduced their numbers through transport to the missions, disease, and slaughter. Plains Miwok are first recorded in mission records in 1811 (Levy 1978:540–542), and most were transported to Mission San José. Many resisted and tried to return to their villages in the Delta, however. Plains Miwok fought the invaders in the 1820s and 1830s, and with neighboring Yokuts, they also attacked Mexican coastal settlements. The secularization of the missions followed, spurred in part by these activities. During the war with Mexico in the 1854s, the Miwoks aided the United States (Cook 1960, 1962).

The discovery in 1848 of gold in the Sierra foothills and the ensuing Gold Rush led to a flood of nonindigenous peoples into Miwok territory. With the loss of the majority of their traditional lands, as well as enslavement, slaughter, and disease, surviving Miwok labored for the growing lumber, ranching, farming, and mining industries (Levy 1978:541). Their reliance on cash income increased as natural resources decreased with the growth of non‐Miwokan communities, farms, and ranches in their traditional territory.

During the first half of the 1900s, the federal government acquired lands (from 2 acres to more than 300 acres) and established reservations, or rancherias, for the Plains Miwok, Northern Sierra Miwok and Central Sierra Miwok (Levy 1978:541). The U.S. Bureau of Indian Affairs terminated relations with most of these rancherias between 1934 and 1972, but status has been restored to the majority of the Rancherias, beginning in 1984. At present, there are seven rancherias that have primarily or exclusively Eastern Miwok populations, although there is no unified California Miwok tribal organization at a state or federal level. The seven federally‐recognized tribal rancherias are: Buena Vista (Plains Miwok, Amador County), Chicken Ranch (Central Sierra Miwok, Tuolumne County), Ione (Northern Sierra and Plains Miwok, Amador County), Jackson (Northern Sierra and Plains Miwok, Amador County), Middletown (Lake Miwok, Lake County), California Valley (formerly Sheep Ranch; Plains and Northern Sierra Miwok, Calaveras County), Shingle Springs (Plains Miwok, El Dorado County), and Tuolumne (Central Sierra Miwok, Tuolumne County) (BIA 2012; California Indian Assistance Program 2003). HISTORIC OVERVIEW

Post‐contact history for the State of California generally is divided into three specific periods: the Spanish Period (1769–1822), the Mexican Period (1822–1848), and the American Period (1848–present). Although there were brief visits by Spanish, Russian, and British explorers from 1529–1769, the beginning of Spanish settlement in California occurred in 1769 with a settlement at San Diego. Twentyone missions were established from 1769 to 1823. After the 1822 revolution by Mexico against the Spanish crown, the Mexican Period is marked by an extensive era of land grants, most of which were in the interior of the state, as well as exploration by American fur trappers west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. The American Period was initiated in 1848 with the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, which ended the Mexican–American War, as well as with the discovery of gold that same year.

SPANISH PERIOD (1769–1822)

Despite being situated within the territory claimed by Spain, exploration between 1529 and 1769 of Alta (upper) California was limited. During this nearly 250‐year span, there were only brief visits by Spanish, Russian, and

City of Galt 4.8-10 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

British explorers. The beginning of Spanish settlement in California, which marked the devastating disruption of the culture of indigenous Californians, occurred in the spring of 1769.

In 1769, Gaspar de Portolá established the first Spanish settlement in Alta California at San Diego, and with Father Junipero Serra founded the first of 21 missions (Mission San Diego de Alcalá) that would be built by the Spanish and the Franciscan Order between 1769 and 1823. Portolá continued north, reaching San Francisco Bay on October 31, 1769. Later expeditions to Alta California in 1772 by Pedro Fages, who was seeking a site for a mission, and in 1776 by Juan Bautista De Anza, who was seeking a site for a presidio and mission, explored the land east of San Francisco Bay and into the vast plains to the east (Gunsky 1989:2–3).

In 1808, Spanish Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga led the first expedition into the Sacramento Valley and traveled northward along the Sacramento River. The expedition was scouting for new mission locations and searching for runaway Indian neophytes from the coastal missions. They also traveled south as far as the Merced River and explored parts of the American, Calaveras, Cosumnes, Feather, Mokelumne, and Stanislaus rivers. In 1813 Lieutenant Gabriel Moraga led an expedition in the lower portion of California’s Central Valley, giving the name San Joaquin to the large river that flows northward through the county (Hoover et al. 2002:369). Later immigrants were attracted by the abundance of wildlife within or along the banks of the rivers, including waterfowl, fish, and fur‐bearing animals. In 1817, the final Spanish expedition into the interior of Alta California was led by Luis Arguello (Beck and Haase 1974:18, 20; Gunsky 1989:3–4). That expedition traveled up the Sacramento River, past the future site of the city of Sacramento to the mouth of the Feather River, before returning to the coast.

