Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
September 20, 2018
Prepared for: Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 101 Providence Mine Rd. Suite 202 Nevada City, CA 95959 Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for: Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 101 Providence Mine Rd. Suite 202 Nevada City, CA 95959
September 20, 2018
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents
ABBREVIATIONS ...... I
PROJECT INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW ...... 1 1.2 PROJECT LOCATION ...... 1 1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND ...... 1 1.4 CEQA PROCESS ...... 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...... 6 2.1 PROJECT NEED AND PURPOSE ...... 6 2.1.1 General Improvements...... 7 2.1.2 Expanded Treatment Capacity ...... 7 2.1.3 Expanded Storage Capacity ...... 8 2.1.4 Expanded Disposal Capacity ...... 8 2.1.5 Proposed Pipeline Alignment ...... 9 2.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE ...... 9 2.3 OPERATION ...... 12 2.4 PERMITS AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS ...... 12
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT ...... 14 3.1 AESTHETICS ...... 14 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 14 3.1.2 Environmental Setting ...... 15 3.1.3 Impact Analysis ...... 18 3.1.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 20 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ...... 20 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 20 3.2.2 Environmental Setting ...... 23 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ...... 24 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 26 3.3 AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ...... 27 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 27 3.3.2 Environmental Setting ...... 32 3.3.3 Impact Analysis ...... 35 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 41 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ...... 43 3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 43 3.4.2 Environmental Setting ...... 50 3.4.3 Impact Analysis ...... 77 3.4.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 85
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ...... 95 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 95 3.5.1 Environmental Setting ...... 100 3.5.2 Impact Analysis ...... 109 3.5.3 Mitigation Measures ...... 113 3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS ...... 120 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 120 3.6.2 Environmental Setting ...... 122 3.6.3 Impact Analysis ...... 124 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 128 3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ...... 128 3.7.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 128 3.7.2 Environmental Setting ...... 132 3.7.3 Impact Analysis ...... 133 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 137 3.8 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ...... 140 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 140 3.8.2 Environmental Setting ...... 144 3.8.3 Impact Analysis ...... 145 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 152 3.9 LAND USE AND PLANNING...... 152 3.9.1 Regulatory Settings ...... 152 3.9.2 Environmental Setting ...... 154 3.9.3 Impact Analysis ...... 155 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 157 3.10 MINERAL RESOURCES ...... 157 3.10.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 157 3.10.2 Environmental Setting ...... 158 3.10.3 Impact Analysis ...... 159 3.10.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 159 3.11 NOISE ...... 160 3.11.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 160 3.11.2 Environmental Setting ...... 162 3.11.3 Impact Analysis ...... 166 3.11.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 173 3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...... 174 3.12.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 174 3.12.2 Environmental Setting ...... 175 3.12.3 Impact Analysis ...... 175 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 176 3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES ...... 177 3.13.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 177 3.13.2 Environmental Setting ...... 180 3.13.3 Impact Analysis ...... 181 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 185
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
3.14 RECREATION ...... 185 3.14.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 185 3.14.2 Environmental Setting ...... 186 3.14.3 Impact Analysis ...... 186 3.14.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 187 3.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ...... 187 3.15.1 Regulatory Setting ...... 187 3.15.2 Environmental Setting ...... 191 3.15.3 Impact Analysis ...... 193 3.15.4 Mitigation Measures ...... 198 3.16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE ...... 200 3.16.1 Impact Analysis ...... 200
LIST OF PREPARERS ...... 205 4.1 DOCUMENT PREPARATION ...... 205 4.2 PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS ...... 206
REFERENCES ...... 208
MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM ...... 219 6.1 INTRODUCTION ...... 223 6.2 PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING AND REPORTING ...... 223 6.3 CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES ...... 224
LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1-1. Summary of Unit 6 Facility Needs (accommodating 100-Year Design Flow Event)...... 8 Table 2.2-1. Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Preliminary Construction Schedule ...... 10 Table 2.2-2. Project Overview and Schedule for the Proposed Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project ...... 10 Table 3.3-1 Amador County Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality ...... 28 Table 3.3-2 CalEEMod Predicted Maximum Daily Project Emissions Estimates ...... 36 Table 3.3-3 CalEEMod Predicted CO2e Emissions Estimates...... 41 Table 3.4-1 Potential Special Status Species Within the Proposed Project Area...... 58 Table 3.5-1 Cultural Resources Studies Conducted In or Within 1/4-Mile of the Project Area...... 100 Table 3.5-2 Cultural Resources In or Within 1/4-Mile of the Project Area ...... 102 Table 3.9-1 Zoning District-General Plan Designation Consistency ...... 153 Table 3.11-1 Noise Level Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Noise Sources ...... 162 Table 3.11-2 Definition of Sound Measurement ...... 163 Table 3.11-3 Summary of Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling under Existing Conditions ...... 165
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Table 3.11-4 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax ...... 168 Table 3.11-5 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ...... 169 Table 3.11-6 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment ...... 170 Table 3.15-1 Estimated Level of Service for Roadways, Baseline 2013 Conditions ..... 192 Table 4.1-1 IS/MND Preparers and Reviewers ...... 205 Table 6.3-1 Summary of Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Mitigation Measures ...... 225
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.2-1 Project Vicinity ...... 3 Figure 1.2-2 Project Location...... 4 Figure 3.4-1 Known Occurrence of Designated Critical Habitat and Special Status Species Within Three Miles of the Project Area ...... 57
PHOTOS Photo 3.1-1 View facing west near proposed effluent storage and disposal area (Gansberg Ranch property)...... 16 Photo 3.1-2 View facing southeast along the proposed Pipeline Alignment (EBMUD property)...... 16 Photo 3.1-3 View of the existing Unit 6 WWTP...... 17 Photo 3.1-4 View facing southeast along Village Dr. along the proposed Pipeline Alignment...... 17
LIST OF APPENDICES
CALEEMOD AIR QUALITY MODEL ...... A.1
BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS ...... B.1
NATIVE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE...... C.1
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Abbreviations
Term/Abbreviation Definition A AADT annual average daily traffic AB Assembly Bill ACES ACES Waste Services ACHP Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation ACRA Amador County Recreation Agency ACTC Amador County Transportation Commission ACUSD Amador County Unified School District ADWF average dry-weather flow af acre-feet AFY acre-feet per year AG Agricultural General AG District Exclusive Agriculture District Agency Amador Water Agency amsl above mean sea level APCDs Air Pollution Control Districts APE Area of Potential Effects APN Assessor’s Parcel Number AR4 Fourth Assessment Report AT Agricultural Transition B BAGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act BFFP Board of Forestry and Fire Protection BMPs Best Management Practices BP Before Present C C Candidate or Commercial CAA Clean Air Act CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx i
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition CalEEMod California Emissions Estimator Model CalEPA California Environmental Protection Agency CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration Caltrans California Department of Transportation CARB California Air Resources Board CARWSP II Camanche Area Regional Water Supply Project Phase II CAT Climate Action Team CBC California Building Code CCR California Code of Regulations CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CDO Cease and Desist Order CE Candidate Endangered CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CESA California Endangered Species Act CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CH4 methane CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CLI California Legislative Information CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level CNPS California Native Plant Society CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide County Amador County CRHR California Register of Historical Resources CRLF California red-legged frog CRPR California Rare Plant Ranking CTS California tiger salamander CWA Clean Water Act CWC California Water Code
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx ii
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition D D Delisted dB decibels dBA A-weighted decibels DCH Designated Critical Habitat DGL diameter at ground level DOC Department of Conservation DOT Department of Transportation DPM diesel particulate matter DSH Diameter at Standard Height DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control DWQ Department of Water Quality E E Endangered EBMUD East Bay Municipal Utilities District EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act ET Evapotranspiration F FAA Federal Aviation Administration FCAA Federal Clean Air Act FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FHWA Federal Highway Administration FIRMs Flood Insurance Rate Maps FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program FP Fully Protected FPPA Farmland Protection Policy Act FR Federal Register G General Permit General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx iii
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition General Plan Amador County General Plan GF General Forest GHGs Greenhouse Gases GIS Geographic Information System gpd gallons per day GWP Global Warming Potential H HCP Habitat Conservation Plan heat infrared radiation HFCs Hydrofluorocarbons HMP Hazard Mitigation Plan HUC Hydrologic Unit Code Hunt Club Camanche Hills Hunting Preserve Hz Hertz I I Industrial IBC International Building Code IPCC International Panel on Climate Change IS/MND Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration IWMP Integrated Waste Management Plan J JD Jurisdictional Determination JVID Jackson Valley Irrigation District L Lake Camanche Lake Camanche Reservoir Ldn Day-Night Sound Level LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
Leq Equivalent Sound Level LID Low Impact Development
Lmax Maximum Sound Level
Lmin Minimum Sound Level LOS Level of Service LRA Local Responsibility Areas
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx iv
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition LSAA Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement M MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MCAB Mountain Counties Air Basin MCV Manual of California Vegetation MLD most likely descendant MM Mitigation Measure MMRP Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program MPN most probable number MRZ Mineral Resource Zones
MTCO2e metric tons CO2 equivalent N NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NCIC North Central Information Center NEHRP National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NFIP National Flood Insurance Program NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
N2O nitrous oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide NOA naturally occurring asbestos NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOI Notice of Intent
NOx nitrogen oxides NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service NRHP National Register of Historic Places NVC National Vegetation Classification NWP Nationwide Permit
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx v
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition O
O3 ozone OES Office of Emergency Service OF Open-Forest OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OR Open-Recreation OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration OW Open-Wilderness OWCA Oak Woodland Conservation Act OWCP Oak Woodlands Conservation Program P Pb lead PD proposed for delisting PFCs Perfluorocarbons PFL Professional Forester’s Law PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company PM particulate matter Porter-Cologne Act Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act PPV Peak Particle Velocity PRC Public Resources Code Project Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project PS Public Service R R Rare R1 District Single Family Residential District R2A District Two-Acre Residential District RL Residential-Low Density RM Residential-Medium Density ROG reactive organic gases RR Rural Residential RSC Regional Service Center RTP Regional Transportation Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx vi
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition S Scoping Plan Climate Change Scoping Plan
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride SFDE single family dwelling equivalent SHA Safe Harbor Agreement SIP State Implementation Plan SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide SPA Special Planning Area SPCCP Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan SR State Route SRA State Responsibility Area SRF State Revolving Fund SSC Species of Special Concern Stantec Stantec Consulting Services Inc. State State of California SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan T T Threatened TC Town Center TPZ Timber Production Zone U UAIC United Auburn Indian Community UBC Uniform Building Code UCMP University of California Museum of Paleontology UNFCCC United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change Update First Update to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan U.S. United States USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USC United States Code
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx vii
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Term/Abbreviation Definition USDA United States Department of Agriculture USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey UWMP Urban Water Management Plan V VdB Vibration Velocity Level in Decibels VELB valley elderberry longhorn beetle Village Lake Camanche Village VMT vehicle miles traveled W WARF Western Amador Recycling Facility WCB Wildlife Conservation Board WDR Waste Discharge Requirement Williamson Act California Land Conservation Act WL Watch List WOTUS waters of the United States WP Water Project WPT western pond turtle WQC Water Quality Certification WUI Wildland Urban Interface WWTP wastewater treatment plant X X District Special Use District
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx viii
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project 2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685 3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Contact: Gene Mancebo Phone: (209)223-3018 4. Project Location:
The proposed Project area is located in western Amador County, approximately 5.75 miles southwest of the City of Ione, California. See Section 1.2 of IS/MND for location specifics. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Dave Price, PE, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 101 Providence Mine Rd. Nevada City, CA 95959 Phone: (530) 470-0515 6/7. General Plan Designation and Zoning: Amador County Land Use Designations: Agricultural General (AG), Agricultural Transition (AT), Rural Residential (RR), Special Planning Area (SPA), and Public Service (PS) Amador County Zoning Designations: Special Use District (X District), Exclusive Agriculture District (AG District), Single Family Residential District (R1 District), and Two-Acre Residential District (R2A District) 8. Description of Project: The existing Wastewater Treatment Plant facilities are currently operating under a Regional Water Quality Control Board Cease and Desist Order No. R5-2003-0126 due to a number of identified deficiencies, including inadequate effluent storage and disposal capacity. Therefore, the Agency is proposing the Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project to implement long-term improvements to the Unit 6 system, and to comply with the CDO. See IS/MND Chapter 2.0 for more details. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
Surrounding land uses are primarily that of agricultural lands and include some rural residential areas as well. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement: Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, State Water Resources Control Board, State Office of Historic Preservation, Amador County, East Bay Municipal Utility District, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx vi
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Introduction September 20, 2018
PROJECT INTRODUCTION
1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW
This document was prepared by Stantec Consulting Services Inc. (Stantec) on behalf of the Amador Water Agency (Agency). The proposed Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project (Project) would include general improvements to the existing wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) facility and a modest increase in the current treatment system capacity, including increasing the existing effluent storage capacity, and the effluent disposal area. These improvements are directed toward addressing existing deficiencies which prevent the WWTP from providing wastewater service to the existing and previously approved parcels in the Lake Camanche Unit 6 development and meeting requirements imposed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), which resulted in a moratorium on new connections. The service area includes 72 undeveloped lots which have been affected by this moratorium for over a decade.
1.2 PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed Project area is located in western Amador County (County), approximately 5.75 miles southwest of the City of Ione, California (Figure 1.2-1 Project Vicinity and Figure 1.2-2 Project Location). The area is surrounded by a developed, primarily residential community, agricultural areas, and recreational lands, including the Lake Camanche Reservoir (Lake Camanche), which is located approximately one mile away to the south/southwest/west. The Project area is located in the Sierra Nevada foothills with a natural habitat generally characterized by valley grasslands and foothill woodlands. The climate can be described as “Mediterranean”, with cool winter rainy seasons, and hot dry summers. The elevation of the Project area ranges from approximately 250 to 450 feet above mean sea level (amsl).
1.3 PROJECT BACKGROUND
The Agency was formed in 1959 for the purpose of providing water and wastewater services to the residents of the County. The Agency serves approximately 25,000 customers and is the primary water and wastewater provider within the County. In addition to residents and businesses in unincorporated areas, the Agency sells water to the cities of Ione, Jackson, Plymouth, Sutter Creek, Amador City, as well as several special districts, and has four general service areas: the Amador Water System, the Central Amador Water Project, La Mel Heights, and Lake Camanche Village (Village).
The Agency also owns and operates several wastewater systems that serve unincorporated communities in the County, including the Village development. The Village development was approved by the County in the early 1970s and consists of seven (7) separate units on the north shore of Lake Camanche. This approval was granted prior to development of modern regulations governing wastewater treatment and disposal.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 1
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Introduction September 20, 2018
The County owned and operated the Village water system and the Unit 6 wastewater system until 2000, when the County contracted with the Agency to operate both systems. In 2003, the County turned both systems over to the Agency. The development was initially approved to use both on-site systems and centralized facilities for wastewater treatment and disposal. Since then, the centralized facilities and some on-site systems have failed, and there have been documented wastewater spills that reached Lake Camanche, an East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) raw potable water storage facility. All runoff from the area where the WWTP is located drains to Lake Camanche, and thus, any form of sewage spill in the area is of serious concern. In addition, impacts to water quality from subsurface drainage from the existing site have also been identified as a concern.
Currently, there are approximately 765 single family dwelling equivalents (SFDEs) in the total throughout the Village development, which is considered an economically disadvantaged community, including Units 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 6, and 7 (Figure 1.2-2). According to the Amador County General Plan (General Plan), there could be a total of as many as 2,200 SFDEs at build- out of the development. Units 1, 2, 3A, and 4 are currently about 50 percent developed with a total of roughly 350 SFDEs. Units 2 and 4 have the largest lots and were intended to be served by individual wells and on-site wastewater systems. Units 1 and 3A were also planned for on-site wastewater systems. Units 3B, 5, and 7 are still undeveloped, and will need a public water supply system and a conventional centralized wastewater system if they are to be developed. There are currently 345 SFDEs located in Unit 6 with 72 remaining vacant residential lots.
Unit 6 is currently served by a conventional centralized wastewater system, which includes a conventional collection system with four lift stations that convey wastewater to the WWTP. The WWTP (Figure 1.2-2) is regulated under Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) Order No. 5-01-033 adopted by the Central Valley RWQCB on January 26, 2001, which specifies that the WWTP is permitted to provide “secondary treatment with disinfection, followed by effluent disposal to a spray field”. Specifically, this use is defined under Title 22, §60301.225, of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), which governs the state’s environmental health regulations regarding recycled water:
“’Disinfected secondary-23 recycled water’ is recycled water that has been oxidized and disinfected so that the median concentration of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a most probable number (MPN) of 23 per 100 milliliters utilizing the bacteriological results of the last seven days for which analyses have been completed, and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed an MPN of 240 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30-day period.”
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 2 s s e l d n a c c m l
: y B
2 0 - 4 0 - 8 1 0 2
: d e s i v e R
d x m . y t i n i c i v _ r o d a m a _ 1 g i f \ s g i f _ d n Sacramento Amador m s i \ d x m \ s i g \ 4 2 5 0 3 0 4 8 1 \ e v i t c a \ 0 4 8 1 \ : V
Project Location ^_
Calaveras
San Joaquin
Stanislaus
Figure No. Legend 1.2-1 Title County Boundary Project Vicinity
Client/Project Amador Water Agency Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improv ement Project
Project Location
Amador County California 0 1.5 3 6 Miles $¯$ 1:300,000 (at original document size of 8.5x11) ( Notes 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec 2018 s s e l d n a c c m l
: y B
2 0 - 4 0 - 8 1 0 2
: d e s i v e R
8
8 d x Y m . A n o i W t a H c
o G l I _ t H c e j E o T r p A
_ T r
o S d a m a _ 2 g i f \ s g i f _ E R d T n O E m N Y s Y i
N E
\ O N L d E C x W
U T I m M R
\ TE
H A H s O i I N OY D g LL C
\ A W
4 Unit 1 2 O 5 D 0 RC R 3 I 0 B H O 4 L 8 W E 1 GRA Y O \ PEVINE E O Y e DUCK CREEK GULCH S N E v i O S N t V
c O I N a G Unit 2 P L
\ O OS A L E 0 E P A 4 Unit 4 N 8 C ABO 1 REEK G \ : E V HO Unit 2 N X Y R O TIO FO A E Y A V IN RV A SE E E E B R LAG G VIL OO Unit 1 K E SE HAW C O N R M I EEK V E E N
P
O N T A E
S A E R
M P R
G R E R
E A U H T C T C IN Unit 3B FL DRY CREEK
Unit 5
E H C N A
M A C
TE Unit 6 TO R Y N E UM FE V A I Z A U TH U M I C ER Unit 7 Q HO C TA TY W R E C BE CH I A L AN AM M C QUA I A L HIL L N
C
H
LAKEVIEW E
T PA C S H RKWAY HIN E IL G A R U Lake Camanche LC LC C R H L E L S I T
H
Figure No. Legend 1.2-2 Road Title
Project Components Project Location Proposed Force Main Client/Project Amador Water Agency Existing WWTP Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Amador Treatment Plant Improv ement Project County Parcel Boundaries Project Location Gansberg Ranch Property EBMUD Safe Harbor Agreement Parcels Amador County California 0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Potential Spray Field/Storage Areas Feet $¯$ 1:33,848 (at original document size of 8.5x11) ( Notes Development Units 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec 2018 LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Introduction September 20, 2018
1.4 CEQA PROCESS
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the State of California’s (State) environmental law that requires project proponents to disclose the significant impacts to the environment from proposed development projects. The intent of CEQA is to foster good planning and to inform agencies and the public about environmental issues during the planning process. Amador Water Agency is the Lead Agency as well as the project proponent under CEQA for the preparation of this Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).