MEXICAN PERIOD (1822–1848)

After the end of the Mexican Revolution (1810–1822) against the Spanish crown, all Spanish holdings in North America (including Alta and Baja California) became part of the new Mexican Republic. With the onset of the Mexican Period, an era of extensive land grants began, in contrast to the Spanish colonization through missions and presidios. To increase the population away from the more settled coastal areas where the Spanish had concentrated their settlements, most of the land grants to Mexican citizens in California (Californios) were in the interior.

With the opening by Mexico of California to North Americans after the revolution, the fur trappers, also known as “mountain men,” began exploring west of the Sierra Nevada Range. Jedediah Smith was the first trapper to enter California; his small party trapped and explored along the Sierra Nevada in 1826. In 1827, they entered the Sacramento Valley, traveling along the Cosumnes and American rivers, and camping near Wilton and the Rosemont section of modern‐day Sacramento. Jedediah Smith also traveled through the San Joaquin Valley in 1827. Other trappers soon followed, including employees of the Hudson’s Bay Company in 1832 (Hoover et al. 2002:370).

The Mexican Period was characterized by severe declines in the indigenous populations from the introduction of diseases, relocation to the missions, military raids, and settlement by non‐native groups. Between 1830 and 1833, large numbers of the indigenous population in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys died from disease, likely introduced by the American trappers and/or the local Mexican population. Disease exterminated whole tribes along the American, Merced, Tuolumne, and Yuba rivers (Cook 1955). The epidemic of 1833 decimated entire communities and tribes, claiming thousands of lives. The Central Valley was hit by a second epidemic in 1837, which further decimated indigenous Californians. The issuance of numerous land grants, accompanied by population increases, contributed to the continuing introduction of foreign diseases for which Native Americans had no immunity.

A number of land grants were issued in the Sacramento area, starting in 1833 with John Rogers Cooper, a British sea captain who married into an established Californio family (Gunsky 1989:14). John Sutter received the two

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-11 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

largest land grants in the Sacramento Valley, and in 1839 he founded a trading and agricultural empire called New Helvetia, headquartered at Sutter’s Fort near the divergence of the Sacramento and American Rivers in Valley Nisenan territory. Only a small portion of the 48,839‐acre New Helvetia land grant was located in Sacramento County; the majority was located in today’s Sutter and Yuba counties on the east and west sides of the Feather River.

In addition to New Helvetia, seven land grants were awarded during the Mexican Period in what is now Sacramento County; portions of two overlapped neighboring Amador and San Joaquin counties. Rancho Sanjón de los Moquelumnes within central‐southern Sacramento County and extending into San Joaquin County included the project area (Beck and Haase 1974:28).

AMERICAN PERIOD (1848–PRESENT)

Under the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo of 1848, victory in the Mexican‐American War (1846–1848) resulted in Mexico releasing its northern territories (now the states of California, Arizona, Colorado, New Mexico, and part of Utah) to the United States. The same year California became a territory of the United States, gold was discovered at Sutter’s Mill on the American River in Coloma. The discovery was followed by a vast influx of immigrants and an economic boom, which had a devastating impact on the lives of indigenous Californians in the Central Valley and all along the Sierra Nevada foothills (Chartkoff and Chartkoff 1984:296). The mass introduction and concentration of diseases, the loss of land and territory (including traditional hunting and gathering locales), violence, malnutrition, and starvation accompanied the tens of thousands of gold seekers (Gunsky 1989).

In 1849, one year after the discovery of gold, nearly 90,000 people had journeyed to the gold fields of California, and a portion of Sutter’s Mexican land grant became the bustling Gold Rush boomtown of Sacramento. After Sutter began a steamer service Sacramento served as a river transportation hub, providing critical access to the mining district in the foothills. By 1853, the city had 12 stage lines and was later the westernmost point of the Pony Express (1860–1861) and the terminal of the first California railroad, the Sacramento Valley line, which ran 22 miles east to Folsom (Beck and Haase 1974:51, 53, 68). In 1850, California became the thirty‐first state, largely as a result of the Gold Rush. By 1853, the population of the state exceeded 300,000 and in 1854, Sacramento became the state capital.

With the completion of the transcontinental railroad in 1869, thousands of new settlers and immigrants poured into the state during the second half of the nineteenth century. Mining shifted toward more industrialized methods of extraction, including hydraulic and dredge mining as the surface gold (i.e., placer gold) disappeared along the rivers and other waterways. Hydraulic mining was outlawed in the 1880s, although dredge mining continued in the western Sierra foothills into the 1950s but at a smaller scale than during the Gold Rush. Extensive dredge tailings along the American, Cosumnes and Yuba rivers, among others, bear witness to this environmentally destructive mining method.

By the early 1900s, California was rapidly becoming a national leader in the production of agricultural products. The dominant industry in the Sacramento area became agriculture and livestock (sheep, beef, and dairy cattle) production. Rice, hay, vegetables, fruits, and nuts were the primary agricultural products and in turn, these promoted the growth of food‐processing plants in Sacramento and nearby Yolo County. By the 1954s, several military installations had located in Sacramento County near the city of Sacramento, and by the 1950s, some of the leading aerospace industries in the state of California had also located in this region.

LOCAL HISTORY

In 1844, Mexican Governor Manuel Mitcheltorena awarded Rancho Sanjón de los Moquelumnes to Anastacio Chabolla, a soldier (Cowan 1956:49). In 1865, the grant was patented to Chabolla and confirmed to his heirs. The

City of Galt 4.8-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

35,508‐acre grant extended southward from the Cosumnes River to the Mokelumne River, and included the project area and today’s City of Galt. The majority of the land was located in today’s Sacramento County; the southern extent was in San Joaquin County (Beck and Haase 1974:28).

Located 1 mile southeast of the project area, Twin Cities was a small stage stop along the old Stockton Road (now SR 99) halfway “tween” Sacramento and Stockton. The “Tween Cities” stop evolved into “Twin Cities” (Galt Area Historical Society 2005). The small town eventually disappeared but is remembered by today’s Twin Cities Road.

By 1869, the mainline tracks running along the east side of the project area were laid by the Western Pacific Railroad Company. By 1897, the Central Pacific was acquired by the Southern Pacific; the Southern Pacific later merged with the Union Pacific Railroad. The Western Pacific laid out the town of Galt alongside the tracks in 1869 (City of Galt 2012). During the Gold Rush era, ranchers and farmers settled in the surrounding region and provided beef cattle, hogs, and dairy products to the burgeoning population in Sacramento and the foothills mines.

John McFarland, Andrew Whitaker, Dr. Obed Harvey, John McCaulley, and Richard Rude were among the landowners in the region with the largest ranches or farms (City of Galt 2012). By 1861, Dr. Harvey had purchased the entire Dry Creek Township (City of Galt 2005:9.7). Although Dr. Harvey is considered the founder of Galt, the town was named by McFarland. McFarland named Galt after his Canadian hometown, which had been named for the Scottish novelist, John Galt (Gudde 1998:154). By 1880, the town had two general merchandise stores, a hotel, variety store, two saloons, a barley mill, two barber shops, two wagon and carriage manufacture and repair shops, a harness shop, livery stable, and a Wells Fargo & Co. Express Office (City of Galt 2012).

In 1867, John McCaulley received Rancho Sanjón de los Moquelumnes as part of a mortgage foreclosure on the estate of William Hicks. Hicks had journeyed to California in 1843 and settled on the Cosumnes River. He acquired Sanjón de los Moquelumnes around 1860 and ran cattle on the land.

Some of the historic buildings from Galt’s early years still stand in Old Town, including a brick building built by John McFarland on the corner of 4th and B Streets (Galt Area Historical Society 2006). In 1869, the building also housed the town’s first post office. The McFarland Living History Ranch, which is owned by the Sacramento County Department of Parks and Recreation and leased by the Galt Area Historical Society, preserves McFarland’s home and 35 acres around the building (Galt Area Historical Society 2012). Incorporated in the 1980s and with a city population of over 24,000, Galt retains a small town feeling and remains an agriculturally oriented community surrounded by large ranches and dairies. 4.8.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

The proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would cause a significant impact on cultural resources if it would:

 cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archeological resource or a historical resource as defined in Section 21083.2 of CEQA and Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, respectively; or  disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries; or  directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-13 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines “substantial adverse change” as physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration of the resource or its immediate surroundings.

Section 21083.2 of CEQA defines “unique archaeological resource” as an archeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated that, without merely adding to the current body of knowledge, there is a high probability that it meets one or more of the following criteria: (1) that it contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information; (2) that it as a special and particular quality, such as being the oldest of its type or the best available example of its type; or (3) that it is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person. METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

To determine if prehistoric or historic cultural resources were previously recorded within the project areas, a Cultural Resources Inventory Report was prepared by Parus Consulting, Inc., which is on file for review by authorized individuals with the Central California Information Center of the CHRIS and at the City of Galt Planning Department, 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, California 95632 (209/366‐7230).

The Cultural Resources Inventory for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements included a cultural resources literature search to determine the extent to which the project area had been previously surveyed, and the number and type of cultural resources within a 0.25‐ mile radius of the project limits at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) of the California Historical Resources Information System at California State University, Sacramento, on May 7, 2012. The archival searches consisted of an archaeological and historical records and literature review and a review of historic maps, including:

 National Register of Historic Places: listed properties (computer listing January 2012);  Determined Eligible Properties (2012);  California Register of Historical Resources (2012);  Historic Property Data File (4/5/2012);  California Inventory of Historical Resources (OHP 1976);  California Historical Landmarks (2011);  Caltrans Bridge Inventory;  USGS Galt 7.5‐minute quadrangles: 1907, 1968 (PR 1989), and 1968 (PR 1980);  1870 Government Land Office (GLO) Plat for T5N, R6E; and  1929 US Army Corps of Engineers Map Sheet 1760 IV SE (1:25,000).