The CEQA Guidelines (Section 21067) define the Lead Agency as “the public agency which has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project which may have a significant effect upon the environment”. Section 15063(a) of the CEQA Guidelines states: “Following preliminary review, the Lead Agency shall conduct an Initial Study to determine if the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” Section 15070(a) states: “A public agency shall prepare or have prepared a proposed negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration for a project subject to CEQA when: the initial study shows that there is no substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment” (CNRA 2016).
Under CEQA guidelines, a significant effect on the environment is defined as a substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the Project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and objects of historic or aesthetic significance (Guidelines Section 15382) (CNRA 2016). Based on the Chapter 3.0 analysis presented in this document and the field surveys conducted in support of that analysis, the proposed Project has the potential to result in significant impacts on certain resources, but these potentially significant impacts would be reduced to a less-than-significant level with the implementation of mitigation identified in Chapter 3.0 of this IS/MND. The mitigation measures presented in this IS/MND will form the basis of the Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), which is included in Chapter 6.0.
As the Project proponent, the Agency is responsible for implementing and monitoring all project components and providing documentation of compliance for the Lead Agency’s files. The public, the County, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and other local and State resource agencies will be given the opportunity to review and comment on this document during the 30-day public review period. Comments received during the 30-day review period will be considered by the Agency prior to considering the adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Project approval.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 5
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2.1 PROJECT NEED AND PURPOSE
The existing WWTP facilities are currently operating under a RWQCB Cease and Desist Order (CDO) No. R5-2003-0126 due to a number of identified deficiencies, including inadequate effluent storage and disposal capacity. The CDO reflects the potential water quality impacts caused by spills of effluent from the on-site storage reservoir. Some of the violations which led to the CDO are inherent to the nature of the Unit 6 facilities. For example, the existing effluent storage volume and spray irrigation disposal area are insufficient to fully contain wet weather flows during periods of heavy precipitation (i.e., 100-year annual rainfall conditions).
In an effort to prevent exacerbation of the deficiencies identified in the CDO, the Agency placed a moratorium on new wastewater connections to the Unit 6 sewer system shortly after taking over the system in 2003. This directly impacted those landowners who had purchased a subdivided residential lot in Unit 6 with the understanding that they would receive wastewater service. The moratorium remains in place to this day. While the Agency has made a number of improvements in an attempt to reduce the potential for further violations, the RWQCB still considers the identified deficiencies in effluent storage volume and disposal area as issues needing to be addressed.
Therefore, the Agency is proposing the Project to implement long-term improvements to the Unit 6 system, and to comply with the CDO.
The proposed Project includes an upgrade to the existing WWTP to address the identified deficiencies, such that it can successfully serve the existing parcel owners in Unit 6 with adequate capacity for treatment and disposal and expand the wastewater system to meet the estimated total demand of the 72 vacant lots within Unit 6 at build-out. As such, the proposed Project is meant to serve the existing population in Unit 6 who are currently being served, as well as the remaining parcels that the Agency is committed to serving once the moratorium is lifted.
Specifically, the proposed Project would include the following elements:
1. General improvements to the existing WWTP infrastructure and facilities;
2. Improvement and expansion of the treatment system capacity to meet an average dry- weather flow (ADWF) capacity of approximately 64,000 gallons per day (gpd);
3. Expansion of the effluent storage capacity to a total of approximately 82 acre-feet per year (AFY);
4. Expansion of the effluent disposal/reclamation area to approximately 27 acres; and
5. All necessary improvements to the collection and disposal pipeline system to support the above treatment, storage and disposal/reclamation upgrades.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 6
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
2.1.1 General Improvements
The proposed Project would result in a limited amount of general improvements to the existing WWTP infrastructure and facilities, including a new effluent pump station for the proposed effluent transmission force main. Use of the current evaporative disposal equipment at the existing Unit 6 WWTP facility would be terminated if new facilities constructed on the Gansberg Ranch property can put to beneficial use the water that is currently being disposed of.
2.1.2 Expanded Treatment Capacity
The existing Unit 6 WWTP has been permitted for disinfected secondary-23 recycled water, as defined in the CCR, Title 22 §60301.220, which governs the State’s environmental health regulations regarding recycled water. This means that recycled water produced by the WWTP has been oxidized and disinfected so that the median concentration of total coliform bacteria in the disinfected effluent does not exceed a MPN of 23 per 100 milliliters, and the number of total coliform bacteria does not exceed a MPN of 240 per 100 milliliters in more than one sample in any 30-day period. This use is appropriate for spray field effluent disposal, including for irrigation use at the Gansberg Ranch property.
Administrative Civil Liability Order No. 5-2006-004 states:
“Self-monitoring reports submitted for the period from April 2002 to June 2005 indicate that monthly average flows range from approximately 41,000 to 90,000 gpd. The Waste Discharge Requirement (WDRs) do not contain a flow limitation as the WWTP did not contain an accurate flow meter at the time the updated WDRs were adopted in 2001.
The wastewater treatment portion of the WWTP was originally designed for complete build out of the Lake Camanche service area with a design flow capacity of approximately 281,000 gpd. However, the spray field and storage pond were not sized for full build out. As part of the September 2000 Report of Waste Discharge, the Discharger submitted a water balance that indicated that the storage pond does not have enough capacity to contain current flows, including seasonal precipitation using a 100-year return period. The water balance did not include capacity calculations for increased flows due to growth.
The proposed Project is not designed to serve the entire Village service area, but rather meet the needs of the existing and previously approved parcels in the Unit 6 development. The existing treatment facilities require additional storage and disposal area to meet the identified capacity requirements for Unit 6 as summarized below in Table 2.1-1.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 7
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
Table 2.1-1. Summary of Unit 6 Facility Needs (accommodating 100-Year Design Flow Event).
Total Incremental Total Incremental Existing Existing Effluent Effluent Disposal Disposal Unit 6 Users ADWF Effluent Disposal Storage Storage Area Area (1 EDU = 200 gpd) (gpd) Storage Area Needed Needed, Needed Needed (af) (acres) (af) (af) (acres) (acres) Unit 6 (Current users) 49,000 20 63 44 12 20 8 Unit 6 (“Vacant Lots”) 15,000 0 19 19 0 7 7 Total: “Existing” Unit 6 64,000 20 82 63 12 27 15
2.1.3 Expanded Storage Capacity
The existing WWTP has a current storage capacity of 19.5 acre-feet (af), and the WDRs require a minimum freeboard of two feet at all times. It has been determined that in order to accommodate the flows experienced under 100-year storm recurrence interval annual rainfall conditions, as well as the addition of one SFDE on each of the 72 vacant parcels within the Unit 6 development, the Agency will need to increase the available effluent storage volume to a total of approximately 81.5 af (roughly 26.5 million gallons). There is not sufficient land available at the existing WWTP site to allow for the expansion of the on-site storage reservoir to meet this need, without further reducing the already deficient spray disposal area. As a result, the Agency is proposing an alternative site to meet the storage requirements. The proposed location for the additional storage is the southern property boundary of the Gansberg Ranch property (Figure 1.2-2).
2.1.4 Expanded Disposal Capacity
The proposed Project would replace the existing 12-acre spray field disposal system at the existing Unit 6 WWTP with a reuse program that would provide the equivalent of expanding the spray fields to approximately 26.5 acres. Upon completion of the proposed Project, disposal will be discontinued at the existing WWTP site. This would be accomplished though the development of a reclaimed water irrigation system for lawful use on the Gansberg Ranch property. Such a system would be owned and operated by the property owner under its own responsibility, using an irrigation system and equipment provided by the property owner.
In order to confirm that the disposal capacity is met, the Gansberg Ranch property owner would be required to agree to accept a specified minimum amount of treated effluent on a seasonal schedule to complement its irrigation needs under a wide range of climatic conditions. The Gansberg Ranch property contains more than 1,500 acres that would benefit from supplemental irrigation, and the property owner has expressed a desire to accept more reclaimed water than the system will generate.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 8
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
2.1.5 Proposed Pipeline Alignment
The proposed force main is planned to run from the existing WWTP along primarily existing roadways and easements with the majority of construction occurring on previously disturbed land, including a potential new effluent pump station along the proposed force main (Figure 1.2-2). The proposed force main would leave the existing WWTP at the current entrance, follow the extension of Quiver Drive south to Curran Road, where it would continue to the west and then north on Curran Road until it reaches an unnamed roadway at the east side of the EBMUD property. The alignment would then follow an unnamed roadway onto the EBMUD property in a general north-northwest direction to reach the southwest corner of the Village Unit 1. The alignment follows the EBMUD property eastern boundary north to reach Grapevine Gulch Road. Finally, the proposed alignment would then follow an easement to the northeast to reach Village Drive and turn to the northwest to reach the southern boundary of the Gansberg Ranch property where the new storage and disposal areas are proposed to be constructed.
2.2 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE
Implementation of the proposed Project will follow the timeline required to secure funding and to complete the CEQA and permitting process. An estimate of the construction timeline, subject to change, is presented in Table 2.2-1. Several of the construction activities can occur simultaneously. For example, the construction on the Gansberg Ranch property may take place concurrent with the pipeline installation. The total duration of construction activity is estimated at approximately one year with the possibly of extending to two years if wet conditions cause construction delays.
Hours of construction would be during the daytime hours of 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Construction may reduce traffic to a single lane. This allows for emergency vehicle ingress and egress, but it can cause minimal delays for residents. Any road closures would not take place during peak hours. Construction could last approximately 730 days and is tentatively planned to be completed by year 2022. Currently the proposed Project is budgeted over two years. If unforeseen circumstances push the proposed Project timeline back, construction should occur within five years of approval of the CEQA document. If the proposed Project cannot be completed within five years, the Agency will prepare a supplemental or addendum to the Project’s IS/MND.
Proper erosion and sediment control Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be in place during construction and post-construction, as per the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the proposed Project, until disturbed areas are reestablished. Refer to Section 3.6 Geology and Soils, and Section 3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality, for additional details on the BMPs and SWPPP.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 9
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
Table 2.2-1. Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Preliminary Construction Schedule (a)
Task Completion Date Existing WWTP Improvements Construction 2022 (18 months) Gansberg Ranch Property Irrigation and Storage Facilities Construction 2022 (18 months) Effluent Pipeline Installation 2022 (18 months) Start-up, Testing, Operations 2022 (a) The schedule presented recognizes the facilities included in the proposed Project may be constructed in phases with the effluent conveyance, storage, and irrigation components being highest priority for the Agency. The primary driver for this phasing is availability of design and construction funds.
The construction activities for the proposed Project are listed below in Table 2.2-2. The proposed activities include: site preparation, grading, trenching (excavation and fill), pipe installation, concrete placement, mechanical equipment installation, building construction, paving, and site restoration. Typical construction equipment, such as an excavator, backhoe, and dump truck will be utilized for these activities. Scrapers may be used to build the treatment and storage basins. Access to the proposed Project area and staging areas will occur at the existing WWTP, along Quiver Road, Curran Road, Papeo Street, Village Drive, an existing dirt road within the EBMUD property, and the Gansberg Ranch property.
The Agency’s chosen contractor will procure the use of staging area properties if needed. Construction could start as early as 2019 if planning factors are concluded with the majority of construction occurring in 2019/2020. All construction should be complete within approximately 365 days; however, earthwork (proposed storage basins) are particularly dependent on weather, so wet conditions could extend the construction duration to as much as 730 days. The dates of construction in Table 2.2-2 are target dates; however, the actual construction dates are contingent upon multiple factors and are expected to occur within the next five years.
Table 2.2-2. Project Overview and Schedule for the Proposed Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project
Project Estimated Specific Activities Location Area of impact Component Schedule Site • Site preparation within County • Existing WWTP The Project area is a total 2019/2020 Preparation right-of-way, public utility, • In public rights-of- of approximately 100 District land and private land way (roads) acres. This includes an approximate 3.5-mile x 20- • Staging of equipment in • EBMUD property designated staging areas foot pipeline (~70 total • Gansberg Ranch acres) along existing property paved and dirt roads. Staging areas are approximately five acres total in size along the proposed pipeline alignment.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 10
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
Project Estimated Specific Activities Location Area of impact Component Schedule Existing WWTP • New pumps and generator Existing WWTP site Existing WWTP site 2021/2022 Improvements (approximately 20 acres). and Construction: Installation of pump station Gansberg • Yard piping Gansberg Ranch Approximately 40 acres 2019/2020 Ranch • Storage basins property including spray disposal Property areas. • Spray field sprinklers and run- Construction: off containment Proposed New Storage and Disposal Areas Proposed • Install one six-inch diameter • Quiver Road Primarily existing traffic 2019/2020 Pipeline pipeline between existing • Curran Road lanes and roadway Construction: WWTP to Gansberg Ranch shoulders (approximately • EBMUD property Installation of property one acre). • Papeo Street an • Road restoration Approximate • Village Drive 3.5-Mile • Gansberg Ranch Pipeline property Decommissio • Remove sludge Existing WWTP site Existing WWTP site. 2021/2022 ning of • Dewater basins Certain Existing WWTP • Demolish existing buildings and Facilities remove equipment • Improve drainage to avoid any retention Site • Re-paving specifications for • Existing WWTP • Existing WWTP 2021/2022 (a) Restoration roadways/ driveways • In public rights-of- • In public rights-of-way • Re-vegetation will be way (roads) (roads) consistent with pre- • EBMUD property • EBMUD property construction landscaping • Gansberg Ranch • Gansberg Ranch status (replaced as former). If property property pre-construction landscaping was non-existent, post restoration will include soil erosion control (a) Restoration of the site will occur in phases across the Project footprint. If the Project is phased, areas disturbed with the initial phase/phases of the Project would be restored upon completion of that phase of construction. There would not be a delay in restoration dependent upon subsequent phases.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 11
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
2.3 OPERATION
The proposed Project will provide additional effluent storage and disposal/reclamation capacity improvements to the Unit 6 system and are intended to help the Agency comply with the CDO. Specifically, it will successfully serve the existing parcel owners in Unit 6 with adequate capacity for treatment and disposal and expand the wastewater system to meet the estimated total demand of one (1) SFDE on each of the 72 vacant lots within Unit 6.
The upgraded WWTP is expected to be operated with the same number of staff, using similar methods as the existing plant operations. The chemicals on site will be similar to those on the existing WWTP and will be managed accordingly. Improvements in disposal/reclamation and storage capacity will allow the Agency to reduce the maintenance and operations costs associated with operating several mechanical effluent disposal (mister and spritz) units which demand staff attention and significant energy. In this way the Agency expects to maintain the upgraded facilities without the need for additional operations staff. Chemicals used (primarily sodium hypochlorite for disinfection) may increase slightly in volume, but not in character, thus requiring no special operational considerations for storage, handling and use. If new facilities are required for these chemicals, they will be designed and constructed in accordance with current code requirements in effect at the time. New operations include a possible new effluent pump station and the utilization of the new storage and effluent spray area at the Gansberg Ranch property. The Agency expects savings in energy and labor costs associated with elimination of the mechanical disposal units will offset the need for additional staff to operate and maintain the upgraded facilities.
2.4 PERMITS AND OTHER AGENCY APPROVALS
The proposed Project will also require compliance with federal and state permitting regulations due to the federal Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) participation as a funding source through the State Revolving Fund (SRF). Due to the federal funding, the proposed Project will also trigger the need for a demonstration of compliance with:
• CDFW Section 1600 et seq. Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement – triggered by any crossing or undercrossing of waters of the United States (U.S.) (WOTUS) including small drainages with a defined bed and bank;
• Clean Water Act Section 404 Nationwide Permit 12 – triggered by federal funding and potential impacts of less than half an acre to WOTUS;
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification – triggered by federal funding and potential to impact surface water quality of adjacent drainages during construction;
• Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System – trigged by federal funding and potential impacts to surface water;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 12
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Project Description September 20, 2018
• Amador County – Grading Permit – triggered by stipulations defined in Chapter 15.40 Section 15.40.090 of the County Code;
• Amador County – Encroachment Permit – triggered by work within County roadways, per County Ordinance No. 1656;
• National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) Section 106 Compliance – triggered by federal funding and potential to affect historic properties or inadvertently affect buried historic or pre-historic resources;
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Section 7 Compliance – triggered by federal funding and the potential to affect federally-listed species and/or their habitat; and
• EBMUD (in conjunction with USFWS) Safe Harbor Agreement (SHA) – trigged by the proposed Project footprint entering the existing SHA boundary.
• Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) – triggered by a portion of the proposed Project footprint within the EBMUD FERC Boundary.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 13
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSESSMENT
To determine whether an impact is significant, a “baseline” set of environmental conditions is required against which agencies can assess the significance of Project impacts. The physical environmental setting existing at the time of preparation of this document constitutes the baseline physical conditions by which the lead agency determines if the Project would cause a significant impact.
The following sections summarize (1) the environmental setting, including a description of baseline conditions, (2) impacts, and (3) proposed mitigation measures associated with impacts resulting from the proposed Project. Additional topics such as the methodology and/or regulatory setting were also included where applicable. In all cases the proposed Project activities described in the Project Description were analyzed for potential impacts. In each section, all proposed Project activities are referred to either explicitly by name, or implicitly as “the Project” or “the proposed Project.”
3.1 Aesthetics
3.1.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
National Scenic Byways Program
The U.S. Forest Service (USFS) in partnership with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has designated a portion of State Route (SR) 88 as a National Forest Scenic Byway. This SR is part of the Carson Pass Scenic Byway which stretches from Sacramento to Carson Valley in Nevada (USFS ND). The goals of the National Forest Scenic Byways Program are to: support and enhance rural community economic development; showcase outstanding national forest and grassland scenery; increase public understanding of national forests and the importance of sustaining healthy, productive ecosystems; ensure that people remain socially connected to public lands; and contribute to the Nation’s overall scenic byways effort (USFS 2017).
State
California Scenic Highway Program
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) administers State scenic route designations within the County. State scenic route designations include (Caltrans 2011):
• SR 88 (Dew Drop Ranger Station, east of Buckhorn, to the Nevada state line);
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 14
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• SR 88 (throughout the remainder of the County, Eligible State Scenic Highway- Not Officially Designated);
• Highway 49 throughout the entire County (Eligible State Scenic Highway- Not Officially Designated).
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Circulation and Mobility Element related to aesthetics, light, and glare are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal CM-4: Maintain and enhance the visual quality and scenic views along designated scenic corridors.
Policy CM-4.1: Maintain visual and quality and scenic views along designated scenic corridors through project review and adoption of a scenic highway ordinance.
3.1.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project area is located in an unincorporated area of Alameda County east of SR 88 and west of Highway 49. The Eligible State Scenic Highway portion of SR 88 is the closest highway to the proposed Project (Caltrans 2011). Additionally, Camanche Road which is located immediately east of the Project area is considered a major collector and Camanche Parkway North, which is located immediately south of the Project area is considered a minor collector by the General Plan (Amador County 2016a). SR 88, Camanche Road, and Camanche Parkway North are the major access roads to the Project area and to the residences within Village.
The aesthetic character of the western region of the County surrounding the proposed Project area consists of low-lying hills and grasslands mixed with varied oak woodlands, open space, agricultural and rangelands, and residential units. Lake Camanche is also considered a prominent visual resource in this area of the County and is located approximately one mile southwest of the Village Unit 6 existing WWTP.
Photos 3.1-1 through 3.1-4 below illustrate the common viewsheds within the Project area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 15
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Photo 3.1-1 View facing west near proposed effluent storage and disposal area (Gansberg Ranch property).
Photo 3.1-2 View facing southeast along the proposed Pipeline Alignment (EBMUD property).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 16
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Photo 3.1-3 View of the existing Unit 6 WWTP.
Photo 3.1-4 View facing southeast along Village Dr. along the proposed Pipeline Alignment.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 17
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.1.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than I. AESTHETICS Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the Project: Impact Impact Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic
vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
Finding: Less than Significant
Based on review of the General Plan, scenic views within the County include open areas of low- lying hills which are covered in annual grasslands, oak woodlands, and crop-and rangeland (Amador County 2016a). Photos 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 are representative photos that depict the open grasslands and oak woodlands that occur within the proposed Project area, which include proposed activities such as the construction of the effluent storage, disposal, and proposed pipeline. The grasslands and oak woodlands areas are located on private property and contain scenic views. However, the proposed activities within these areas consist of inground facilities and will not obstruct scenic views, nor is majority of the proposed Project area visible from public roadways and/or private residences.
In addition, the proposed Project would not substantially affect the vista regarding the proposed improvements to the existing Unit 6 WWTP because all improvements will occur within the existing footprint and new facilities and/or improvements will not substantially change the existing conditions at the site (Photo 3.1-3).
Despite the scenic nature of this area of the County, the proposed pipeline alignment that is within existing public roadway (Photo 3.1-4), would not obscure scenic views because the proposed pipeline alignment once constructed, would be underground and would not be seen in view. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on the scenic vistas in the area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 18
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings and historic buildings within a State scenic highway?
Finding: No Impact
Based on review of the Caltrans State Scenic Highway List, the General Plan, and the FHWA National Scenic Byways Program, the proposed Project area is not adjacent to or visible from a designated State scenic highway or FHWA National Scenic Byway (Caltrans 2011, Amador County 2016a, USFS ND). SR 88 is the closest highway; however, this portion of SR 88 is not officially designated as scenic and is not visible from the proposed Project area. There are no other State scenic highways within the vicinity of the Project area. The proposed Project would not substantially or adversely damage the scenic nature of this area of the County and therefore would not have an impact to scenic resources within a State scenic highway.
c) Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed improvements to the existing Unit 6 WWTP would not permanently substantially affect the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings because all improvements will be minor and, at the existing WWTP, occur within the existing footprint and all improvements (Photo 3.1-3). The remaining proposed activities associated with the proposed Project include facilities that will be constructed underground and therefore, will not degrade existing visual character or quality of the site. Temporary presence of construction equipment would temporarily alter the character within the proposed Project area; however, the alteration would not be significant because construction activities would only last approximately two years. The proposed Project area would be restored upon completion of construction activities and disturbed areas would be revegetated where necessary. This would limit long term impacts from ground disturbing activities. Additionally, the proposed Project would occur primarily within the existing WWTP footprint and other previously disturbed areas, further limiting the impacts associated with the adverse alteration of the existing visual character of the area. Therefore, the proposed Project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings and any impact would be less than significant.
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Finding: Less than Significant
Construction activities would temporarily introduce equipment and vehicles to the proposed Project area. To the extent that construction activities would occur in the evening hours after sunset, impacts from construction lighting may occur. However, these construction-related impacts would be temporary, lasting approximately two years. No new permanent substantial
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 19
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
sources of lighting or glare would be included in the operations of the proposed Project. Minor permanent lighting could be required for some of the facilities within the existing WWTP such as the control facility or headworks facility, however, these additions would not be considered substantial due to the existing lighting within the WWTP. Therefore, there would not be any new sources of permanent light or glare and there would be minimal temporary lighting from construction activities thus, impacts would be considered less than significant.
3.1.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
3.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources
3.2.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Farmland Protection Policy Act
The Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981 [Sections 1539-1549 P.L. 97-98, Dec 22, 1981], requires the Secretary of Agriculture to establish and carry out a program to "minimize the extent to which federal programs contribute to the unnecessary and irreversible conversion of farmland to nonagricultural uses, and to the extent practicable, will be compatible with State, units of local government, and private programs and policies to protect farmland." [7 USC 4201-4209 & 7 USC 658] (FPPA 1981).
State
Williamson Act
The California Land Conservation Act (Williamson Act) of 1965 is the State’s principal policy for the “preservation of a maximum amount of the limited supply of agricultural land in the State” (Cal. Government Code Section 51220(a)). The purpose of the Williamson Act is to preserve agricultural and open space lands by discouraging premature and unnecessary conversion to urban uses. The Williamson Act enables private landowners to contract with counties and cities to voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses. In return for this guarantee by landowners the government jurisdiction assesses taxes based on the agricultural value of the land rather than the market value, which typically results in a substantial reduction in property taxes (DOC 2017a).
California Public Resources Code
The following California Public Resources Code (PRC) sections are discussed in the impact analysis Section 3.2.3 below.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 20
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
California PRC Section 12220(g): "Forest land" is land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including: timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits (California PRC 2018a).
California PRC Section 4526: "Timberland" means land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the board as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis (California PRC 2018b).
California Government Code Section 51104(g): "Timberland Production Zone" or "TPZ" means an area which has been zoned pursuant to Section 51112 or 51113 and is devoted to and used for growing and harvesting timber, or for growing and harvesting timber and compatible uses, as defined in subdivision (h). With respect to the general plans of cities and counties, "timberland preserve zone" means "timberland production zone" (California GC 2016).
California Open Space Subvention Act
The California Open Space Subvention Act (California Government Code Section 16143) states that land shall be deemed to be devoted to open-space uses of statewide significance if it:
a) Could be developed as prime agricultural land, or
b) Is open-space land as defined in Section 65560 which constitutes a resource whose preservation is of more than local importance for ecological, economic, educational, or other purposes. The Secretary of the Resources Agency shall be the final judge of whether the land is in fact devoted to open-space use of statewide significance.
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Land Use Element related to aesthetics, light, and glare are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal LU-1: Attain a diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, recreational, public, and open space land uses.
Policy LU-1.5: Encourage the continued viability of agricultural production in the County’s agricultural areas.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 21
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal E-8: Preserve the land base necessary to sustain agricultural production and maintain long term economic viability of agricultural land uses.
Policy E-8.1: Ensure future land uses are appropriately located and scaled to fit in with the county’s rural and agricultural context.
Policy E-8.2: On lands under Williamson Act contracts, provide for and support value-added agricultural activities designed to provide an additional source of farming income while maintaining the land for viable agricultural production, in accordance with state law.
Policy E-8.3: Provide for and support value-added agricultural activities designed to provide an additional source of farming income while maintaining the land for viable agricultural production.
Policy E-8.4: Promote development of support businesses associated with agri-tourism.
Goal E-9: Maintain important farmlands for agricultural uses and agri-tourism.
Policy E-9.1: Maintain the right of individuals in Amador County to farm, including enforcement of the County’s “Right to Farm” ordinance.
Policy E-9.2: Encourage use of Williamson Act contracts to maintain farm and ranch lands in agricultural use.
Policy E-9.3: Educate landowners about alternative methods of farmland preservation, including identification of funding for conservation easements.
Policy E-9.4: Direct future development toward “infill” areas (areas of existing urban development), areas contiguous to cities, and areas with infrastructure and services in order to maintain the viability of existing agricultural land.
Policy E-9.5: Review future development for compatibility with existing adjacent and nearby agricultural uses.
Policy E-9.6: Direct future development away from farmlands of local or statewide importance.
Policy E-9.7: Encourage provision of farm family and farm worker housing in a manner that conserves important farmlands.
Policy E-9.8: Encourage the use of site planning techniques such as properly maintained buffers, building envelopes and setbacks on lands adjacent to agricultural uses in order to protect agriculture from encroachment by incompatible land uses.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 22
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal E-10: Encourage alternative means of providing water to agricultural users.
Policy E-10.1: Promote use of reclaimed water in compatible farming and ranching settings.
Policy E-10.2: Support the continued availability of water supplies to agricultural users. Agricultural water users should be encouraged to utilize surface water supplies.
Goal E-12: Promote sustainable forest management that ensures continued timber production, water quality and the timber land base, and reduces the risk of catastrophic fires.
Policy E-12.1: Encourage the continued economic and ecologic viability of timber harvesting and promote creation of defensible space and community wildfire protection.
Policy E-12.2: Maintain Timber Production Zone (TPZ) areas as a renewable source of timber and wood products.
Policy E-12.3: Encourage value-added activities (such as sawmills, cogeneration plants, timber-based manufacturing, and other uses) which contribute to the economic viability of timber production.
Policy E-12.4: Protect timber resource areas from incompatible uses.
3.2.2 Environmental Setting
A wide variety of agricultural products are grown and produced in the County, which contributes to the richness of the local and statewide agrarian tradition. Not only is agriculture an important component of the County’s economy, it is an important part of the County’s character (Amador County 2016a). Wine grapes, pasture and rangeland for livestock, hay crops, fruit and nut crops, field crops, and timber are part of the Amador agricultural industry. Wine grapes are the County’s leading farm commodity. This sector of the industry leads the overall County total in production value. In addition to wine grapes, cattle and calves and poultry are major contributors to County agricultural production. Timber is not considered a farm product, but as an agricultural commodity, timber is considered an important part of the agricultural industry in the eastern part of the County.
Evaluation of the Williamson Act contracts within the County show that the properties north of the Village Units (i.e., the Gansberg Ranch property), where the proposed effluent disposal areas will be constructed, are under Williamson Act contracts. In the County, the lands with Williamson Act contracts are denoted as Williamson Act - mixed enrollment agricultural land: enrolled lands containing a combination of Prime, Non-Prime, Open-Space Easement, or other contracted or enrolled lands not yet delineated by the County (DOC 2014). Additionally, the same area of the proposed Project is categorized as Grazing Land per the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 23
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The majority of the proposed Project area is zoned as Special Use District (X District) and Exclusive Agriculture District (AG District) with smaller portions zoned as Single Family Residential District (R1 District) and Two-Acre Residential District (R2A District) where the proposed pipeline alignment goes through Village (Amador County 2018a). Additionally, the proposed Project would go through a number of individual parcels, the existing Unit 6 WWTP, and the Gansberg Ranch property (Amador County 2018a).
The AG District is applied to all lands that are considered agriculture preserves and are subject to the provisions in the Williamson Act. Public utilities and public services, structures, and buildings are considered a compatible use in AG District zoned lands and would not require a use permit if they are a secondary operation to the agricultural operations and fall in conjuncture with the agricultural operations.
3.2.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than II. AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the Project: Impact Impact Incorporation a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to
the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,
or a Williamson Act contract? c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of
forest land to non-forest use? e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 24
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Finding: Less than Significant
A majority of the proposed Project, the land surrounding the Village Units, is designated as Grazing Land under the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP 2017). Grazing Land is defined as land on which the existing vegetation is suited to the grazing of livestock. However, none of the land on which the proposed Project lies, is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance. Because of this, the proposed activities would not convert any Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The activities of the proposed Project would not permanently impact the area of grazing land or convert the land to non-grazing uses, thus not converting from the current agricultural uses to non-agricultural uses. While the proposed Project is on areas designated under the FMMP, the proposed Project would not permanently impact the land. As such, there would be a less than significant impact. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Finding: Less than Significant
The northern portion of the proposed Project area, north of the Village Units (i.e., the Gansberg Ranch property), where the use area for the proposed effluent storage and disposal areas will be located is on land designated as a Williamson Act contract. The parcel is located on a contract that is designated as mixed enrollment agricultural land. Mixed enrollment agricultural lands are defined as enrolled lands containing a combination of Prime, Non-Prime, Open-Space Easement, or other contracted or enrolled lands not yet delineated by the County (DOC 2014). The Gansberg Ranch property is in agricultural use for cattle grazing.
The proposed Project does not conflict with the zoning or Williamson Act contract on the property. This is because the nature of the proposed Project does not conflict with existing zoning and is not converting land or taking land out of the Williamson Act contract. Instead, the proposed Project is adding water storage ponds on the land, which would provide water for the cattle. Additionally, the recycled water storage areas have the potential to raise the water table which would improve cattle grazing and foraging habitat as well as raising groundwater levels which in turn improves water supply all of which are consistent with the Agricultural zoning and the Williamson Act contract on the land. Therefore, there would be less than significant impact to the existing agricultural zoning or Williamson Act contract.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 25
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project area is currently zoned as X District and AG District with smaller portions zoned as R1 District and R2A District where the pipeline goes through Village (Amador County 2018a). The proposed Project is not located on land zoned as forest or timberland and would not conflict with existing zoning for forestry or timberland resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
d) Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project area is currently zoned as X District and AG District with smaller portions zoned as R1 District and R2A District where the pipeline goes through Village (Amador County 2018a) and is not located on forest land. The proposed Project does not involve tree removal. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project area is currently zoned as X District and AG District with smaller portions zoned as R1 District and R2A District where the pipeline goes through Village (Amador County 2018a). A majority of the proposed Project area is designated as Grazing Land (FMMP 2017), and the area where the recycled water storage basins would be located on land designated as a Williamson Act contract. However, the nature of the proposed Project is such that it would not involve any changes in the existing environment that would result in conversion of farmland or forestland to non-agricultural or non-forest use. Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.2.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 26
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.3 Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions
3.3.1 Regulatory Setting
The Project site is located in the County, which is within the Mountain Counties Air Basin (MCAB) and is under the jurisdiction of the Amador Air District, California Air Resources Board (CARB), and United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
Federal
Federal Clean Air Act
The Federal Clean Air Act (FCAA) establishes the framework for modern air pollution control. The FCAA, enacted in 1970 and amended in 1990, directs the USEPA to establish ambient air quality standards for six pollutants: ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), lead (Pb), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter (PM10, PM2.5), and sulfur dioxide (SO2). These standards are divided into primary and secondary standards; the former is set to protect human health, the latter are set to protect environmental values, such as plant and animal life.
United States Environmental Protection Agency
On April 2, 2007, in Massachusetts v. EPA, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), the Supreme Court found that greenhouse gases (GHGs) are air pollutants covered by the FCAA. The Court held that the USEPA must determine whether or not emissions of GHGs from new motor vehicles cause or contribute to air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare, or whether the science is too uncertain to make a reasoned decision. In making these decisions, the USEPA was required to follow the language of Section 202(a) of the FCAA. This is because the Supreme Court decision resulted from a petition for rulemaking under Section 202(a) filed by more than a dozen environmental, renewable energy, and other organizations.
On April 17, 2009, the USEPA Administrator signed proposed “endangerment and cause or contributes findings” for GHGs under Section 202(a) of the FCAA. Finding that six GHGs taken in combination endanger both the public health and the public welfare of current and future generations. The USEPA also found that the combined emissions of these GHGs from new motor vehicle engines contribute to the greenhouse as air pollution that endangers public health and welfare under FCAA section 202(a). These findings were based on careful consideration of the full weight of scientific evidence and a thorough review of the numerous public comments received. These findings went into effect on January 14, 2010.
State
California Clean Air Act
The California Clean Air Act (CAA) focuses on attainment of the California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS). These standards are more stringent than federal regulations with respect to
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 27
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
certain criteria pollutants and averaging periods. Responsibility for monitoring the CAAQS is placed on the CARB and local air pollution control districts. Table 3.3-1 below shows the County area designations for State and National ambient air quality standards.
Table 3.3-1 Amador County Area Designations for State and National Ambient Air Quality
Criteria Pollutants State Designation National Designation
Ozone Non-attainment Unclassified/Attainment
PM10 Unclassified Unclassified
PM2.5 Unclassified Unclassified/Attainment Carbon Monoxide Unclassified Unclassified/Attainment Nitrogen Dioxide Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Sulfur Dioxide Attainment Unclassified Sulfates Attainment - Lead Attainment Unclassified/Attainment Hydrogen Sulfide Unclassified - Visibility Reducing Particles Unclassified -
Source: CARB 2017
Greenhouse Gas State Regulations
There are a variety of statewide rules and regulations which have been implemented or are in development in California which mandates the quantification or reduction of GHGs. Under CEQA, an analysis and mitigation of emissions of GHGs and climate change in relation to a proposed project is required where it has been determined that a project would result in a significant addition of GHGs. Certain Air Pollution Control Districts (APCDs) have proposed their own levels of significance. The Amador Air District, which has regulatory authority over the air emissions from this Project, has not established a significance threshold for GHG emissions.
Assembly Bill 1493: Assembly Bill (AB) 1493 requires CARB to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions. These stricter emissions standards were designed to apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with model year 2009. In June 2009, the EPA Administrator granted a CAA waiver of preemption to California. This waiver allowed California to implement its own GHG emissions standards for motor vehicles beginning with model year 2009. California agencies worked with federal agencies to conduct joint rulemaking to reduce GHG emissions for passenger car model years 2017 to 2025.
Executive Order S-3-05: Executive Order S-3-05 was established by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in June 2006 and establishes the following statewide emission reduction targets through the year 2050:
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 28
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• by 2010, reduce GHG emissions to 2000 levels;
• by 2020, reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels; and
• by 2050, reduce GHG emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels.
This Executive Order does not include any specific requirements that would pertain directly to the proposed Project. However, actions taken by the State to implement these goals may affect the proposed Project, depending on the specific implementation measures that are developed.
Assembly Bill 32: In 2006, the California State Legislature enacted the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, also known as AB 32. AB 32 focuses on reducing GHG emissions in California. GHGs, as defined under AB 32, include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). AB 32 requires that GHGs emitted in California be reduced to 1990 levels by the year 2020. The CARB is the state agency charged with monitoring and regulating sources of emissions of GHGs that cause global warming to reduce emissions of GHGs.
Climate Change Scoping Plan: The Climate Change Scoping Plan (Scoping Plan) released by CARB in 2008 outlined the state’s strategy to achieve the AB-32 goals. This Scoping Plan, developed by CARB in coordination with the Climate Action Team (CAT), proposed a comprehensive set of actions designed to reduce overall GHG emissions in California, improve the environment, reduce dependence on oil, diversify our energy sources, save energy, create new jobs, and enhance public health. It was adopted by CARB at its meeting in December 2008.
In August 2011, the Scoping Plan was re-approved by the Board and includes the final Supplement to the AB 32 Scoping Plan Functional Equivalent Document. This document includes expanded analysis of project alternatives as well as updates the 2020 emission projections considering the updated economic forecasts.
In May 2014, CARB developed; in collaboration with the CAT, the First Update to California’s Climate Change Scoping Plan (Update), which shows that California is on track to meet the near-term 2020 GHG limit and is well positioned to maintain and continue reductions beyond 2020 as required by AB 32. In accordance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), CARB has mostly transitioned to the use of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) 100-year Global Warming Potential (GWP) in its climate change programs.
A Proposed Scoping Plan is out for comment which builds upon the former Scoping Plan and Update by outlining priorities and recommendations for the State to achieve its long-term climate objectives. The Proposed Scoping Plan establishes a proposed framework of action for California to meet the climate target of a 40 percent reduction in GHGs by 2030, compared to 1990 levels. The major elements of the framework proposed are enhancement of the
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 29
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Renewables Portfolio Standard and the Low Carbon Fuel Standard; a Mobile Source Strategy, Sustainable Freight Action Plan, Short-Lived Climate Pollutant Reduction Strategy, Sustainable Communities Strategies, and a Post-2020 Cap-and-Trade Program; a 20 percent reduction in GHG emissions from the refinery sector and an Integrated Natural and Working Lands Action Plan.
Amador Air District
The proposed Project area is located within the jurisdiction of the Amador Air District. The role of the Amador Air District is to achieve clean air to protect public health and the environment. The Amador Air District’s primary responsibility is to attain and maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and CAAQS in the MCAB by regulating air pollution emissions from stationary and industrial sources. These responsibilities are met by adopting and enforcing rules and regulations concerning air pollutant sources, issuing permits for stationary sources of air pollutants, and inspecting stationary sources of air pollutants (Amador Air District 2018).