The Cultural Resources Inventory also included a request to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on May 3, 2012 for a search of their Sacred Lands File for traditional cultural resources within or near the project site. The reply from the NAHC, dated May 18, 2012, stated that the search failed to indicate the presence of Native American sacred lands or traditional cultural properties in the immediate vicinity of the project area. Eleven (11) Native American tribes or individuals provided by the NAHC were contacted (by letter dated May 21, 2012) requesting any information regarding sacred lands or other heritage sites that might be impacted by the proposed project. Follow‐up telephone calls were made if no response was received.

Finally, an intensive pedestrian survey of the entire project area and area of potential effect was completed on May 8, 2012. Survey transects were spaced at intervals no greater than 15 feet and all undeveloped ground surfaces were examined for artifacts (e.g., flaked stone tools, toolmaking debris, stone milling tools, or fire‐ affected rock), soil discoloration that might indicate the presence of a cultural midden, soil depressions and

City of Galt 4.8-14 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

features indicative of the former presence of structures or buildings (e.g., postholes, foundations), or historic‐ era debris (e.g., metal, glass, ceramics).

Efforts to identify paleontological resources for the City of Galt’s 2009 Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Filtration, Ultraviolet Disinfection, and Biosolids Dewatering Project included a search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology’s (UCMP) locality and specimen databases for all Sacramento County records for the Pleistocene Epoch or the Riverbank Formation. In addition, a paleontological field inspection of the project site was conducted on April 16, 2009 by paleontologist Kenneth L. Finger, Ph.D. (Windmiller and Finger 2009). Because paleontological resources are based on the underlying geologic unit at the project site, this previous paleontological investigation remains valid for analysis of the potential effects of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project. ISSUES OR POTENTIAL IMPACTS NOT DISCUSSED FURTHER

Section 15064.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines defines “historical resource” as a resource (1) listed on, or determined to be eligible by the State Historical Resources Commission for listing on, the CRHR; (2) listed in a local register of historic resources or as a significant resource in a historical survey, or (3) considered to be “historically significant” by a lead agency as supported by substantial evidence in the record. Generally a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be “historically significant” if it meets any of the following criteria for listing on the CRHR: (1) is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage; (2) is associated with the lives of persons important to our past; (3) embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses high artistic value; or (4) has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important tin prehistory or history.

As discussed in Section 3.5.2(a) of the Initial Study (Appendix A), no historical resources listed on or eligible for the CRHR were identified on or within a quarter mile of the project site. Therefore, implementation of the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. No impact would occur and this issue is not discussed further in this Draft Program EIR. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Effects on Previously Undiscovered Archaeological Resources. Implementation of the WWTP 4.8-1 Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would result in improvements to and expansion of facilities on the project site. There are no known archaeological resources on the project site and, considering the previous site disturbances due to construction of the existing WWTP facility and agricultural practices, the possibility that intact archaeological sites would be uncovered is extremely low. However, it is possible to encounter significant buried archaeological resources during construction. This impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

No archaeological resources were identified on or within a quarter mile of the project site by record searches and field surveys. Considering the proposed facility upgrades and expansion would occur in areas previously disturbed by construction of the existing WWTP facility or by agricultural practices, there is an extremely low probability that intact prehistoric, ethnohistoric, or historic‐era archaeological sites would be uncovered. Though unlikely, it is possible to encounter significant buried archaeological resources during construction. Buried archaeological resources may include but are not limited to deposits of stone, bone and shell artifacts,

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-15 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

dark gray “midden” sediments, historic trash deposits, and stone or adobe foundations. This impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above, there are no identified archaeological resources on or within a quarter mile of the Facilities Master Plan project area and, due to previous site disturbance, there is an extremely low probability that archaeological resources would be uncovered. Nonetheless, it is possible to encounter significant buried archaeological resources during construction. This impact is considered potentially significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 4.8-1. Accidental Discovery of Archaeological Resources.

In the event that cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, work must be halted in the area within 100 feet of the find until a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for archaeologists (National Park Service 1983) can assess the significance of the find and determine if further mitigation is required. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, additional work, such as data recovery excavation, may be warranted and would be discussed in consultation with the City and any other relevant regulatory agency, as appropriate. If an archaeological resource does not meet the criteria in PRC Section 21084.1 or State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4 but does meet the definition of a unique archaeological resource in PRC Section 21083.2, then the site shall be treated in accordance with the provisions in PRC Section 21083.2. If an archaeological site is neither a unique archaeological resource nor historical resource, the effects of the project on that resource shall not be considered a significant effect on the environment.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8.1 would reduce potential archaeological resource impacts related to implementation of both the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements to a less‐than‐significant level.