The Amador Air District’s Rules and Regulations most relevant to the project include, but are not limited to:
• Rule 202 - Visible emissions,
• Rule 205 - Nuisance,
• Rule 207 - Particulate Matter,
• Rule 210 - Specific Contaminants (sulfur compounds, combustion contaminants),
• Rule 218 - Fugitive Dust Emissions,
• Regulation IV - Authority to Construct, and
• Regulation V - Permit to Operate.
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Conservation Element related to air quality and are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 30
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal C-9. Maintain and improve air quality.
Policy C-9.1: Encourage development of commercial or industrial businesses which provide jobs for county residents in order to reduce vehicle miles traveled for residents who must drive elsewhere for employment.
Policy C-9.2: Encourage infill development, and development near existing activity centers in order to encourage walking or bicycle use in running local errands.
Policy C-9.3: Promote the separation of emission sources from sensitive receptors such as schools, day care centers, and health care facilities.
Policy C-9.4: Encourage energy conservation and energy efficient design in new development projects.
Policy C-9.5: Promote recycling of waste materials and the use of recycled materials.
Policy C-9.6: Maintain viable public transportation options in Amador County, and provide transit connections such as park-and-ride services to job centers in nearby counties.
Policy C-9.7: Work with state and federal agencies to seek recognition of air pollutant movement from valley to mountain counties as a contributor to reduced air quality.
Goal C-10: Reduce GHG emissions associated with automobile travel, electrical power generation and energy use.
Policy C-10.1: Evaluate the potential effects of climate change on the county’s human and natural systems and prepare strategies that allow the County to appropriately respond and adapt.
Policy C-10.2: Develop and adopt a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHGs within Amador County by at least 15 percent from current levels by 2020.
Policy C-10.3: Guide new development to areas where pedestrian and bicycle access to existing activity centers is possible, in order to reduce the need for automobile travel and vehicle miles traveled (VMT).
Policy C-10.4: Work with service providers to ensure that transit offerings in the county are stable or expanding, and that transit is tailored to meet residents’ needs.
Policy C-10.5: Require new development projects to incorporate building placement and design features to increase energy efficiency in new structures.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 31
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Policy C-10.6: Support green building through incentives for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification of new commercial, industrial, public, and multi- family residential buildings. Promote incentives for compliance with this standard as a way to increase the energy efficiency of new structures. Promote increased energy efficiency and green building practices through the County’s use of these practices.
Policy C-10.7: Support parcel-scale energy generation, including addition of solar panels for residential structures and cogeneration for larger commercial or industrial uses.
Policy C-10.8: Expand recycling and waste minimization efforts, including recycling of construction and demolition materials.
3.3.2 Environmental Setting
The following environmental setting information is excerpted from the General Plan Update published in July 2016 (Amador County 2016a).
The County is located in the MCAB. The MCAB lies along the northern Sierra Nevada mountain range, close to or contiguous with the Nevada border, covering an area of approximately 11,000 square miles. Elevations in the County range from over 9,000 feet at the Sierra crest down to several hundred feet above sea level at the County’s boundary with Sacramento County. Topography is highly variable throughout the County and includes rugged mountain peaks and valleys with extreme slopes and elevation variations in the Sierra range, as well as rolling foothills to the west.
The general climate of the MCAB varies considerably with elevation and proximity to the Sierra range. The terrain features of the MCAB allow for several climates to exist in relative proximity. The terrain of mountains and hills results in a wide variation in rainfall, temperature, and localized winds throughout the MCAB. Temperature variations have an important influence on basin wind flow, dispersion along mountain ridges, vertical air mixing, and photochemistry.
The Sierra Nevada range receives large amounts of precipitation from storms moving inland from the Pacific Ocean in the winter, with lesser amounts from intermittent “Monsoonal” moisture flows from the south and cumulus buildup in the summer. Winter temperatures in the mountains can be below freezing for weeks at a time, and substantial amounts of snow can accumulate, but in the western foothills, winter temperatures usually drop below freezing only at night and precipitation is mixed as rain or light snow. In the summer, temperatures in the mountains are mild, with daytime highs in the 70s to low 80s °F, but the western end of the County can routinely exceed 100 °F. From an air quality perspective, the topography and meteorology of the MCAB combine such that local conditions are the predominate factor in determining the effect of emissions in the MCAB.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 32
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Regional airflows are affected by the mountains and hills, which direct surface air flows, cause shallow vertical mixing, and create areas of high pollutant concentrations by hindering dispersion.
Inversion layers, where warm air inversely overlays cooler air, frequently occur in the MCAB and trap pollutants close to the ground. During summer’s longer daylight hours, stagnant air, high temperatures, and plentiful sunlight provide the conditions and energy for the photochemical reaction between reactive organic gases (ROGs) and nitrogen oxides (NOX) that results in the formation of ozone. Because of its long formation time, ozone is a regional pollutant rather than a local hotspot problem. In the summer, the strong upwind valley air flowing into the basin from the Central Valley to the west is an effective transport medium for ozone precursors and ozone generated in the Bay Area and the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys (Amador County 2016a).
Greenhouse Gases (GHGs)
Many chemical compounds found in the Earth’s atmosphere act as GHGs, which allow sunlight to enter the atmosphere freely. When sunlight strikes the Earth’s surface, some of it is reflected back towards space as infrared radiation (heat). GHGs absorb this heat and trap it in the atmosphere. Over time, the amount of energy sent from the sun to the Earth’s surface should be about the same as the amount of energy radiated back into space, leaving the temperature of the Earth’s surface roughly constant. Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, CO2, CH4, and N2O), while others are exclusively human- made (like gases used for aerosols).
The principal climate change gases resulting from human activity that enter and accumulate in the atmosphere are listed below:
• CO2: CO2 enters the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste, trees and wood products, and chemical reactions (e.g., the manufacture of cement). CO2 is also removed from the atmosphere (or “sequestered”) when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle.
• CH4: CH4 is emitted during the production and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. CH4 emissions also result from livestock and agricultural practices and the decay of organic waste in municipal solid waste landfills.
• N2O: N2O is emitted during agricultural and industrial activities as well as during combustion of fossil fuels and solid waste.
• Fluorinated Gases: HFCs, PFCs, and SF6 are synthetic, powerful climate-change gases that are emitted from a variety of industrial processes. Fluorinated gases are often used as substitutes for ozone-depleting substances (i.e., chlorofluorocarbons, hydrochloro- fluorocarbons, and halons). These gases are typically emitted in smaller quantities, but because they are potent climate-change gases, they are sometimes referred to as high GWP gases.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 33
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Thresholds of Significance
The Amador Air District does not have a recommended threshold of significance for determining a project’s significance, however the Air District’s Rule 419 has established 100 tons per year of a nonattainment pollutant or precursor as the allowable emissions for stationary sources subject to an Authority to Construct permit. This is similar to the adjacent Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District’s threshold for stationary sources. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), which is also adjacent to the Amador Air District has established detailed significance thresholds for construction and operation. SMAQMD has established 85 pounds per day of NOX and 80 pounds per day (14.6 tons per year) of PM10, and 82 pounds per day (15 tons per year) of PM2.5 as its construction emissions thresholds (SMAQMD 2016). The El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District has established 82 pounds per day of ROG and NOX as its thresholds of significance for ozone precursors.
The Amador Air District has not established significance thresholds for greenhouse gas emissions; however, the SMAQMD has established 1,100 metric tons CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) as their significance threshold for greenhouse gas emissions. Projects that emit less than 1,100 MTCO2e would be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
Based on the above information, although the Amador Air District are not beholden to the following thresholds, they provide a useful comparison, and thus have been applied for this project.
• ROG – 82 pounds per day
• NOX – 82 pounds per day
• PM10 – 80 pounds per day (14.6 tons per year)
• PM2.5 – 82 pounds per day (15 tons per year)
• GHGs – 1,100 MTCO2e
Methodology
Construction emissions for the proposed Project were modeled using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod). The model inputs were based on information from the project design as described in Section 2.0 Project Description. Detailed assumptions and the model output are provided in Appendix A.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 34
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.3.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than III. AIR QUALITY and GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS Significant No Significant Significant with Mitigation Impact Would the Project: Impact Impact Incorporation a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the
applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute
to an existing or Projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable Federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Finding: Less than Significant
The County is designated nonattainment for state health-based air quality standards for ozone. The County is designated as attainment/unclassified or unclassified for all other federal and state standards health-based air quality standards.
To assess the proposed Project’s potential to obstruct implementation of an air quality plan, localized criteria pollutant emissions were analyzed, as these are the pollutants with established ambient air quality standards. Potential localized impacts would include exceedances of State standards for PM. PM emissions, primarily PM10, are of concern during construction because of potential fugitive dust emissions during earth-disturbing activities.
During construction of the proposed Project, various types of equipment and vehicles would temporarily operate on the proposed Project site. Fugitive dust and construction exhaust
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 35
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
emissions would be generated from construction equipment, earth movement activities, construction workers’ commutes, and construction material hauling. The aforementioned activities would involve the use of diesel- and gasoline-powered equipment that would generate emissions of criteria pollutants.
Air quality modeling was performed using Project-specific details in order to determine whether the proposed Project would result in criteria air pollutant emissions in excess of the applicable thresholds of significance. Presented in Table 3.3-2, the proposed Project’s construction-related emissions have been estimated using CalEEMod (Appendix A). The results of the unmitigated emissions modeling were compared to the significance thresholds in order to determine the associated level of impact. Although the proposed Project construction would temporarily cause localized increases in emission levels, the Project would not exceed the thresholds of significance, and thus would not impede implementation of any air quality rules, regulations, or plans. The impact is less than significant.
Table 3.3-2 CalEEMod Predicted Maximum Daily Project Emissions Estimates
ROG NOx PM10 PM2.5 Project Unmitigated Construction Emissions (lbs/day) 5.18 52.77 21.17 12.21 Thresholds of Significance 82 82 80 82 Significant Impact? No No No No
b) Would the Project violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Air pollutant emissions have regional effects and localized effects. This analysis assesses the regional effects of the project’s criteria pollutant emissions in comparison to the project-specific thresholds of significance for short-term construction activities. Localized emissions from project construction are also assessed.
Because the County is designated nonattainment for state ozone standards and unclassified for state PM10 standards. The primary pollutants of concern during Project construction are ROG, NOX, and PM10.
Regional Impacts
Regional impacts include those from ozone emissions. Because ozone is not directly emitted and generated through a chemical reaction between NOx and ROG, it is considered a regional pollutant. As shown in Table 3.3-2, construction emissions are not expected to generate significant levels of pollutants, including ROG or NOx, during construction-related activities.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 36
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Construction emissions are below the project-specific thresholds of significance; therefore, the regional impact is less than significant.
Localized Impacts
Construction Fugitive Dust
During construction (grading), fugitive dust (PM10) would be generated from site grading and other earth-moving activities. The majority of this fugitive dust will remain localized and will be deposited near the project site. As shown in Table 3.3-2, PM10 emissions would not exceed the project-specific threshold of significance, however, even projects not exceeding the thresholds should implement BMPs to avoid potential localized health impacts. The project has incorporated BMPs through implementation of Mitigation Measure (MM) AIR-1.
Therefore, the project’s potential to violate or contribute to an existing air quality standard would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or State ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?
Finding: Less than Significant
A cumulative impact analysis considers a project over time in conjunction with other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects whose impacts might compound those of the project being assessed. Air pollution is largely a cumulative impact. The region is in nonattainment for the state ozone standard. The nonattainment status is a result of past and present development, and, thus, cumulative impacts related to ozone precursor pollutants (ROG and NOX) could be considered cumulatively significant.
As shown in Table 3.3-1, the proposed Project’s ROG and NOX emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance established for this Project and are significantly less than the threshold established by the Amador Air District for stationary sources. In addition, the proposed Project would be required to comply with all applicable Amador Air District rules and regulations. Therefore, the proposed Project’s individual emissions would not be expected to result in a cumulatively considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact, and impacts would be considered less than significant.
d) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
This discussion addresses whether the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), construction generated fugitive dust (PM10), construction
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 37
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
generated diesel particulate matter (DPM), or CO hotspots. A sensitive receptor is a person in a population who is particularly susceptible to health effects due to exposure to an air contaminant. The following are land uses (sensitive sites) where sensitive receptors are typically located:
• Long-term health care facilities
• Rehabilitation centers
• Convalescent centers
• Hospitals
• Retirement homes
• Residences
• Schools, playgrounds, and childcare centers
The proposed Project is not considered a sensitive receptor. The nearest sensitive receptors would be the single-family homes located over 50 to 100 feet from the proposed pipeline alignment.
Construction Emissions
Naturally-Occurring Asbestos
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) maps NOA areas throughout the State of California. When inhaled, asbestos fibers may remain in the lungs and with time may be linked to such diseases as asbestosis, lung cancer, and mesothelioma. The risk of disease is dependent upon the intensity and duration of exposure. In California, NOA is most likely to occur in areas of serpentinite, ultramafic rock (igneous rock composed of greater than 90 percent iron- magnesium minerals), and fault/shear zones. Rock units considered to have a moderate likelihood of containing NOA include mafic rock (igneous rock rich in iron-magnesium minerals). Serpentinite, ultramafic, and mafic rock is not mapped within the Project area. The closest known occurrence of ultramafic rock outcroppings in the County are approximately 4.5 miles east of the proposed project (DOC 2000, DOC 2011). Therefore, there is no potential health hazards resulting from NOA dust, and there would be no impact.
Fugitive Dust (PM10)
As previously discussed, PM10 emissions would not exceed the thresholds of significance; nevertheless, the potential for localized PM10 health impacts is a concern. For this reason, the Project has incorporated MM AIR-1 requiring the implementation of BMPs to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 38
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Diesel Particulate Matter Construction activities have the potential to generate DPM emissions related to the number and types of equipment typically associated with construction. Off-road, heavy-duty diesel equipment used for site grading, paving, and other construction activities result in the generation of DPM. However, construction is temporary and occurs over a relatively short duration. In addition, only portions of the site would be disturbed at a time, with operation of construction equipment regulated by federal, state, and local regulations, including CARB and Amador Air District rules and regulations, and occurring intermittently throughout the course of a day, the likelihood that any one sensitive receptor would be exposed to high concentrations of DPM for any extended period of time would be low. In addition, MM AIR-1 would be implemented to reduce emissions generated from construction equipment. Therefore, it is not anticipated the proposed Project would expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations and impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
CO Hotspots
Localized high levels of CO (CO hotspot) are associated with traffic congestion and idling or slow-moving vehicles. Various air districts have established screening thresholds to determine whether a project’s traffic impact would cause a potential CO hotspot at any given intersection. If the project emissions of CO exceed 550 pounds a day and if either of the following criteria is true of any intersection affected by the project traffic, then the project can be said to have the potential to create a violation of the CO air quality standard:
• A traffic study for the project indicates that the peak-hour Level of Service (LOS) on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity will be reduced to an unacceptable LOS (typically LOS E or F); or
• A traffic study indicates that the project will substantially worsen an already existing peak-hour LOS F on one or more streets or at one or more intersections in the project vicinity. “Substantially worsen” includes situations where delay would increase by ten seconds or more when project-generated traffic is included.
During construction, the proposed Project would emit a maximum of 34 pounds of CO per day. A traffic study was not prepared for the Project as trip generation for the construction of the Project would be minimal. It is estimated that up to 33 construction workers per day would be needed (estimated at 22 trips per day) and that up to four heavy-duty diesel trucks per day would be needed to deliver materials or export soil. Notably, the project is planning on balancing soil on-site, therefore, the actual number of truck trips may be reduced, however in order to provide a conservative estimate some soil export was assumed. Given that the emissions of CO are well below the 550 pounds per day and the minimal increase in traffic caused by construction, the level of service on nearby roadways would not be reduced to LOS E or F or worsen an existing F. Therefore, the impact is less than significant.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 39
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
e) Would the Project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Finding: Less than Significant
While offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they can still be very unpleasant, leading to considerable distress among the public and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and the Amador Air District. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depends on numerous factors, including nature, frequency, and intensity of the source, the wind speed and direction, and the sensitivity of the receptor. The nearest sensitive receptor in the vicinity of the proposed Project area would be the single-family residences adjacent to the proposed force main. Construction activities associated with the Project could result in short-term odorous emissions from diesel exhaust associated with construction equipment. However, these emissions would be intermittent and would dissipate rapidly from the source. In addition, this diesel- powered equipment would only be present on site temporarily during construction activities. Therefore, construction would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, the proposed Project would not create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people, and the impact would be less than significant.
Long-term operation of the storage basin would not result in objectionable odors as the water would be treated before being piped to the storage basin and all operations would be in compliance with WDRs. f) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project could contribute to climate change impacts through its contribution of GHGs. The proposed Project would generate a variety of GHGs during construction, including several defined by AB 32, such as CO2, CH4, and N2O from the exhaust of equipment and the exhaust of construction hauling trips and worker commuter trips. The Amador Air District has not established GHG significance thresholds; however, as described previously, other adjacent air districts have developed significance thresholds for GHGs. Although these thresholds are not binding on the Amador Air District, they are useful for comparative purposes.
Construction emissions were computed for the Project using the CalEEMod model. The predicted proposed Project emissions are well below the significance thresholds for CO2e emission levels (Table 3.3-3, CalEEMod 2017). It is not anticipated that the proposed Project would generate GHG emissions levels that either directly or indirectly have significant impacts on the environment due to the low Project CO2e emission estimates. Therefore, since the total Project CO2e emission estimates would be well below the thresholds, potential GHG emission impacts would be considered less than significant.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 40
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Table 3.3-3 CalEEMod Predicted CO2e Emissions Estimates
Total Construction Source CO2e Emission Estimates (metric 436 tons/year unmitigated)
SMAQMD CO2e GHG Screening Threshold 1,100 (metric tons/year)
The primary sources of proposed Project-related GHG emissions are anticipated to be combustion of fossil fuels from the operation of internal combustion engines used during Project construction (portable equipment, off road equipment, and vehicles). Operations emissions would be similar to existing operations and would not result in a substantial amount of GHG emissions.
g) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project would not generate additional GHG emissions that would conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation for the purposes of reducing the emissions of GHG. Total CO2e levels predicted to be emitted from construction totaled 436 metric tons/year. This CO2e estimate is well below the significance thresholds established by other surrounding air districts and significantly below the 10,000 MTCO2e per year CARB Mandatory Reporting Threshold for industrial projects. Therefore, with the total Project CO2e emission estimates well below these thresholds, potential GHG emission impacts would be considered less than significant.
3.3.4 Mitigation Measures
MM AIR-1: Dust Control and Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan
The following conditions would be included in the General Notes and/or Grading Plan for the proposed Project, under the descriptive heading “Dust and Equipment Exhaust Control” and would be implemented during construction activities:
• Visible emissions from stationary diesel-powered equipment are not allowed to exceed 20 percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one-hour, as regulated under District Rule 202, Visible Emissions.
• All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded would be sufficiently watered, treated, or covered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard. Watering should occur at least twice daily, with complete site coverage.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 41
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• All areas with vehicle traffic would be watered or have dust palliative applied as necessary for regular stabilization of dust emissions.
• All on-site vehicle traffic would be limited to a speed of 15 miles per hour within the project site.
• All land clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities on a project would be suspended as necessary to prevent excessive windblown dust when winds are expected to exceed 20 miles per hour.
• All inactive portions of the development site would be covered, revegetated, or watered until a suitable cover is established. Alternatively, the applicant may apply County-approved non-toxic soil stabilizers (according to manufacturer’s specifications) to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours) in accordance with the local grading ordinance.
• All material transported off-site would be securely covered to prevent public nuisance, and there must be a minimum of two feet of freeboard in the bed of the transport vehicle.
• Paved roads adjacent to the Project would be swept at the end of each day or more frequently if necessary, to remove excessive or visibly raised accumulations of dirt and/or mud that may have resulted from activities in the Project area.
• Ground cover on the site would be re-established through revegetation and watering in accordance with the local grading ordinance.
• A publicly visible sign would be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Agency regarding dust complaints. This person would respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The Amador Air District phone number would also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations.
• All unnecessary vehicle idling would be restricted to five minutes.
• Encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or employ other means to reduce trip generation.
MM AIR-1 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency shall require that the contractor prepare and implement a Construction Emissions and Dust Control Plan. The Agency shall be responsible for ensuring that all adequate dust control measures are implemented in a timely manner during all phases of Project development and construction by the contractor.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 42
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Timing: A Construction Emissions and Dust Control Plan incorporated with the Project SWPPP shall be prepared and approved by the Agency prior to construction and implemented during all phases of grading and activities that have the potential to generate dust.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: During construction, regular inspections shall be performed by an Agency representative and reports shall be kept on file by the Agency.
Standards for Success: Visible emissions and dust are kept to the lowest practicable level during construction periods. The goal is to minimize dust and emissions during construction and to the extent feasible, complaints from the public.
3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
The Biological Resources section addresses the regional and local biological environment of the proposed Project area by identifying and screening species that make up the natural environment and by establishing potential special status species and their likelihood of occurrence in the proposed Project area. The section then documents the applicable Federal, State, and local rules, regulations, and guidelines applicable to biological resources potentially impacted by the proposed Project. Next, specific proposed Project-related impacts to these baseline conditions are then evaluated based on the established thresholds of significance established in the CEQA guidelines. The section concludes by detailing mitigation measures, if necessary, required to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels, if necessary.
3.4.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal, State, and County require the protection of plant and wildlife species, their habitats, and other biological resources. The Regulatory Setting outlines the laws and regulations relevant to proposed Project.
Federal
Clean Water Act: Section 401
The USEPA regulates surface water quality in WOTUS under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and in California this authority is delegated to the RWQCB. CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) provides states and authorized tribes with an effective tool to help protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of water quality, by providing them an opportunity to address the aquatic resource impacts of federally issued permits and licenses. CWA 401 states that no Federal permit or license can be issued if a proposed action may result in a discharge to WOTUS, unless the RWQCB certifies that the discharge is consistent with standards and other water quality goals or waives certification (USEPA 2016a). CWA 401 compliance is required for any proposed project that produces a federal action with construction that could have an impact to surface water quality.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 43
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Clean Water Act: Section 404
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the USEPA regulate the discharge of dredge or fill material into WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA. WOTUS include wetlands, lakes, rivers, streams, and their tributaries. Wetlands are defined, for regulatory purposes, as areas inundated or saturated by surface, or groundwater; at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated solid conditions (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3, 40 CFR 230.3) (USEPA 2016b). If a proposed project discharges any fill materials into WOTUS, including wetlands, before and after any proposed project actions, then CWA 404 compliance must be met with the USACE.
Endangered Species Act of 1973
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) was passed by Congress in 1973 to protect and recover imperiled species and the habitat upon which they depend. FESA is administered by the USFWS. Under the FESA, protected species are either listed as “endangered”, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant region of the species range; or as “threatened”, likely to become endangered within the near future (USFWS 2017a). “’Take’ is to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill; or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill” an endangered or threatened species. The FESA also designates “candidate” species as those plants and animals that the USFWS has sufficient data on their biological status to propose them to be listed under the FESA (USFWS 2017a). The FESA mandates the protection of federally listed species and the habitats which they depend (50 CFR 17.12 for listed plants, 50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals, and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species).
Consultation with the USFWS would be necessary if a proposed Project action has the potential to affect federally listed species, such as California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense, CTS), as well as suitable habitat for those species. This consultation would proceed under Section 7 of the FESA if a federal action is part of the proposed Project action or proceed through Section 10 of the FESA if no such nexus were available (USFWS 2017a).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and Bald and Gold Eagle Protection Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 United States Code [USC] Section 703-711) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BAGEPA) (16 USC Section 668), protect specific species of birds and prohibits “take” (i.e., harm or harassment). The MBTA protects migrant bird species from “take” through setting hunting limits and seasons and protecting occupied nests and eggs (USFWS 2018a). BAGEPA prohibits the take or commerce of any part of the bald or golden eagle (USFWS 2018b). The USFWS administers both the MBTA and BAGEPA and reviews actions that may affect species protected under each act.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 44
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Safe Harbor Agreement
The SHA is a voluntary agreement involving private or other non-Federal property owners which protects special status species as defined in the FESA. A SHA follows the USFWS’s SHA policy (64 Federal Register (FR) 32717) and regulations (64 FR 32706), both of which implement section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The agreement resides between the property owner and either the USFSW or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the federal entity which is responsible for most listed marine and anadromous fish species. In general, a SHA ensures the property owner that in exchange for actions that contribute to the recovery of listed species on non-federal lands, participating property owners shall receive formal assurances from the USFWS that if they fulfill the conditions of the SHA, the USFWS will not require any additional or different management activities by the participants without their consent. At the conclusion of the SHA’s life, property owners may return the enrolled property to the baseline conditions that existed at the beginning of the SHA (USFWS 2018c).
The EBMUD property that is included within the proposed Project area is enrolled within a SHA between the USFWS and EBMUD. Specifically, the purpose of this SHA is to 1) promote the enhancement and management of habitat for California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii, CRLF), CTS, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle (VELB) on EBMUD watershed lands in San Joaquin, Amador, and Calaveras counties; and 2) to provide certain regulatory assurances to EBMUD (USFWS ND).
State
California Endangered Species Act: California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 2050-2116
The CDFW has jurisdiction over State listed plant and wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered under Section 2080 of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code 2050-2116. The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) prohibits “take” of State-listed threatened or endangered species. The State CESA differs from FESA in that it does not include habitat destruction in its definition of “take”. CDFW defines “take” as- to “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” CDFW may authorize “take” under the CESA through Section 2081 of the CDFG Code (CDFW 2017a).
The State of California designates Species of Special Concern (SSC) as wildlife and plant species of limited distribution, declining populations, diminishing habitat, or unusual scientific, recreational, and/or educational values. These species do not have the same legal protection as listed species but may be added to official lists in the future (CDFW 2017a). Examples SSC that have the potential to occur in the proposed Project area include the CRLF, western pond turtle (Emys marmorata) (WPT), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). In the 1960’s California also created a designation to provide additional protection to rare species. This designation remains today and is referred to as “Fully Protected” species, and those listed “may not be taken or possessed at any time” (CDFW 2017c). An example of a “Fully Protected” species that has the potential to occur in the proposed Project vicinity is the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 45
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15380
Pursuant to the CEQA Guidelines Section 1580, protection is provided for federal and/or State listed species, as well as species not listed federally or by the State that may be considered rare, threatened, or endangered. Species that meet these criteria can include “candidate species”, species “proposed for listing”, and “species of special concern”. Plants appearing on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) System are considered to meet CEQA’s Section 15380 criteria as well. Section 15380 also addresses a potential situation in which a public agency is to review a proposed project that may have a significant effect on, for example a “candidate species”, which has not yet been listed by the USFWS or CDFW. Therefore, CEQA enables an agency to protect a species from significant proposed project impacts until the respective government agencies have had an opportunity to list the species as protected, if warranted (CDFW 2017b, CDFW 2017d-e). Impacts to these species would therefore be considered “significant” requiring mitigation (CDFW 2017b, CDFW 2017d-e).
Lake and Streambed Alteration: California Department of Fish and Game Sections 1600–1616
To protect, manage, and conserve rivers, streams, lakes, wetlands, etc., CDFW has jurisdictional authority, under CDFG Code Sections 1600-1616, to regulate all work under the jurisdiction of the State. Such work includes those actions that would substantially divert, obstruct, or change the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; and/or use material from a streambed. In practice, CDFW marks its jurisdictional limit at the top of the stream or lake bank, or the outer edge of the riparian vegetation (where present), and sometimes extends its jurisdiction to the edge of the 100-year floodplain (CDFW 2017f). If a proposed project has the potential to include any of the work activities within the boundaries of jurisdiction, then compliance is required through a CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA).
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act: California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 1601-1607
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), Section 1601-1607 of the CDFG code, delegates responsibility to the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) for water rights and water quality protection and directs the nine Statewide RWQCBs to develop and enforce water quality standards within their jurisdiction. The Porter-Cologne Act requires any entity discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the quality of the “waters of the State” to file a “report of waste discharge” with the appropriate RWQCB. The appropriate RWQCB then must issue a permit, referred to as a WDR. WDRs implement water quality control plans and take into consideration the beneficial uses to be protected, the water quality objectives reasonably required for that purpose, other waste discharges, and the need to prevent nuisances (California Water Code [CWC] Section 13263) (SWRCB 2017b).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 46
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Nesting Migratory Birds and Raptors: California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800
Nesting migratory birds and raptors are protected under CDFG Code Sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3800; which prohibit the “take”, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs. Implementation of “take” provisions require that proposed project-related disturbance, within active nesting territories, be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (approximately March 1 – August 31). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young), or the loss of habitat upon which birds are dependent, is considered "taking", and is potentially punishable by fines and/or imprisonment (CLI 2018a). Such taking would also violate federal law protecting migratory birds under the MBTA.
California Fish and Game Code Section 1900 et seq.
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) was enacted in 1977 and is administered by CDFW CDFG Code Section 1900 et seq. The NPPA prohibits “take” of endangered, threatened, or rare plant species native to California, apart from special criteria identified in the CDFW Code (CLI 2018b). A “native plant” means a plant growing in a wild uncultivated state which is normally found native to the plant life of the State. A “rare” species can be defined as species that are: broadly distributed but never abundant where found, narrowly distributed, or clumped yet abundant where found, and/or narrowly distributed or clumped and not abundant where found. If potential impacts are identified for a proposed project activity, then consultation with CDFW, permitting, and/or other mitigation may be required (CNPS 2018a).
California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act and Oak Protection: California Department of Fish and Game Code Sections 1360-1372 and Public Resources Code Section 21083
The 2005 CDFG Code Section 1360-1372 outlines the terms and conditions comprising the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (OWCA) (CLI 2018c). An oak woodland is defined as an oak stand with greater than ten percent canopy cover, or that may have historically supported greater than ten percent canopy cover. The overall purpose of the OWCA is to provide funding for the conservation and protection of California’s oak woodlands. In addition, the OWCA is designed to support and encourage voluntary, long-term private stewardship and conservation of California’s oak woodlands by offering landowners financial incentives to protect and promote biologically functional oak woodlands over time, as mandated by the Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB). The WCB has established programs, including the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Program (OWCP), to protect and restore oak woodlands. The OWCA encourages and defers to local jurisdictions to develop and implement oak conservations plans developed under the OWCA (WCB 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 47
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Furthermore, the California PRC Section 21083.4 defines an oak as a native tree species in the genus Quercus, not designated as commercial species (i.e., Groups A and B) pursuant to regulations adopted by the State of California Board of Forestry and Fire Protection (BFFP) (i.e., Section 4526), that is five inches or more in Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) (i.e., diameter of a tree measured 4.5 feet above natural grade). In addition, the PRC Code defines a ten percent canopy cover stipulation that pertains to an individual stand of vegetation, and not all oaks within an entire proposed project site. PRC 21083.4 does not apply to oak woodlands dominated by the black oak species (Quercus kelloggii). As part of the determination made pursuant to PRC Section 21080.1, it shall be determined prior to a proposed Project whether its jurisdiction may result in oak tree impacts and or a conversion of an oak woodland that will have a significant effect on the environment. When it is determined that proposed project activities may have significant impacts to oak woodlands, mitigation is required, as described in the California PRC.
Other State Tree Protection Regulations
Additional state laws that regulate and/or protect oaks and oak woodlands include: The Professional Forester’s Law (PFL); CEQA; and the California BFFP. PFL addresses oak habitat evaluations. CEQA addresses that “a county… shall determine whether a proposed project within its jurisdiction may result in a conversion of oak woodland that will have a significant effect on the environment” (Giusti and McCreary 2008). Thus, both PFL and CEQA apply to all local jurisdictions. Since it is a state agency, the California BFFP has regulatory authority over all of California’s forested landscapes, including the authority to regulate oak woodlands at the state or local level.
Local
The Open Space Element of the General Plan addresses open spaces for the managed production of resources, outdoor recreation, public health and safety, and the preservation of natural resources. The County’s open space areas support recreational uses, vegetation, and wildlife habitat and help to maintain the County’s scenic beauty. The purpose of this element is to identify goals, policies, and implementation measures that manage, conserve, and enhance these resources for current and future residents and visitors. The Open Space Element describes the County’s goals and policies with respect to open space areas and addresses the following topics:
• Preserving and creating community separators and managing existing;
• Agricultural, open space, and recreational resources;
• Conserving, improving, developing, and maintaining recreational facilities;
• Protecting local scenic highway corridors; and
• Protecting natural resource habitats and special status species.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 48
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Action programs (implementation programs) for the Open Space Element have been developed consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 65564. These implementation programs are also part of the General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) mitigation measures. Once CEQA findings and the General Plan are adopted, these implementation programs legally are incorporated into the General Plan; see CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4(a)(2). Implementation programs for Open Space Element goals and policies are reproduced at the end of the Open Space Element, following the discussion of issues, goals, and policies (Amador County 2016a-b).
Natural Resource and Species Protection
Goal OS-3: Protect wildlife habitats, including sensitive environments and aquatic habitats, consistent with State and federal law.
Policy OS-3.1: Encourage preservation of oak woodlands in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21083.4.
Policy OS-3.2: Encourage the conservation of corridors for wildlife movement, particularly in oak woodland areas and along rivers and streams.
Policy OS-3.3: Support voluntary conservation easements to protect wildlife habitat, including oak woodlands.
Policy OS-3.4: Use site planning techniques, including, but not limited to, buffers, setbacks, and clustering of development to protect sensitive environments, including wetlands, riparian corridors, vernal pools, and sensitive species.
Policy OS-3.5: Protect aquatic habitats from the effects of erosion, siltation, and alteration.
Policy OS-3.6: Encourage the use of appropriate native species for reclamation and revegetation components of development projects. Restrict the introduction of invasive exotic species. The County will amend Chapter 15.40 of the County Code (governing grading and erosion control) to include a section addressing the requirement to limit the potential for introduction and spread of invasive species during soil disturbance and construction activities.
Goal OS-4: Protect special status species, including threatened and endangered species, consistent with State and federal law.
Policy OS-4.1: Ensure that new development complies with State and federal laws concerning special status species preservation.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 49
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.4.2 Environmental Setting
The following environmental setting provides the baseline of regional and local physical and environmental conditions within the proposed Project area, as it applies to biological resources.
Regional Setting
The proposed Project area is in the Sierra Nevada foothills of the County. The existing WWTP is at approximately 350 feet in elevation amsl. The remainder of the proposed Project varies from 250 feet to 400 feet elevation amsl, depending on the location along the roadways or location within the EBMUD property or Gansberg Ranch property. The proposed site considered for the new effluent reservoir at the Gansberg Ranch property has approximately 50 feet of elevation loss from the existing WWTP, and no notable topographic features to cross; whereas the proposed reservoir on Agency land has approximately 110 feet of elevation gain from the existing WWTP.
The proposed Project area is located within the Lower Cosumnes-Lower Mokelumne Watershed (USGS 2017a). Major hydrologic sources in the area include the Lake Camanche, Rabbit Creek, and Camanche Creek. Lake Camanche is fed by the (Lower) Mokelumne River (i.e., tributary to the San Joaquin River). The water entering Lake Camanche is influenced by the amount of water released from the Pardee Reservoir/Dam; which is the primary water source for EBMUD. Lake Camanche typically fills to capacity from snow melt just before summer season. During summer months, Lake Camanche supplies continuous water downstream irrigation (Ahearn et al. 2005). Rabbit Creek and Camanche Creek are also tributaries to the Mokelumne River and present within portions of the proposed Project area.
The region of the proposed Project is divided between two geomorphic provinces- the Sierra Nevada section to the east, and the Great Valley of California to the west. Surface soils overlying the clay formations in the hilly areas consist generally of shallow and gravelly clay-loam layers that have moderate to low permeability (USDA 2016).
The natural habitat is generally comprised of valley grasslands and foothill woodlands. The proposed Project area additionally includes residential, agricultural, and recreational lands. The climate can be described as “Mediterranean”, with cool winter rainy seasons, and hot dry summers.
Study Methods
A desktop analysis and field survey were used to determine if plant species, wildlife species, and/or any other biological resources the presence, absence, and/or the potential to occur for special status plant and wildlife species and other biological resources, and to evaluate their potential to be impacted by proposed Project activities.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 50
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Desktop Analysis Methodology
Prior to conducting reconnaissance-level biological field surveys in May 2017, Stantec completed a desktop analysis to identify sensitive biological resources (e.g., wildlife species, plant species, and their habitats) that may occur within the proposed Project area and region, as defined by the CDFW, USFWS, and CNPS. Since the field surveys conducted in May 2017, Stantec has updated all necessary database searches to include any listing and/or status changes of sensitive biological resources. The following resources were used to identify those potentially occurring biological resources:
• CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) records search of special status species and habitat observations in the proposed Project area and in the three miles surrounding the proposed Project area (Figure 3.4-1) (CDFW 2018);
• CNPS online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California for Carbondale, Irish Hill, Amador City, Goose Creek, Ione, Jackson, Clements, Wallace, and Valley Springs U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Quads (CNPS 2018b);
• USFWS list of federal endangered, threatened, and candidate species in the proposed Project area and in the three miles surrounding the proposed Project area (USFWS 2018d);
• USFWS Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) data for federally threatened and endangered species (USFWS 2017b);
• Calflora online database for the County (Calflora 2018). Calflora was used as a secondary tool for assessing rare plant species that have the potential to occur within the County.
Endangered, threatened, rare, and/or special status species that were identified during the desktop analysis of the proposed Project are compiled in Table 3.4-1 below. For this IS/MND, the following parameters define special status species:
• Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under the FESA (50 CFR 17.12 for listed plants, 50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals, and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species);
• Species that are listed or proposed for listing by the State as threatened or endangered under the CESA (14 CCR 670.5);
• Plants listed as rare under the California NPPA of 1977 (CDFG Code 1900 et seq.);
• Plants considered by the CNPS CRPR to be Rank 1- a) “plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere”, or b) “rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere”;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 51
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Plants considered by CNPS CRPR to be a Rank 2- a) “plants presumed extirpated in California, but common elsewhere”, or b) “rare, threatened, or endangered in California and common elsewhere”;
• Plants considered by CNPS CRPR to be a Rank 3- “plants about which more information is needed” and cannot be yet be excluded from review;
• Plants considered by CNPS CRPR to be a Rank 4- “plants with limited distribution”;
• Plant and wildlife species that meet the definitions of “rare” or “endangered” under CEQA, Guidelines Section 15380;
• Wildlife SSC to CDFW; and
• Plant and wildlife species that are designated as “special” or “those of greatest conservation need” by CDFW through the CNDDB.
Field Study Methodology
In May 2017, Stantec conducted a reconnaissance-level biological survey of the proposed Project area (Figure 3.4-1). Surveys were conducted on foot, walking meandering transects to identify the presence of rare plants, and the presence of and/or habitat of special status wildlife species as defined above. A list of the plant and wildlife species observed during the field surveys are compiled in Appendix B.