Impact Effects on Previously Undiscovered Human Remains. Implementation of the WWTP Facilities 4.8-2 Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would result in improvements to and expansion of facilities on the project site. There are no known human remains on the project site and, considering the previous site disturbances due to construction of the existing WWTP facility and agricultural practices, the possibility that human remains would be uncovered is extremely low. However, it is possible to encounter interred human remains during construction. This impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

No human remains were identified on or within a quarter mile of the Facilities Master Plan project area by record searches and field surveys. Considering the proposed facility upgrades and expansion would incur in a project area previously disturbed by construction of the existing WWTP facility or by agricultural practices, there is an extremely low probability that human remains would be uncovered. Though unlikely, it is possible to encounter human remains during construction. This impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt 4.8-16 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Cultural Resources

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above, no human remains have been identified on or within a quarter mile of the Facilities Master Plan project area and, due to previous site disturbance, there is an extremely low probability that human remains would be uncovered. Nonetheless, it is possible to encounter human remains during construction. This impact is considered potentially significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 4.8-2. Accidental Discovery of Human Remains.

In the event that human remains are inadvertently discovered during ground-disturbing activities, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 states that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be of Native American origin, the Coroner will notify the NAHC, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendent (MLD). The MLD shall complete the inspection of the site within 24 hours of notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8‐2 would reduce potential impacts to human remains due to implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements to a less‐than‐significant level.

Impact Effects on Paleontological Resources. Implementation of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan, 4.8-3 including the Immediate Improvements, would result in excavations, which are likely to encounter late Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Riverbank Formation beneath the surface layers of artificial fill overlying agriculturally disturbed soil. The Riverbank Formation includes several vertebrate fossil localities in Sacramento County and is, therefore, considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. However, the potential of adversely affecting these resources is low because vertebrate fossils in floodplain sediments like those of the Riverbank Formation are distributed as localized deposits and their occurrence is therefore unpredictable. Nonetheless, because the potential exists for project-related excavations to adversely affect a unique paleontological resource, this impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

No paleontological resources or unique geological features have been identified on the project site or in the project vicinity. However, project‐related excavations are likely to encounter late Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Riverbank Formation beneath the surface layers of artificial fill overlying agriculturally disturbed soil. The Riverbank Formation includes several vertebrate fossil localities in Sacramento County and is, therefore, considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. However, the potential to impact these resources is low because vertebrate fossils in floodplain sediments like those of the Riverbank Formation are distributed as localized deposits and their occurrence is therefore unpredictable. Nonetheless, because the potential exists for project‐related excavations to adversely affect a unique paleontological resource, this impact is considered potentially significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR 4.8-17 Cultural Resources Ascent Environmental

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (Exhibits 3‐3 and 3‐4). No additional ground disturbance would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above, no paleontological resources have been identified on or in the vicinity of the Facilities Master Plan project area. However, as described above, excavations for Immediate Improvements are likely to encounter late Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Riverbank Formation which is considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Although the potential to impact these resources is low because vertebrate fossils in floodplain sediments like those of the Riverbank Formation are distributed as localized deposits and their occurrence is therefore unpredictable, the potential still exists for project‐related excavations to adversely affect a unique paleontological resource. This impact is considered potentially significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

Mitigation Measure 4.8-3. Accidental Discovery of Paleontological Resources.

In the event that paleontological resources are discovered, all construction activity shall be halted within 10 feet of the discovery. Notification procedures provided during the preconstruction meeting(s) shall be followed. The decision to conduct paleontological salvage operations will be determined by the paleontologist in consultation with City of Galt staff and project management. If deemed significant, the paleontological finds shall be salvaged in accordance with professional paleontological standards. This will include removal of identifiable paleontological remains, fossil preparation and subsequent curation of these remains at a recognized repository such as the University of California Museum of Paleontology.

Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.8‐3 would reduce potential paleontological resource impacts related to implementation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements to a less‐than‐significant level.

City of Galt 4.8-18 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Environmental Justice

4.9 ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

This section addresses environmental justice issues for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements. Environmental justice is defined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) Office of Environmental Justice as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” Fair treatment means that “no group of people, including racial, ethnic, or socioeconomic group, shall bear a disproportionate share of negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, municipal, and commercial operations or the execution of federal, state, local, and tribal programs and policies.” 4.9.1 REGULATORY BACKGROUND FEDERAL

Executive Order (EO) 12898, “Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low‐ Income Populations” (59 Federal Register 7629 [1994]), directs federal agencies to identify and address the disproportionately high and adverse health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low‐ income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EO also directs each federal agency to develop a strategy for implementing environmental justice. EO 12898 is also intended to promote nondiscrimination in federal programs that affect human health and the environment, as well as provide minority and low‐income communities access to public information and public participation.

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has oversight of the federal government’s compliance with EO 12898. To facilitate compliance, CEQ prepared and issued, in consultation with EPA, Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997). STATE

In California, Senate Bill (SB) 115 (Chapter 690, Statutes of 1999) established the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) as the coordinating agency for state environmental justice programs (California Government Code Section 65040.12[a]) and defined environmental justice in statute as “the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies” (California Government Code Section 65040.12[e]).

Assembly Bill (AB) 1553 (Chapter 762, Statutes of 2001) required OPR to incorporate environmental justice considerations in the General Plan Guidelines. AB 1553 specified that the guidelines should propose methods for local governments to address the following:

 planning for the equitable distribution of new public facilities and services that increase and enhance community quality of life,  providing for the location of industrial facilities and uses that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety in a manner that seeks to avoid over‐concentrating these uses in proximity to schools or residential dwellings,  providing for the location of new schools and residential dwellings in a manner that avoids proximity to industrial facilities and uses that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety, and  promoting more livable communities by expanding opportunities for transit‐oriented development.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.9-1 Environmental Justice Ascent Environmental

Although environmental justice is not a mandatory topic in the general plan, OPR is required to provide guidance to cities and counties for integrating environmental justice into their general plans. The 2003 General Plan Guidelines included the contents required by AB 1553 (OPR 2003). LOCAL

CITY OF GALT GENERAL PLAN

The 2030 Galt General Plan (City of Galt 2009) contains the following policies related to environmental justice that may be applicable to the proposed project: Land Use Element

Environmental Justice  Policy LU‐10.1: Environmental Justice. The City shall ensure the fair treatment of people of all races, cultures, and incomes with respect to the development, adoption, implementation, and enforcement of land use and environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The City shall ensure that no part of the community suffers disproportionately from adverse human health or environmental effects, and all people live in clean, healthy, and sustainable communities.  Policy LU‐10.2: Equal Public Participation. The City shall ensure that all community residents have an opportunity for public participation in the decision‐making process.  Policy LU‐10.3: Equitable Distribution of New Public Facilities and Services. The City shall plan for the equitable distribution of new public facilities and services that increase and enhance the community’s quality of life.  Policy LU‐10.4: Location of Industrial Facilities. The City shall provide for the location of industrial facilities and uses that pose a significant hazard to human health and safety in a manner that seeks to avoid proximity to schools or residential dwellings. 4.9.2 EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

For purposes of this analysis, information on demographics and income and poverty status was obtained for Census Tract 95.01 (the project area), the City of Galt, and Sacramento County. The data collected is from the 2010 U.S. Census, which, for purposes of this analysis, is considered “existing conditions.” DEMOGRAPHICS

Table 4.9‐1 presents the demographics of Census Tract 95.01 (which includes the project area), the Galt Census County Division (CCD), and Sacramento County from the 2010 U.S. Census. The Galt CCD includes the City of Galt as well as surrounding areas within the county, such as Wilton, which is why the population shown in Table 4.9‐1 (37,029) is greater than the City of Galt’s current population of approximately 24,000. In 2010, approximately 58% to 70% of the population in the project area, Galt CCD, and Sacramento County identified themselves as white, approximately 1% to 10% identified themselves as black, and approximately 2% to 14% identified themselves as Asian (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). Approximately 56% of the project area’s population identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, which is considerably higher than Galt’s (approximately 35%) and the County’s average (approximately 22%).

City of Galt 4.9-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Environmental Justice

Table 4.9-1 Demographics: Census Tract 95.01 (Project Area), Galt CCD, and Sacramento County Census Tract 95.01 Galt CCD Sacramento County (Including Project Area) Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Number Number Number Population Population Population Total Population 2,772 100.0% 37,029 100.0% 1,418,788 100.0% Race White 1,678 60.5% 25,978 70.2% 815,151 57.5% Black or African 30 1.1% 759 2.0% 147,058 10.4% American American Indian and 65 2.3% 533 1.4% 14,308 1.0% Alaska Native Asian 48 1.7% 1,423 3.8% 203,211 14.3% Native Hawaiian and 15 0.5% 134 0.4% 13,858 1.0% Other Pacific Islander Some Other Race 767 27.7% 6,105 16.5% 131,691 9.3% Two or More Races 169 6.1% 2,097 5.7% 93,511 6.6% Hispanic or Latino (of any race) Hispanic or Latino 1,540 55.6% 12,819 34.6% 306,196 21.6% Not Hispanic or Latino 1,232 44.4% 24,210 65.4% 1,112,592 78.4% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010a

INCOME AND POVERTY STATUS

Table 4.9‐2 presents household income, per capita income, and poverty status for Census Tract 95.01 (which includes the project area), the Galt CCD, and Sacramento County in 2010. Median household income was $53,581 in the project area, $58,476 in the Galt CCD, and $56,439 in Sacramento County (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). Between approximately 8% and 11% of families and 12% and 14% of individuals were below the poverty level in the project area and in Galt, which was generally similar to that of the County (approximately 10 % of families and 14% of individuals).

In 2010, the weighted average federal poverty threshold was $11,139 for one person and $17,374 for a three‐ person family (U.S. Census Bureau 2010b).