Study Results
Biological Communities
The May 2017 reconnaissance-level survey revealed a mosaic of residential, disturbed/ruderal, annual grassland, and oak woodland vegetation communities. To classify the vegetation communities in the proposed Project area, Stantec used the CDFW and the CNPS standard classification system for floristically describing vegetation communities statewide; further translating to the National Vegetation Classification (NVC). The CDFW and CNPS system has been compiled in A Manual for California Vegetation (MCV), 2nd Edition (Sawyer et al. 2009), and has been accepted and adopted by State and Federal agencies. The MCV defines vegetation communities by dominant and/or co-dominant species present as: 1A) alliance- a broad unit of vegetation with discernible and related characteristics; 1B) provisional alliance- a temporary vegetation community and/or candidate alliance; and/or 2) association- a basic secondary unit of classification, not as broad as an alliance, with uniform composition and conditions. The MCV classifications replace lists of vegetation types developed for the CNDDB. Furthermore, the MCV classifications relates to wildlife habitats by identifying unique characteristics; thus, distinguishing locales for threatened and endangered wildlife species. Biological vegetation communities, and associated hydrologic features, are discussed in the sections below.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 52
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.4.2.3.1.1 Blue Oak Woodland Alliance
Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii) Woodland Alliance is highly variable, with blue oak comprising 80 to 100 percent of trees present (Sawyer et al. 2009). The primary differentiating factor between oak- foothill pine woodlands and blue oak woodlands is the presence of pine species (Pinus sp.) in oak-foothill pine woodlands. This community is commonly used for livestock grazing, firewood production, wildlife habitat, and the increasing development of suburban communities. Land- use practices associated with these activities, such as tree removal, often result in severe community disturbances that further affect soil and water quality. In turn, changes in soil quality may affect oak regeneration success and ecosystem stability (Pavlik et al. 1991).
Within the proposed Project area, the dominant over-story species in blue oak woodlands is blue oak. Co-dominant species are infrequent, however other over-story trees and shrubs were observed to be present within the proposed Project corridor, including California buckeye (Aesculus californica) and canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis). Primary dominant grass and herb species observed include oat grass species (Avena spp.), brome grass species (Bromus spp.), medusa head (Elymus caput-medusae), bentgrass species (Agrostis spp.), velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), and Harding grass (Phalaris aquatica).
Within the proposed Project area, blue oak woodland is present at the existing WWTP along the entrance road, on the northeast side of the storage ponds, and to the north of the WWTP. The condition of this community at the WWTP is declining due to the encroachment of non-native annual grasses and shrubs such as Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). In addition, the development and topography has confined the extent of the blue oak woodland within the WWTP boundary.
Blue oak woodland is also located along the proposed force main alignment, specifically along Jackson Valley Clements Road. This area is diffuse and provides 10 to 15 percent canopy cover. This community type also exists along various intermittent streams within the proposed Project area, specifically on the EBMUD property.
Lastly, blue oak woodlands were observed within the Gansberg Ranch property near the proposed irrigation distribution parcels mostly. The blue oak woodland is this location can primarily be classified as a savanna, where there is approximately 10 to 15 percent canopy cover where stands exist. Specifically, concentrations of blue oak were observed mostly on ridgelines, though in some cases they were observed near vegetated swales. Along the eastern boundary of the irrigation distribution parcel, an intact blue oak woodland with 20 to 40 percent canopy cover dominants the ridgeline.
3.4.2.3.1.2 Valley Oak Woodland Alliance
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) Woodland Alliance (Sawyer et al. 2009) is highly variable, consisting of open savannas to closed-canopy forests with valley oak comprising 30 to 50 percent of trees present. This vegetation community is endemic to California and requires periodic, low intensity
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 53
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
floods or other seasonal saturation, and occurs in valleys and on gentle slopes. This community is commonly used for livestock grazing, pastures and cultivation, firewood production, wildlife habitat, and the increasing development of suburban communities. Land-use practices associated with these activities, such as tree removal, often result in severe community disturbances that further affect soil and water quality. In turn, changes in soil quality and the alteration of hydrologic processes may affect oak regeneration success and ecosystem stability (Sawyer et al. 2009; Pavlik et al. 1991).
The dominant over-story species in valley oak woodlands within the proposed Project area include valley oak, canyon live oak (Quercus chrysolepis), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). Co-dominant species include elderberry (Sambucus nigra), blue oak (Quercus douglasii) and foothill pine (Pinus sabiniana).
Valley oak woodlands were minimally observed within the proposed Project area along the proposed force main, specifically along Grapevine Gulch, intersecting Curran Road. Specifically, a riparian and mesic stand of valley oak woodland exists along the proposed force main alignment, specifically at the intersection of Grapevine Gulch with Jackson Valley Clements Road, adjacent to the Camanche Hills Hunting Preserve (Hunt Club).
3.4.2.3.1.3 Non-Native Annual Grassland Herbaceous Alliance
Native grasslands within the proposed Project area have been degraded due to encroachment from non-native species, livestock grazing, recreation, and development, thus decreasing biodiversity and habitat suitability. Species composition in non-native annual grassland habitats is like those exhibited in pastures and row crop composites. Common non-native annual grasses and other herbaceous species observed at the time of baseline biological surveys include oat grass species (including Avena fatua and A. barbata), brome grass species (including Bromus diandrus, B. hordeaceus, B. madritensis, and B. tectorum), annual dogtail grass (Cynosurus echinatus), squirreltail grass (Elymus elymoides), and Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis). Co- dominant annual non-native grassland species include annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), foxtail grass species (Alopecurus spp.), Harding grass, and velvet grass.
Non-native annual grasslands are present throughout the extent of the proposed Project area. At the existing WWTP, this community comprises 80 to 90 percent of the force main alignment. At the proposed effluent reservoirs and irrigation distribution system on Agency land and the Gansberg Ranch property, non-native annual grassland primarily occurs on the flat, higher elevation areas of these parcels. The percent cover and composition of grasses changes depending on cardinal direction, though the species present are primarily uniform in most areas. Along the lower elevation ridges and where drainages are present, non-native annual grassland acts as an understory to the blue oak woodland. Along ridgelines on the Gansberg Ranch property where blue oak woodland is the dominant vegetation community, Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus) and bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare), as well as various other non-native annual grasses, are dominant in the understory.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 54
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.4.2.3.1.4 Rural Residential / Disturbed Lands / Ruderal
Rural residential/ disturbed lands/ ruderal land cover types typically include disturbed lands, rural residential neighborhoods, industrial and commercial areas, vacant lots, and remnant native habitats within the proposed Project area. Ornamental planted landscapes were also observed intermittently throughout this landcover type of the proposed Project area. Specifically, ornamental plantings consist largely of introduced woody trees, shrubs, and herbaceous species used in residential, business, and roadside landscaping.
Common observed species at the time of baseline biological surveys include Himalayan blackberry, dock species (Rumex spp.), sowthistle (Sonchus asper), clover species (trifolium spp.), common wheat (Tritcum aestivum), and common mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Some of these introduced ornamental species have become locally naturalized.
This land cover type is not classified as a biological vegetation community; however, it is present throughout the proposed Project area along the proposed force main, specifically in the existing right-of-way, the area between the south boundary of the proposed spray fields (i.e., Gansberg Ranch property boundary), and the Hunt Club property boundary; as well as within the existing WWTP.
3.4.2.3.1.5 Wetlands and Other Hydrologic Features
Hydrologic features are extensive within the proposed Project area. Minimal hydrophytic vegetation associated with these features was observed within the proposed Project area. Hydrologic features observed throughout the entirety of the proposed Project area during baseline biologic surveys include Jackson Creek, the primary water source for vegetated swales and intermittent channels located within the proposed irrigation distribution system on Gansberg Ranch property; Rabbit Creek, the primary water source for vegetated swales and intermittent channels crossing the dirt roadway within the Hunt Club property; and Grapevine Gulch, the primary water source for intermittent channels and roadside drainages crossings Curran Road, and the existing WWTP. Vegetation communities specifically associated with these hydrologic features only include the Valley Oak Woodland Alliance, as described above.
3.4.2.3.1.6 Wildlife Habitat
The biological vegetation communities within the proposed Project area provide suitable habitat for both special status vegetation and wildlife species. Riparian and wetland habitats are high value habitat for wildlife including birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, and invertebrates alike. Wildlife species use these habitats during all stages of their life cycles including breeding, feeding, nesting, and/or migration. Edge habitats, typically created by water features, are significant for a variety of wildlife species such as western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), gopher snake (Pituophis catenifer), western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), pocket gopher (Thomomys mazama), coyote (Canis latrans), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and opossum (Didelphis virginiana), all of which are likely to occur in the proposed Project area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 55
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Furthermore, wildlife habitats, specifically movement corridors, provide seasonal migration between winter and summer habitats, and provide non-migrant wildlife movement within their home range food, cover, and reproduction. Wildlife movement corridors have been recognized by federal agencies and the State as important habitats worthy of conservation. Data on the locations and value of wildlife movement corridors specific to the proposed Project region is lacking, however all of the aforementioned biological vegetation communities (e.g., riparian corridors) have the potential to support wildlife movement in the proposed Project region.
Special Status Species
Based on the results of the background research listed in the Study Methods section above, 24 special status plants and 16 fish and wildlife species were defined as potentially occurring within the proposed Project region (e.g., in USGS 7.5-minute Quads for Carbondale, Irish Hill, Amador City, Goose Creek, Ione, Jackson, Clements, Wallace, and Valley Springs). This includes special status plant and wildlife species that are known to occur within the proposed Project area or have the potential to occur based on background research data from the CDFW CNDDB, CNPS online inventory, Calflora, and USFWS list of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species. Known occurrences of DCH and special status species within three miles of the Project Area are depicted in Figure 3.4-1 (CDFW 2018). Furthermore, species occurrence potentials are outlined in Table 3.4-1, and are based on the background research, database searches, and local habitat suitability. For each special status species either known to occur or with the potential to occur in the Project region, a level of “potential for occurrence” within the proposed Project area has been evaluated and is defined as follows:
• Very Low to Nil: The proposed Project area and/or immediate area do not support suitable habitat for a particular species. The proposed Project is outside the species known range;
• Low: The proposed Project area and/or immediate area only provide limited habitat for a particular species. In addition, the known range for a particular species may be outside the immediate proposed Project area;
• Moderate: The proposed Project area and/or immediate area provide suitable habitat for a particular species, and habitat for the species may be impacted;
• High: The proposed Project area and/or immediate area provide ideal habitat conditions for a particular species, and/or known populations occur in the immediate area and within the potential area of impact; and
• Present: Recorded historically or observed on-site during biological surveys for the proposed Project.
Species with a Moderate potential, High potential, or are known to be Present in the proposed Project area are further described in the species accounts below Table 3.4-1 and are analyzed for potential impacts.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 56 s s e l d n a c c m l
: y B 18 2 0 -
4 11 0 - 8 1
0 10 2
: 7 d 13 e s i v e
R 13 6
10 13
d x 13 7 m . 1 b d 1 1 d 5 1 9 n
c 9
_ 5 r o 5 1 d 5 a 5 5 1 5 m 9 1 5 a 1 _ 5 9 3 1 5
g 5 i 12 f 5
\ 17 5 1 5 s 9 g i 5 f _
d 5 n 9 m s 9 5 i 1 \ d x m \ s i 9 g \ 4
2 5
5 1 0 3 0
4 17 8 13 13 1 1 \ e v i t c a \
0 16 4 8 1 \ : 13 V 13 13 13 13 19 2 13 2 2 13 2 2 2 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 19 7 7 20 7 7 7 13 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 6 14 7 6 7 77 6 7 7 16 7 7 9 7 9 9 7 16 7 7 16 6 7 22 7 8 15
23
Lake Camanche 13 3
17 18 4 16 13 4 CNDDB OCCURRENCES Plant Species 21 13 13 CNDDB OCCURRENCES 1. Bisbee Peak rush-rose 13 Wildlife Species 2. Boggs Lake hedge-hyssop 13. California tiger salamander 3. Henderson's bent grass 13 14. Prairie falcon 22 4. Hoover's calycadenia 13 15. Steelhead - Central Valley DPS 5. Ione buckwheat 16. Swainson's hawk 6. Ione Chaparral 17. Tricolored blackbird 7. Ione manzanita 18. Valley elderberry longhorn beetle 8. Legenere 19. Vernal pool fairy shrimp 9. Parry's horkelia 20. Vernal pool tadpole shrimp 10. Pincushion navarretia 21. Western pond turtle 11. Stanislaus monkeyflower 22. Western spadefoot 12. Tuolumne button-celery 23. Yellow-breasted chat
Figure No. Legend 3.4-1 Proposed Force Main Title Known Occurrence of Designated Critical Potential Spray Field/Storage Areas Habitat and Special Status Species Within Existing WWTP Three Miles of the Project Area 5 mile Project Components Buffer Client/Project Amador Water Agency CNDDB Occurrence Wildlife Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Amador Treatment Plant Improv ement Project CNDDB Occurrence Vegetation Project Location *# Known CTS Locations on EBMUD Lands*
Critical Habitat within Project Area Amador County California California tiger Salamander 0 0.5 1 2 Miles $¯$ 1:120,000 (at original document size of 8.5x11) ( Notes Sacramento Orcutt grass 1. Coordinate System: NAD 1983 StatePlane California II FIPS 0402 Feet Vernal pool fairy shrimp 2. Data Sources Include: Stantec 2018 3. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Data: Vernal pool tadpole shrimp Downloaded February 2018, from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4. * Data Provided by EBMUD Biologists Steelhead LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Table 3.4-1 Potential Special Status Species Within the Proposed Project Area.
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Plants Very Low to Nil. Limited to no suitable habitat in the proposed Bacigalupi's Chaparral; lower Project area. Proposed project yampah 1,476-3,396 feet montane – S3 4.2 July-August is not within species known (450-1035 meters) coniferous/yellow pine Perideridia elevation range. No known forests; serpentine bacigalupii occurrences within three miles of the proposed Project area. Moderate. Suitable habitat in big-scale Chaparral; valley and the proposed Project area. No balsamroot 295-5,102 feet (90- foothill/ cismontane – S2 1B.2 March-June known occurrences within three 1555 meters) grassland and Balsamorhiza miles of the proposed Project woodland; serpentine macrolepis area. Northern coastal scrub; Low. Limited suitable habitat in Bisbee Peak rush- closed-cone pine the proposed Project area. No rose 246-2,198 feet (75- forest; chaparral; – S2 3.2 April-August known occurrences within three 670 meters) gabbro; Ione soil; Crocanthemum miles of the proposed Project burned and disturbed suffrutescens area. areas Low. Limited suitable habitat in Boggs Lake hedge- Vernal pools, marshes, the proposed Project area. No hyssop 32-7,791 feet (10- swamps, freshwater – E, S2 1B.2 April- August known occurrences within three 2375 meters) wetlands, riparian; clay Gratiola miles of the proposed Project environments heterosepala area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 58
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Low. Limited suitable habitat in Chaparral (openings); the proposed Project area. No brassy bryum 164-1,968 feet (50- Cismontane woodland; – S3 4.3 Year-round known occurrences within three 600 meters) valley and foothill Bryum chryseum miles of the proposed Project grassland area. Valley and foothill Moderate. Suitable habitat in grassland; foothill the proposed Project area. No dwarf downingia 3-1,459 feet (1- – S2 2B.2 woodland; freshwater March-May known occurrences within three 445meters) Downingia pusilla wetlands, riparian, miles of the proposed Project vernal pools, mesic area. fleshy owl’s-clover (succulent owl’s- Very Low to Nil. Limited to no suitable habitat in the proposed clover) 164-2,461 feet (50- Vernal pools (often T E, S2 1B.2 March-May Project area. No known 750 meters) acidic) Castilleja occurrences within three miles campestris ssp. of the proposed Project area. succulenta Moderate. Suitable habitat in Valley and foothill Henderson’s bent the proposed Project area. No 230-1,001 feet (70- grassland; freshwater grass – S2 3.2 April-June known occurrences within three 305 meters) wetlands, riparian, miles of the proposed Project Agrostis hendersonii vernal pools, mesic area. Present. Ideal habitat in the proposed Project area. Known Valley grassland; hoary navarretia occurrences within the 345-1,312 feet (105- foothill/ cismontane – S3.3 4.3 May-June proposed Project area. Navarretia 400 meters) woodland; wetland, Observed on-site in drainages eriocephala riparian, vernally mesic within the proposed spray field properties.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 59
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Low. Limited suitable habitat in the proposed Project area. Known occurrence within three Hoover's Cismontane/ foothill miles of the proposed Project calycadenia 213-984 feet (65-300 woodland; valley and July- – S3 1B.3 area. However, there are no meters) foothill grassland; rocky September Calycadenia records in Amador County, and areas hooveri the closest known observation is from 1975, south of Lake Camanche (Calflora 2018). Low. Limited suitable habitat in Ione buckwheat the proposed Project area. 197-476 feet (60-145 Ione soil; chaparral; Limited occurrences within E E 1B.1 July-October Eriogonum apricum meters) openings three miles north of the var. apricum proposed Project area (CDFW 2018). Low. Limited suitable habitat in Ione manzanita Ione, acidic, clay or the proposed Project area. 197-1,903 feet (60- sandy soils; chaparral; November- Known occurrences in 1999 and T S2 1B.2 Arctostaphylos 580 meters) cismontane/ foothill March 2008 within three miles east and myrtifolia woodland north of the proposed Project area, respectively (CDFW 2018). Very Low to Nil. Limited to no suitable habitat in proposed Project area. Known from only Irish Hill buckwheat two occurrences near Irish Hill 295-394 feet (90-120 Chaparral (openings, E E, S1 1B.1 June-July and Carbondale Mesa on the Eriogonum apricum meters) Ione soil) var. prostratum Ione Formation, over three miles north of the proposed Project’s northernmost extent (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 60
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Low. Limited suitable habitat in Jepson’s coyote the proposed Project area. No 10-984 feet (3-300 Valley and foothill thistle – S1 1B.2 April-August known occurrences within three meters) grassland; vernal pools Eryngium jepsonii miles of the proposed Project area. Low. Limited suitable habitat in Vernal pools, freshwater the proposed Project area. No legenere 3-2,887 feet (1-880 – S2 1B.1 wetland, riparian; valley April-June known occurrences within three meters) Legenere limosa grassland miles of the proposed Project area. Moderate. Suitable habitat in the proposed Project area. Cismontane woodland; Known occurrences in 1995, Parry's horkelia 262-3,510 feet (80- chaparral; Ione April- – S2 1B.2 2001, and 2007 within three 1070 meters) Formation and other September Horkelia parryi miles of the eastern and soils northern extent of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2018). Low. Limited suitable habitat in Patterson’s Serpentinite; openings; proposed Project area. No navarretia 492-1,410 feet (150- vernally mesic, – S2 1B.3 May-July known occurrences within three 430 meters) drainages, meadows, Navarretia miles of the proposed Project seeps paradoxiclara area. Very Low to Nil. Limited to no suitable habitat in proposed pincushion Project area. Known navarretia 66-1,083 feet (20- Vernal pools; acidic occurrences in 2000-2001 within – S1 1B.1 April-May Navarretia myersii 330 meters) soils three miles north of the ssp. myersii proposed Project’s northernmost extent (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 61
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Low. Limited suitable habitat in prairie wedge grass Cismontane woodland; proposed Project area. No 984-6,562 feet (300- – S2 2B.2 meadow, seeps, and April-July known occurrences within three Sphenopholis 2000 meters) obtusata mesic miles of the proposed Project area. Very Low to Nil. Limited to no Sacramento Orcutt suitable habitat in the proposed 98-328 feet (30-100 April- Grass E E, S1 1B.1 Vernal pools Project area. No known meters) September Orcuttia viscida occurrences within three miles of the proposed Project area. Very Low to Nil. Limited to no Sanford's suitable habitat in proposed 0-2,133 feet (0-650 May- arrowhead – S3 1B.2 Marshes and swamps Project area. No known meters) November Sagittaria sanfordii occurrences within three miles of the proposed Project area. Very Low to Nil. Limited to no Cismontane woodland; suitable habitat in proposed Sierra clarkia 1312-5,299 feet – S3 4.3 lower montane May-August Project area. No known (400-1615 meters) Clarkia virgata coniferous forest occurrences within three miles of the proposed Project area. Low. Limited to no suitable habitat in proposed Project Stanislaus area. Known occurrence within Cismontane woodland; three miles of the proposed monkeyflower 328-2,953 feet (100- – SX 1B.1 lower montane March-May Project area in 1892 in the 900 meters) Erythranthe coniferous forest Mokelumne River watershed; marmorata however, no recent occurrences are known (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 62