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.9-3 Environmental Justice Ascent Environmental

Table 4.9-2 Income and Poverty Status: Census Tract 95.01 (Project Area), Galt CCD, and Sacramento County Census Tract 95.01 Galt CCD Sacramento County (Project Area) Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total Number Number Number Population Population Population Households 778 100.0% 7,204 100.0% 508,499 100.0% Less than $10,000 19 2.4% 223 3.1% 25,150 4.9% $10,000 to $14,999 8 1.0% 304 4.2% 27,357 5.4% $15,000 to $24,999 137 17.6% 616 8.6% 49,482 9.7% $25,000 to $34,999 49 6.3% 709 9.8% 52,103 10.2% $35,000 to $49,999 141 18.1% 931 12.9% 70,539 13.9% $50,000 to $74,999 184 23.7% 1,904 26.4% 98,642 19.4% $75,000 to $99,999 122 15.7% 1,203 16.7% 69,015 13.6% $100,000 to $149,999 82 10.5% 1,027 14.3% 71,957 14.2% $150,000 to $199,999 27 3.5% 252 3.5% 25,923 5.1% $200,000 or more 9 1.2% 35 0.5% 18,331 3.6% Median Household Income $53,581 ‐‐$58,476 ‐‐ $56,439 ‐‐ Per Capita Income $19,938 ‐‐$21,112 ‐‐ $26,953 ‐‐ Poverty Status – Families ‐‐ 11.3% ‐‐ 7.9% ‐‐ 10.2% Poverty Status – Individuals ‐‐ 14.3% ‐‐ 12.2% ‐‐ 13.9% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2010a

4.9.3 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

According to the CEQ’s Environmental Justice Guidance under the National Environmental Policy Act (CEQ 1997), the first step in conducting an environmental justice analysis is to define minority and low‐income populations. Based on these guidelines, a minority1 population is present in a project area if either (a) the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50% or (b) the minority population percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in the general population. By the same rule, a low‐income population exists if the project area consists of 50% or more people living below the poverty threshold, as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau, or is significantly greater than the poverty percentage of the general population.

The second step of an environmental justice analysis requires a finding of a high or adverse effect. The CEQ guidance indicates that when determining whether the effects are high and adverse, agencies are to consider whether the risks or rates of impact “are significant (as employed by NEPA) or above generally accepted norms.” The final step requires a finding that the effect on the minority or low‐income population be disproportionately high and adverse. The CEQ offers a non‐quantitative definition stating that an effect is disproportionate if it appreciably exceeds the risk or rate to the general population.

1 Minority is defined by the CEQ as individuals who are members of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic. City of Galt 4.9-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Environmental Justice

The following population characteristics are considered in this analysis:

 race and ethnicity as described in the 2010 U.S. Census, and  per capita income as it relates to the federal poverty threshold. SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA

To make a finding that disproportionately high and adverse effects would likely fall on a minority or low‐income population, three conditions must be met simultaneously: (1) there must be a minority or low‐income population in the affected area, (2) a high and adverse effect must exist, and (3) the effect must be disproportionately high and adverse on the minority or low‐income population. IMPACT ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

Impact Potential Disproportionate Effects on Minority and Low-Income Populations Due to Project 4.9-1 Construction. Construction associated with the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would occur in an area (Census Tract 95.01) with a minority population (Hispanic or Latino). However, construction would be short-term and localized, and the project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on this population. This impact would therefore be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

As described above, in the 2010 U.S. Census approximately 56% of the population in Census Tract 95.01 (which includes the project area) identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino, which is considerably higher than Galt’s (approximately 35%) and the County’s average (approximately 22%)(U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, a disproportionately high minority population is present in the project area.

Approximately 11% of families and 14% of individuals were below the poverty level in the project area in 2010, which was generally similar to that of Galt (approximately 8% of families and 12% of individuals) and the County (approximately 10% of families and 14% of individuals). Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, disproportionately high low‐income population is not present in the project area.

Construction impacts associated with the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would primarily occur at the existing WWTP, which is surrounded by City‐owned agricultural fields as well as agricultural lands and habitat conservation areas in unincorporated Sacramento County. The nearest residences to the WWTP are located approximately 2,000 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road. These residences could be subject to construction‐related impacts, including increased noise, light and glare, traffic, and dust (these are described in more detail below). However, these impacts would be short‐term, and construction would take place when most residents are not expected to be home (i.e., during working hours).

As proposed by the City, construction activities would likely take place primarily between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on weekdays, with the possibility of work between 7:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday. As described in Section 3.13 of the Initial Study in Appendix A , the City of Galt Noise Control Standards (Galt Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Safety, Section 8.40) establishes exterior noise standards as 55 A‐weighted decibels (dBA) for daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 50 dBA for nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) (Section 8.40.040). Offsets are applied to the performance standards depending on the cumulative duration of the noise levels, not exceeding +20 dB Lmax for any time per hour. Exemptions to the City’s noise standards are described in Code Section 8.40.060, and include exemption for noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling,

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.9-5 Environmental Justice Ascent Environmental

demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided the activities take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Noise associated with agricultural operations is also exempt, provided such operations take place only between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. Furthermore, Code Section 8.40.060K exempts public works projects, including the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, maintenance or repair of public infrastructure or facilities, from the City’s established noise standards. Therefore, the proposed construction activities would be consistent with the limitations of the City Code and short‐term construction noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards, or a substantial temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project (see Section 3.7, “Project Construction,” of this Draft Program EIR and Section 3.13, “Noise,” of the Initial Study in Appendix A).