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Low. Limited suitable habitat in Cismontane/ foothill proposed Project area. Known woodland; lower Tuolumne button- occurrence from 1996 montane coniferous/ celery 230-3,002 feet (70- collection approximately one – S2 1B.2 yellow pine forest; May-August 915 meters) mile north of the northernmost Eryngium vernal pools, mesic, extent of the proposed Project pinnatisectum and freshwater area, reported to have since wetlands been grazed (CDFW 2018). Invertebrates Six disjoint populations in Very Low to Nil. No suitable conservancy fairy Tehama, Butte, habitat present within the shrimp Jepson, Solano, Highly turbid water of proposed Project area. Out of E – N/A Winter/Spring Branchinecta Sacramento, vernal pools known species range. No conservatio Glenn, Merced, known occurrences within three and Ventura miles of proposed Project area. Counties Moderate. Suitable habitat present immediately adjacent valley elderberry California Central to the proposed Project area. longhorn beetle Valley and foothills Known occurrences in 1984 and T – N/A below 3,280 feet Elderberry shrubs Year-round Desmocerus 1991 within three miles (1,000 meters) californicus southeast and north of the elevation dimorphus proposed Project, respectively (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 63
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Very Low to Nil. No suitable habitat present within the Scattered proposed Project area. Known vernal pool fairy throughout Central occurrence in 2006 within three December- shrimp T, X – N/A Valley, Coast Vernal pools miles west of proposed Project May Branchinecta lynchi Range, and at Florence Lake Vernal Pool Southern California Reserve and in natural vernal pools between Dry Creek and Goose Creek (CDFW 2018). Very Low to Nil. No suitable habitat present within the vernal pool tadpole Vernal pools containing proposed Project area. Known California Central shrimp E – N/A clear to highly turbid Winter/Spring occurrence in 2006 within three Valley Lepidurus packardi water miles west of proposed Project at Florence Lake Vernal Pool Reserve (CDFW 2018). Fish Very Low to Nil. No suitable habitat within the proposed Project area. Known occurrences at the Mokelumne River and Fish Hatchery at Central Valley Swift small streams and Sacramento and Camanche Dam, steelhead tributaries with cool, January-June T, X – N/A San Joaquin Rivers approximately a mile to two well-oxygenated water (spawning) Oncorhynchus and their tributaries miles west and south of the (spawning) mykiss irideus proposed Project site. The proposed Project site located above damns impeding access by anadromous fish (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 64
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area From Suisun Bay Estuaries, river channels, Very Low to Nil. No suitable upstream through tidally influenced habitat within the proposed Delta smelt the Delta in Contra backwaters. Shallow, March-June Project area. Out of species T E N/A Costa, Hypomesus fresh, or slightly brackish (spawning) range; no known occurrences Sacramento, San transpacificus water upstream of within three miles of proposed Joaquin, Solano, mixing zone (spawning) Project area. Yolo Counties Reptiles and Amphibians Low. Limited suitable habitat in Lowlands and foothills proposed Project area. DCH California red- Coastal Range of in or near permanent Unit CAL-1 is approximately California, foothill sources of deep water three miles southeast of the legged frog T, X SSC N/A Year-round range of Sierra with dense, shrubby, or proposed Project area (CDFW Rana draytonii Nevada mountains emergent riparian 2018). No known occurrence vegetation within three miles of the proposed Project area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 65
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Moderate. Joaquin Unit) is within the far western extent of the proposed Project area. The nearest known occurrences are within the proposed Project Isolated area and include: occurrences California tiger populations: Gray Grassland; oak approximately 0.3 miles salamander Lodge NWR, savanna; edges of northwest of Grapevine Gulch T, X T N/A Year-round Ambystoma Sonoma County, mixed woodland; Road at Curran Road, and one californiense and Santa Barbara coniferous forest mile southeast of the Village in County 2010. Three additional occurrences are known in the western and northernmost extent of the Gansberg Ranch property in 2007-2009 (CDFW 2018). Found from sea level to 400 feet (122 meters) in from Highly aquatic, found in Very Low to Nil. No suitable Glenn County to marshes, sloughs, habitat in proposed Project giant garter snake the southern edge irrigation ditches, March- area. Out of species known T T N/A Thamnophis gigas of San Francisco canals, rice fields, slow- October range. No known occurrences Bay Delta, and moving creeks with within three miles of the from Merced nearby vegetation proposed Project area. County to northern Fresno County
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 66
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Slow moving streams, Moderate. Suitable habitat marshes, wetlands, and present within the proposed ponds, at least 1.6 feet Extreme western Project area. Known deep with overhanging United States into occurrence of juveniles and western pond turtle vegetation and rock – SSC N/A Baja, Mexico. Year-round adults in 2008 approximately outcrops, and Emys marmorata three miles southwest of the 0-4,500 feet (0-1,371 associated upland proposed Project area, along meters) habitat (grassy open Bear Creek and adjacent to fields) up to 0.3 miles Cord Road (CDFW 2018). (0.5 km) from water From sea level to 4,500 feet (1,365 meters) from near Open areas with Moderate. Suitable habitat in Redding south sandy/gravelly soils. proposed Project area. Known western spadefoot through Great Mixed woodlands, occurrence from 1978 within – SSC N/A October-May Spea hammondii Valley, through grasslands, chaparral, approximately three miles of the South Coast sandy washes, foothills, proposed Project area, along Ranges into playas, mountains, etc. Ospital Road (CDFW 2018). northwest Baja California Birds Foraging areas include rivers, reservoirs, lakes, Low: Limited suitable habitat in estuaries, and coastal proposed Project area. Known bald eagle North America marine ecosystems. occurrence of active nest in D E, FP N/A including all Year-round Haliaeetus Breeds within one mile 2015 within six miles of the continuous U.S. leucocephalus of foraging habitat and proposed Project area (CDFW primarily near reservoirs 2018). in California
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 67
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area In California from the southeastern deserts, northwest Grasslands, shrub- Moderate: Suitable habitat in throughout the steppe, deserts, and proposed Project area. Known prairie falcon Central Valley and – WL N/A other open areas. Nests Year-round occurrence within three miles of along the inner Falco mexicanus on cliff ledges, bluffs, the proposed Project area Coast Ranges and and rock outcrops (CDFW 2018). Sierra Nevada. Up to 10,000 feet in elevation Moderate. Potential suitable Treeless landscapes Northwestern and habitat within the proposed with meadows, marshes western U.S., Project area. Known Swainson’s hawk providing good cover – T N/A northern Rockies, Breeding occurrences in 2002-2003 of two during nesting and Buteo swainsoni and Canada active nests within two miles abundant prey such as (breeding) southeast of the proposed voles Project area (CDFW 2018). Low: Limited suitable habitat in Highly colonial proposed Project area. Known Freshwater marshes, species, most occurrences in 2014 and 2015 tricolored blackbird swamps, wetlands. – CE N/A numerous in Year-round of breeding colonies located Requires nearby open Agelaius tricolor Central Valley and approximately three miles water Coastal Range southwest of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 68
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Legal Status Geographic Level of Potential for Common Name Identification Distribution/ Preferred Habitat Occurrence Within Proposed Scientific Name Period Federal State CNPS Floristic Province Project Area Low: Limited suitable habitat in Riparian habitats with a proposed Project area. Known well-developed shrub occurrence from 1995 of Coastal and layer and an open breeding pair in willow riparian yellow-breasted northwestern canopy. Often nests in habitat adjacent to a chat – SSC N/A California and the blackberry, wild grape, Breeding eucalyptus grove and the Sierra Nevada willow, and other plants Icteria virens Mokelumne River, and foothills. that form dense thickets approximately three miles along streams, creeks, southwest of proposed Project sloughs, and rivers area (CDFW 2018). nesting raptors and Tree, shrub, ground, High. Ideal suitable habitat Migrants and February 15- other migratory MBTA CESA N/A and riparian vegetation within the proposed Project resident species August 31 birds (nesting) area.
Federal – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) State – California Department Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Native Plant Society E = Listed as endangered under the federal E = Listed as endangered under the California ESA (CNPS) ESA T = Listed as threatened under the California ESA 1B = Rank 1B species: rare, T = Listed as threatened under the federal R = Listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act. This threatened, or endangered in ESA category is no longer used for newly listed plants, but some plants California and elsewhere. D = Delisted under the federal ESA previously listed as rare retain this designation. 2B = Rank 2B species: rare, PD = Proposed for delisting CE = Candidate species for listing as endangered under the California threatened, or endangered in C = Candidate to become a proposed ESA California but more common species FP = Fully protected species elsewhere. MBTA = Migratory Bird Treaty Act SSC = Species of special concern in California 3 = Rank 3 species: plants about which more information is needed – = No listing. WL = Watch list – = No listing. to determine their status. 4 = Rank 4 species: plants of limited distribution.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 69
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.4.2.3.2.1 Special Status Plant Species
A special status plant species site suitability analysis evaluating the potential to occur within and near the proposed Project sites was completed for all special status plant species that were identified prior to field surveys based on desktop research, records searches, elevation, habitat types, site assessment, and soils present. Specifically, this analysis weighed proposed Project ecological characteristics and suitability with individual special status plant species suitability requisites; as well as known occurrences in the proposed Project region documented by CNDDB, CNPS, and the federal and State ESAs. With the analysis results, a level for “potential of occurrence” within the proposed Project sites was applied to each species. Potential for occurrence for all special status plant species is outline in Table 3.4-1 above.
Based on desktop research and a records search, 24 special status plant species were identified as occurring within the general region of the proposed Project area (Table 3-4.1). Of these species, nine have been documented within three miles of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2017a, CDFW 2018). These include Hoover’s calycadenia (Calycadenia hooveri), Ione buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum var. apricum), Ione manzanita (Arctostaphylos myrtifolia), Irish Hill buckwheat (Eriogonum apricum var. Prostratum), Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi), pincushion navarretia (Navarretia myserii ssp. meyersii), Stanislaus monkeyflower (Erythranthe marmorata), and Tuolumne button-celery (Eryngium pinnatisectum). The remaining 15 have been known to occur in a nearby USGS 7.5-minute Quad search (CNPS 2018b) and/or within the County. Not all species within known occurrences within the Project region were found to have potential suitable habitat and/or were observed within the proposed Project area during biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
Furthermore, species accounts for five of the 24 special status plant species types with a CNPS Ranking of 1B and 2B, and that have a moderate to high potential to occur in the proposed Project area, have been detailed below. These include big-scale balsam root (Balsamorhiza macrolepis), dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla), Hendersen’s bentgrass (Agrostis hendersonii), hoary navarretia (Navarretia eriocephalia), and Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi). One of these special status plant species, hoary navarretia, was observed present during biological field surveys conducted in May 2017. Lastly, some special status plant species may not have been detected because the surveys were completed during May, which is outside of the usual blooming period of some of the listed special status plant species. Mitigation measures calling for pre-construction surveys at the appropriate time of year for the special status species that may have been missed in the May survey and plant identification training for construction workers are included later in this IS/MND to ensure that all potential impacts to special status plants are addressed and mitigated for.
Big-scale balsamroot (Balsamorhiza macrolepis)- Federal No Status, State Vulnerable
Big-scale balsam root is a California native perennial herb. Balsamorhiza macrolepis is part of Asteraceae, or aster, daisy composite and sunflower family. This species is often found in chaparral, valley and foothill open grassland, and woodland vegetation communities. Big-scale
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 70
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
balsam root also has an affinity to serpentine soils and rocky areas. The blooming period for big- scale balsam root is March through June (mid bloom cycle), in regions where the elevation range is 295 to 5,102 feet (90 to1,555 meters) (Calflora 2018, CNPS 2018b). The physical characteristics of this plant include- stems that grow seven to 23 inches (20 to 60 centimeters) in length; leaf blades are lanceolate to elliptic in shape, and green with silvery hairs; and the flower petals are 0.5 to one inch (two to three centimeters), and generally yellow, while the eye of the flower is seven to ten millimeters (Jepson eFlora 2018). Balsamorhiza macrolepis is threatened by grazing, residential, recreational and energy development (CNPS 2018c).
Big scale balsam root has a has a moderate potential to occur within the proposed Project area, as suitable habitat can be found within the proposed Project area, specifically within the foothill open grassland and valley and blue oak woodland vegetation communities. However, there are no known occurrences of this species within three miles of the proposed Project area. Big scale balsam root was not observed in the reconnaissance-level site surveys in May 2017, which occurred during the known bloom period for this species.
Dwarf Downingia (Downingia pusilla)- Federal No Listing, State Imperiled
Dwarf downingia is an annual herb that is native to California. Downingia pusilla is part of the plant family Campanulaceae (i.e., bellflower). Dwarf downingia can be found in valley and foothill grasslands, foothill woodlands, and in freshwater wetland-riparian and vernal pool vegetation communities. The species also has an affinity to mesic environments and roadside ditches (Jepson eflora 2018). Dwarf downingia typically blooms between March and May, in elevations ranging from three to 1,459 feet (1 to 445 meters). Downingia pusilla grows to a height of seven to 15 inches (20 to 40 centimeters). The physical properties of this species include flower petals that are 2.5 to four millimeters in length, non-inverting, and are generally blue to pink, or White with a symmetric white or yellow spot on the lower lip (Jepson eflora, 2018). This species is threatened by urbanization, development, agriculture, grazing, non-native plants, vehicles, and industrial forestry (CNPS 2018c).
Dwarf downingia has a has a moderate potential to occur within the proposed Project area, as suitable habitat can be found within the proposed Project area, specifically within the foothill open grassland and valley oak woodland vegetation communities. However, there are no known occurrences of this species within three miles of the proposed Project area. Dwarf downingia was not observed in the reconnaissance-level site surveys in May 2017, which occurred during the known bloom period for this species.
Henderson’s bent grass (Agrostis hendersonii)- Federal No Listing, State Imperiled
Henderson’s bent grass is an annual native monocot species to California and Oregon. Agrostis hendersonii is part of the Poaceae, or true grasses, plant family. This species is often found in valley and foothill grassland vegetation communities. It also has an affinity freshwater wetland, vernal pool, riparian, and mesic environments. The blooming period of Henderson’s bent grass is April to June (early to mid-bloom cycle), in regions where the elevation ranges from 230 to 1,001
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 71
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
feet (70 to 305 meters) (Calflora 2018, CNPS 2018c). The physical characteristic of this species includes foliage that is generally one millimeter wide, and ranges from 0.3 to 1.5 inches (one to four centimeters) in the lower blade, to one to four millimeters in the ligule, or top of the stem; the inflorescence, or seed cluster on the stem, is dense and cylindrical, ranging from 0.3 to two inches (one to five centimeters) (Jepson eFlora 2018). This species is threatened by development (CNPS 2018c).
Henderson’s bentgrass has a has a moderate potential to occur within the proposed Project area, as suitable habitat can be found within the proposed Project area, specifically within the valley and foothill grassland vegetation communities, as well as along riparian corridors. However, there are no known occurrences of this species within three miles of the proposed Project area. Henderson’s bentgrass was not observed in the reconnaissance-level site surveys in May 2017, which occurred during the known bloom period for this species.
Hoary Navarretia (Navarretia eriocephala)- Federal No Listing, State Vulnerable
Hoary navarretia, also known as hoary pincushion plant, is a native annual dicot that is endemic to California. Navarretia eriocephala is part of the Polemoniaceae, or Jacob’s-ladder or phlox, plant family. This species is often found in cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grassland vegetation communities. It also has an affinity to wetland, riparian, and vernally mesic environments. The blooming period of hoary navarretia is May to June (mid bloom cycle), in regions where the elevation ranges from 345 to 1,312 feet (105 to 400 meters) (Calflora 2018, CNPS 2018c). The physical characteristics of this plant include stems that are two to ten inches (five to 25 centimeters) and are often branched with white hairs; the foliage is lobed and clustered; and the flowers have four to five lobes that are wider at the base and can often be blue at the tips (Jepson eFlora 2018).
Hoary navarretia has a high potential to occur within the proposed Project area, with ideal habitat found within the proposed Project area, specifically within the valley and foothill grasslands vegetation communities, as well as along the riparian corridors. Hoary navarretia was observed during the reconnaissance-level site surveys conducted in May 2017. Observations include one small population within a non-inundated drainage in the eastern portion of the proposed reclamation area.
Parry's horkelia (Horkelia parryi)- Federal No Listing, State Imperiled
Parry’s horkelia is a native perennial herbaceous species that is endemic to California. Horkelia parryi is part of the Rosaceae, or rose, family. This species often occurs in chaparral or cismontane woodland vegetation communities. It also has an affinity to Ione soils, as well as other regional formations. The blooming period for Parry’s horkelia is April to September (mid to late bloom cycle), in regions where the elevation ranges from 262 to 3,510 feet (80 to 1,070 meters) (Calflora 2018, CNPS 2018c). The plant’s stems range 10 to 30 centimeters in length, the leaves are basally lobed, have sparse hairs, are toothed, and range 5 to 10 centimeters in size, and the flowers are typically white and elliptic in shape, with petal sizes ranging 4 to 7 millimeters (Jepson eFlora 2018). This species is potentially threatened by clay mining, road maintenance, encroachment by non-native plant species, and erosion (CNPS 2018c).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 72
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Parry’s horkelia has a moderate potential to occur within the proposed Project area, with ideal habitat within the proposed Project area and known occurrences in 1995, 2001, and 2007 in the Ione formation within three miles of the eastern and northern extent of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2018). However, the Ione formation is not within the proposed Project area (USGS 2007). Parry’s horkelia was not observed in the reconnaissance-level site surveys in May 2017, which occurred during this species’ bloom period.
3.4.2.3.2.2 Special Status Wildlife Species
A species site evaluation of the proposed Project site was also completed for all special status wildlife species identified through background research prior to field surveys. Sixteen (16) wildlife species were identified through background research as having the potential to occur in the proposed Project area or have been known to occur within three miles of the proposed Project sites (Figure 3.4-1). Nesting raptors and other migratory birds were also considered special status due to their protection under the MBTA and CESA. The proposed Project area was surveyed and evaluated to determine habitat suitability for each wildlife species, and then each species was given a level of potential occurrence within the proposed Project area. Based on desktop analysis, habitat assessment, and field surveys, eight special status wildlife species, were identified as having a moderate potential to occur within the proposed Project area, including nesting raptors and other nesting migratory birds protected under the MBTA (Table 3.4-1). No special status wildlife species were identified as having a high potential for occurrence. Furthermore, no special status wildlife species were detected during the reconnaissance-level survey and habitat assessment in May 2017. Species accounts for special status wildlife species with a moderate potential to occur in the proposed Project area are provided below.
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus) - Federal Threatened
The VELB is a federally listed threatened species. The VELB is endemic to California and dependent on elderberry shrubs (Sambucus spp.) as a host plant for breeding and feeding habitat (USFWS 2017c). Elderberry shrubs are a common component of riparian forests and their adjacent upland habitats in California’s Central Valley. Most of the VELB’s life cycle is in the larval stage, inhabiting the inner stems of elderberry. Elderberry with stems one inch or greater in diameter at ground level (DGL) and within the species’ range are potential habitat (USFWS 2017c).