The limited amount of new lighting for the proposed project would represent a negligible addition relative to the existing facility lighting. Proposed facilities would be constructed with non‐reflective materials, as are the existing facilities (see Section 3.1, “Aesthetics,” of the Initial Study in Appendix A).

Project construction would result in short‐term increases in traffic on local roadways. Construction activities would include equipment and materials hauling to and from the project site, construction employee commute trips to and from the project site, and on‐site hauling of equipment and materials. Truck trips to the project site would occur on Twin Cities Road and SR 99 generally during the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Although there would be some vehicle traffic associated with hauling heavy equipment and construction materials to the site, this would occur for only a few weeks at most, and would not occur throughout the duration of project construction. Workers commuting to and from the site would represent the largest increase in traffic volumes during construction, but this would be limited mainly to morning arrival and afternoon departures, would occur only during established working hours, and would not produce a large enough traffic volume to significantly alter existing level of service designations or exceed the capacity of the existing local roadways or highway(see Section 3.16, “Transportation and Circulation,” of the Initial Study in Appendix A).

As addressed in Section 4.3, “Air Quality,” of this Draft Program EIR, air emissions due to construction of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would be typical of construction projects and the magnitude of these impacts would be reduced with implementation of Mitigation Measures 4.3‐1 and 4.3‐4.

In summary, project construction is not expected to result in a high and adverse effect because it would be short‐term, localized, and would not result in noise, light and glare, traffic, or air quality effects that exceed established standards. Therefore, the project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on a minority or low‐income population due to project construction. This impact would therefore be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, approximately 1 acre located directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (see Exhibits 3‐3, 3‐4, and 4.2‐1). No additional ground disturbance or land conversion would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, the Immediate Improvements would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on a minority or low‐income population due to project construction, and this impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.9-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR Ascent Environmental Environmental Justice

Impact Potential Disproportionate Effects on Minority and Low-Income Populations Due to Increased 4.9-2 Fees. Increased City fees imposed to fund the Facilities Master Plan, including the Immediate Improvements, would affect the City’s customers equally based on comparable usage factors. Because all of the City’s customers would be affected equally by the fee increase and all customers would be served by the expanded and improved WWTP, the project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on a minority or low-income population. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

WWTP FACILITIES MASTER PLAN

As described above under Impact 4.9‐1, a minority population (for purposes of this analysis) is present in the project area because approximately 56% of the population in Census Tract 95.01 (including the project area) identified themselves as Hispanic or Latino in the 2010 U.S. Census, which is considerably higher than Galt’s average (approximately 35%) and the County’s average (approximately 22%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a). This minority population, however, is located outside of the City limits (and thus the City’s WWTP service area); therefore, this population does not currently pay for or receive service from the City’s WWTP. With implementation of the proposed project, this situation would remain unchanged: the minority population in Census Tract 95.01 would not be subject to the fee increase (discussed below), nor would it benefit from an expanded and improved WWTP. No impact would occur.

A low‐income population is not present in the project area because the percentage of families and individuals (approximately 11% and 14%, respectively) living below the poverty level in the project area in 2010 was generally similar to that of Galt and Sacramento County (approximately 8% to 10% and 12% to 14%, respectively) (U.S. Census Bureau 2010a).

Operation of the Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements would provide increased wastewater treatment capacity and improved effluent water quality for all of the City’s customers equally, including minority and low‐income populations that may be present in the City’s service area. Potential funding sources for the proposed project include a Special Appropriations Grant from EPA and a loan from the Clean Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) program (see Section 1.1, “Purpose and Intended Uses of this Draft Program Environmental Impact Report”). The City would likely increase customer fees to repay a portion of these loans. The exact funding mechanisms for the Facilities Master Plan are yet to be determined; therefore, potential changes in customers’ fees cannot be evaluated at this time. However, any increased fees would be applied equitably to all customers in the City’s service area based on usage factors (i.e., not only to minority and low‐ income populations that may be present). As such, the project would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on a minority or low‐income population due to increased fees. This impact would therefore be less than significant for all phases of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan.

IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The footprint of disturbance for the Immediate Improvements, approximately 1 acre located directly south of the existing WWTP facilities, is fully encompassed within the WWTP Facilities Master Plan project area (see Exhibits 3‐3, 3‐4, and 4.2‐1). No additional ground disturbance or land conversion would occur outside of the area of potential effect for the overall Facilities Master Plan. As described above for all phases of the Facilities Master Plan, the Immediate Improvements would not have a disproportionately high and adverse effect on a minority or low‐income population due to increased fees, and this impact is considered less than significant for the Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR 4.9-7 Environmental Justice Ascent Environmental

MITIGATION MEASURES

No mitigation is required for the WWTP Facilities Master Plan or Immediate Improvements.

City of Galt 4.9-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Improvements Project Draft Program EIR