The proposed Project has been designed to avoid potential habitat of VELB (i.e., elderberry shrubs). However, three elderberry shrubs with stems greater than one-inch diameter were observed adjacent to the proposed Project force main on Curran Rd. at the crossing of Grapevine Gulch. Use of elderberry plants by the VELB is hard to determine, however, exit holes created when larva exit plant stems can sometimes be distinguished. Protocol-level surveys have not been conducted on those shrubs; however, no evidence (i.e., exit holes) of VELB presence was observed in the aforementioned shrubs during the biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 73
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
California tiger salamander (Ambystoma californiense) - Federal and State Threatened
The CTS is a stocky wide-mouthed salamander that can reach up to eight inches (20 centimeters) in length, and protruding eyes from the top of its blunt round head. Adult CTS have dots and/or bars of white or pale yellow against black background on their back, sides, legs, and tail. Larvae are yellowish gray, have wide flat heads, and bushy gills (CaliforniaHerps 2018). Endemic to California, the CTS’s historic range likely included most of the Central Valley; however; it is not well known due to fragmentation (CaliforniaHerps 2018). In the Central Valley and Sierra Nevada foothills, they can be found from Yolo County south to Kern and Tulare Counties. Its preferred habitat includes areas of seasonal and/or vernal pools, grasslands, oak savanna, and mixed or coniferous forest edges from elevations from sea level up to 1,500 feet (457 meters) (CaliforniaHerps 2018, USFWS 2017c, USFWS 2018d).
CTS can be found in aquatic environments during the rainy season (e.g., typically October through May), and may migrate up to mile away to their upland habitat, which includes the burrows of small mammals, most commonly the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and Botta’s pocket gopher (Thomomys bottae). Breeding usually occurs from December through February, depending on rainfall, in fish-free ephemeral or seasonal ponds (CaliforniaHerps 2018). Larvae typically metamorphose and remain in ponds for three to six months. Larvae then leave the ponds in June or July to seek shelter during the warm and dry summer months (USFWS 2017c). If ponds fail to fill in years of extreme drought, no breeding season will occur.
According to Federal Registrar 70 49379-49458, the following have been defined as Primary Constituent Elements (i.e., specific physical and biological features) for CTS (USFWS 2005):
• Standing bodies of fresh water, including natural and human-made (e.g., stock) ponds, vernal pools, and other ephemeral or permanent water bodies that typically support inundation during winter rains and hold water for a minimum of 12 weeks in a year of average rainfall;
• Upland habitats adjacent and accessible to and from breeding ponds that contain small mammal burrows or other underground habitat that CTS depend upon for food, shelter, and protection from the elements and predation; and
• Accessible upland dispersal habitat between occupied locations that allow for movement between such sites.
DCH Unit 4 (i.e., Northeastern San Joaquin Unit) is within the far western extent of the proposed Project area (i.e., southwest region of the Gansberg Ranch property), and observations of CTS have been recorded approximately 0.3 miles northwest of Grapevine Gulch Road at Curran Road; one mile southeast of Village in 2010; and in three locations in the western and northernmost extent of the Gansberg Ranch property in 2007 to 2009 (CDFW 2018, USFWS 2017b).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 74
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The proposed Project has been designed to avoid potential aquatic habitats of CTS within and adjacent to the proposed Project area such as the stock ponds within the Gansberg Ranch property and EBMUD properties (outside the proposed Project footprint). However, suitable upland habitat is present in proposed Project area. Protocol-level surveys have not been conducted in the proposed Project area; however, no evidence was observed of CTS in the proposed Project area during the biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
Western pond turtle (Emys marmorata)- Federal No Status, State SSC
WPTs are native to the west coast, and are found from Baja California, Mexico north through Klickitat County, Washington (ADW 2014). WPTs are found between sea level and 4,500 feet (1,371 meters) in wide variety of permanent and ephemeral aquatic habitats including ponds, lakes, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches. Habitats often include abundant vegetation, with muddy or rocky substrates, and can be found in wooded areas or grasslands (CaliforniaHerps 2018). WPTs are diurnal, aquatic, and can often be seen basking above the water. They are typically active from February to November, hibernating in muddy bottoms of pools underwater; however, they may be active during warm periods of the winter. They eat aquatic vegetation, such as frog and/or salamander eggs and larvae, invertebrates, crayfish, and carrion. Adults mate at about eight to 10 years old during the months of April and May. Females lay two to 11 eggs along stream or pond edges between April and August. Hatchlings typically hatch after 70 to 80 days and remain in the nest over the winter (CaliforniaHerps 2018).
Juvenile and adult WPTs were observed in 2008 approximately three miles southwest of the proposed Project area, along Bear Creek and adjacent to Cord Road (CDFW 2018). Suitable habitat is present within the proposed Project area at the existing WWTP. Potential suitable habitat may also include the maintained stock ponds within the Gansberg Ranch property and EBMUD properties. The remaining water features within the proposed Project area are intermittent, lack basking rocks and/or overhanging vegetation, and in most years, especially those during drought conditions, are unlikely to hold water. WPTs were not observed during the biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
Western spadefoot (Spea hammondii)- Federal No Status, State SSC
The western spadefoot is a round-bodied toad with dark blotches on its back that vary in color between greenish, brown, gray, or cream; the blotches have tubercles with red spots. Adults are 1.5 to 2.5 inches long (3.7 to 6.2 cm). Their undersides are unmarked and light in color, and they lack a bump between their pale gold eyes. This toad gets its name from the black glossy wedge- shaped spade on each hind foot, which it uses to burrow underground. Western spadefoots are active primarily between October and May but may emerge at other times during the year depending on rainfall (CaliforniaHerps 2018).
The western spadefoot is endemic to California and northern Baja California. They can be found throughout the Great Valley from Redding to the South Coast Ranges, into southern California west of the Peninsular Mountains and south of the Transverse Mountains. They can be found in a
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 75
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
variety of habitats, including mixed woodlands, chaparral, grasslands, river floodplains, foothills, and mountains up to 4,500 feet (1,365 meters) (CaliforniaHerps 2018). They are primarily nocturnal and terrestrial, entering water only to breed.
Its breeding habitat includes shallow pools, typically after a rainstorm between January and May; however, they also will breed opportunistically when conditions are favorable. Females lay eggs attached to submerged vegetation. Eggs hatch in approximately three to four days, and tadpoles transform in four to 11 weeks depending on food and water availability in their breeding pool. The western spadefoot eats beetles, moths, ants, crickets, earthworms, and other invertebrates (CaliforniaHerps 2018).
Known occurrences of the western spadefoot within the proximity of the proposed Project area include in 1978 along Ospital Road, within approximately three miles of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2018). Suitable terrestrial and aquatic habitat is present within in proposed Project area, specifically on the Gansberg Ranch and Hunt Club properties. Western spadefoot was not observed during the biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
Prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus)- Federal No Status, State Watch List
The prairie falcon is a large falcon with a light brown back, lightly streaked chest, and dark patches on the underwing closest to the body in contrast to the rest of the wing (USFWS 2018d). The prairie falcon is most often found in grasslands, shrub-steppe vegetation, deserts, and other open areas with nearby cliff ledges, bluffs, and rock outcrops for nesting and perching (CDFW 2017g). They prey mainly on small mammals, small birds, and reptiles. Prairie falcons are a migratory species, and will both breed and winter in California. Some birds with breeding territories in California are elevational migrants (i.e., movement up and down elevational gradients) (CDFW 2017g).
There are known occurrences of prairie falcons within three miles of the proposed Project area, specifically south of Lake Camanche. Due to the expanses of large open grasslands and presence of suitable rock outcrops within the proposed Project area, there is suitable foraging habitat for the prairie falcon. Prairie falcons were not observed during the biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni)- Federal MBTA, State Threatened
Swainson’s hawks migrate annually from winter areas in South America to breeding locations in northwestern Canada, the western United States, and Mexico (CDFW 2017h). Nest sites are found in trees in riparian corridors or adjacent to agricultural fields. Breeding season occurs from approximately late March through late August, with peak activities occurring from late May through July. Threats to the Swainson’s hawk include loss of habitat, primarily from development and pesticide poisoning (CDFW 2017h).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 76
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Swainson’s hawks typically feed in agricultural lands or non-native grasslands where rodent and reptile populations may abound (CDFW 2017h). Foraging habitat for Swainson’s hawk exists in the agricultural fields in the western part of County and within the proposed Project area. The closest known occurrence of Swainson’s hawks is from 2002 to 2003 of two active nests approximately two miles southeast of the proposed Project area, along Lake Camanche and the Mokelumne River (CDFW 2018). Swainson’s hawks were not observed during the biological field surveys conducted in May 2017.
Nesting raptors and other migratory bird species- Federal MBTA, State CESA
The areas adjacent to and within the proposed Project sites possess potential suitable nesting habitat for bird species protected under the MBTA (USFWS 2018d). This includes, but is not limited to, cavity-nesting species such as the acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus) and the oak titmouse (Baeolophus inornatus); tree-nesting species such as the western scrub-jay (Aphelocoma californica); and ground nesting species such as the western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta). Raptors that may potentially nest in or directly adjacent to the proposed Project sites may include red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) or Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii). Therefore, a moderate potential exists for nesting raptors and other migratory bird species to occur within or adjacent to the proposed Project sites. The reconnaissance-level biological survey was conducted within the nesting season (typically February 15 through August 31). However, no nesting raptors or other migratory birds were observed during the surveys conducted May 2017.
3.4.3 Impact Analysis
This section discusses potential impacts associated with biological resources within the proposed Project area.
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 77
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community
conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or regulated by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Special status plant and wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the proposed Project area detailed above specifically summarizing species habitat and biological attributes. The Regulatory Setting section further defines associated local or regional plans, policies, regulations, and/or rules that protect the potentially occurring species. Based on the assessment of potential impacts to sensitive flora and fauna, and with the implementation of MM BIO-1, BIO-2, BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, BIO-7, BIO-8, and BIO-9 potential impacts by the construction and operation of the proposed Project on species protected in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the CDFW or USFWS would be reduced to a less than significant level. The following analysis discusses the proposed Project’s potential to have a substantial adverse effect on these identified special status species within the proposed Project area.
Special Status Plant Species
As discussed previously, there is a moderate to high potential for special status plant species big- scale balsam root (Balsamorhiza macrolepis), dwarf downingia (Downingia pusilla), Hendersen’s bentgrass (Agrostis hendersonii), hoary navarretia (Navarretia eriocephalia), Hoover’s
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 78
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
calycadenia (Calycadenia hooveri), and Parry’s horkelia (Horkelia parryi) to occur within the proposed Project area. Specifically, Hoary navarretia has a high potential to occur within the proposed Project area and was observed during the reconnaissance-level site surveys conducted in May 2017. Observations included one small population within a non-inundated drainage in the eastern portion of the proposed spray field properties. This species has a State listing of vulnerable.
Within the existing WWTP and along the proposed force main alignment, it is anticipated that impacts to these species would be unlikely because the proposed Project would be within roadways or previously disturbed areas where these plants do not typically grow. However, potential impacts to these species, when present within the proposed Project footprint, could occur from excavation (i.e., species removal) and access (e.g., species compaction) from both in-road and construction activities.
As such, if special status species are present, impact may result from unknowing construction workers operating outside the proposed Project footprint. To avoid this potential impact, MM BIO-1 would be required. This requires that all on-site personnel are appropriately trained for identification of and avoidance of special status plant species.
In addition, MM BIO-2 would require pre-construction floristic surveys during the appropriate bloom period to assess for special status plant species within the proposed Project area, and to ensure the proposed Project does not inadvertently impact a special status species. MM BIO-2 would be implemented to ensure that ground and vegetation disturbance would be minimized to the extent possible. Additionally, MM BIO-2 would be required to avoid, protect, relocate, or mitigate potential special status plant species, should they be detected, specifically the known occurrence of hoary navarretia. By implementing MM BIO-2, specific performance standards and success criteria are set forth to ensure that the proposed Project would not have a substantial adverse effect to the species.
Implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-2 would reduce potential impacts to special status plant species to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Special Status Wildlife Species
Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
The VELB is a Federally-threatened species. Construction activities for the proposed Project such as trenching and paving, may cause damage to and/or kill an elderberry shrub, the protected host plant of the VELB. The proposed Project has been designed to avoid VELB and its habitat. However, three elderberry shrubs with stems greater than one-inch diameter were observed within 165 feet (50 meters) of the proposed Project area, the minimum distance as which USFWS recommends the implementation of avoidance and minimization measures for VELB and its habitat (USFWS 2017d). Therefore, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 79
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
California Tiger Salamander
The CTS is a Federal and State-threatened species. Construction activities for the proposed Project, including trenching and grading, may cause the disturbance of occupied upland or aquatic habitats and impact individuals while they are above, or in underground burrows, resulting in direct mortality or “take” of CTS. Indirect and operational impacts may include the degradation of aquatic, upland, or connecting habitats, an increase in human presence, and/or degradation to water quality.
DCH Unit 4 (i.e., Northeastern San Joaquin Unit) is within the far western extent of the proposed Project area (i.e., southwest region of the Gansberg Ranch property). According to the CNDDB, observations of CTS have been recorded approximately 0.3 miles northwest of Grapevine Gulch Road at Curran Road; one mile southeast of Village in 2010; and in three locations in the western and northernmost extent of the Gansberg Ranch property in 2007 to 2009 (CDFW 2018, USFWS 2017b). In addition, there are known occurrences CTS on EBMUD properties, including within the property that includes the proposed Project area and is currently enrolled in a SHA with the USFWS (Figure 3.4-1).
The proposed Project has been designed to avoid potential aquatic habitats of CTS within and adjacent to the proposed Project area. However, suitable upland habitat is present in proposed Project area as well as intermittent water features within close proximity to the proposed Project area such as maintained stock ponds on the Gansberg Ranch property and the EBMUD properties. Thus, there is a moderate potential for CTS to occur within the proposed Project area.
In addition, the EBMUD property included within the proposed Project area is enrolled within a SHA with the USFWS. The purpose of this SHA is to 1) promote the enhancement and management of habitat for CRLF, CTS, and VELB on EBMUD watershed lands in San Joaquin, Amador, and Calaveras counties; and 2) to provide certain regulatory assurances to EBMUD (USFWS ND).
Implementation of MM BIO-1, BIO-4, BIO-5, and BIO-6 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. These measures include compliance with the existing SHA for proposed Project activities on EBMUD property; avoidance and minimization measures during construction; and the development of a mitigation plan in coordination with the USFWS, which shall include measures such as the management of existing and future storage ponds for the benefit of CTS consistent with the public wastewater facility operations. Therefore, with mitigation incorporated, impacts would be less than significant.
Western Pond Turtle
Juvenile and adult WPTs (Emys marmorata) were observed in 2008 approximately three miles southwest of the proposed Project area, along Bear Creek and adjacent to Cord Road (CDFW 2018). There is a moderate potential for this California SSC to occur within the proposed Project area at the existing WWTP. However, construction activities for the proposed Project, including trenching and grading, will not impact potential habitat for WPT.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 80
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Suitable habitat is present in proposed Project area at the existing WWTP. Intermittent water features within close proximity to the proposed Project area include Jackson Creek, Rabbit Creek, Grapevine Gulch, and maintained stock ponds on the Gansberg Ranch property and the EBMUD properties, however the proposed Project has been designed to avoid those features that have the potential to support WPT. The remaining water features within the proposed Project area are intermittent, lack suitable basking rocks and/or overhanging vegetation, and in most years, especially those during drought conditions, are unlikely to hold water.
The proposed Project has been designed to avoid potential aquatic and upland habitats of the WPT adjacent to the proposed Project area. However, there is still a moderate potential for WPT to occur in the proposed Project area. To ensure there are no potential effects to WPTs and/or their habitat, implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-5, would reduce this impact to a less than significant level. These measures include installing a no disturbance buffer from water feature. With mitigation incorporated, impacts would be less than significant.
Western spadefoot
The western spadefoot (Spea hammondii) was observed in 1978 along Ospital Road, approximately three miles south of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2018). There is a moderate potential for this California SSC to occur within the proposed Project area on the EBMUD and Gansberg Ranch properties. Proposed Project construction activities, including trenching and grading, may result in the disturbance of habitat for the western spadefoot and have the potential to result in the direct mortality or “take” of this species. Impacts to the western spadefoot are unlikely, as their terrestrial presence is limited to rain events; however, impacts may occur during ground disturbance associated with the construction of the proposed effluent reservoir. Implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-5 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Nesting Raptors and Other Migratory Birds
There is a moderate potential for nesting raptors, including the prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), and other nesting migratory birds protected under the MBTA to occur within the proposed Project area. Construction activities during the nesting season (i.e., approximately February 15 through August 31) could disturb and/or cause nest abandonment, and subsequent loss of eggs or developing young at active nests. Disturbance resulting in nest abandonment or loss of eggs would be considered a substantial adverse effect and violates the MBTA.
The closest known occurrences of active nests of the aforementioned species to the proposed Project area include two Swainson’s hawk nests from 2002 to 2003 along Lake Camanche and the Mokelumne River, approximately two miles southeast of the proposed Project area; and a prairie falcon within the vicinity of the southern shore of Lake Camanche, approximately three miles south of the proposed Project area (CDFW 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 81
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The long-term loss of prairie falcon, Swainson’s hawk, and other raptor and/or migratory bird breeding or foraging habitat due to construction activities is considered significant if the lost acreage is near active nests and is high quality, large in extent, and lacks similar suitable foraging or breeding habitat nearby. The proposed Project force main, pump station, and upgrades to the existing WWTP are in roadways and previously developed areas and are not considered breeding or foraging habitat. The proposed irrigation distribution system on the Gansberg Ranch property is within potential foraging and breeding habitat but would not result in the loss of this habitat. The proposed effluent reservoir(s) on the Gansberg Ranch property or Agency land would result in a minimal loss of non-native annual grassland immediately adjacent to Village. Due to the limited extent of the effluent reservoir (s), location adjacent to residential areas and over 1,700 acres of expansive grasslands on the Gansberg Ranch and Agency properties, and distance from the nearest known active nests, the potential loss of foraging and breeding habitat associated with the proposed effluent reservoir(s) is considered a less than significant loss, with no compensatory mitigation is required.
Based on the assessment of potential impacts to nesting raptors and other migratory birds, and with the implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-7 would reduce impacts to a less than significant level. b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat, sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Water features within the proposed Project area or within the proposed Project vicinity include (intermittent) Jackson Creek, Rabbit Creek, Grapevine Gulch, treatment ponds at the existing WWTP, and maintained stock ponds on Gansberg Ranch and EBMUD properties. Site surveys conducted in May 2017 detected minimal riparian vegetation and habitat associated with these features and within the proposed Project area.
In addition, sensitive habitat, specifically DCH Unit 4 (i.e., Northeastern San Joaquin Unit) for CTS, is within the far western extent of the proposed Project area (i.e., southwest region of the Gansberg Ranch property), and observations of CTS have been recorded within the proposed Project area near Grapevine Gulch Road at Curran Road, within the Gansberg Ranch property (CDFW 2018, USFWS 2017b), as well as within maintained ponds on EBMUD property. Based on field surveys conducted in May 2017, the proposed Project area does contain suitable upland habitat.
Lastly, CDFW has identified Ione chaparral as a sensitive natural vegetation community (i.e., critical habitat). There are known occurrences within three miles of the Project area (CDFW 2018), specifically to the northeast and the east of the Proposed Project area. Based on field surveys conducted in May 2017, the proposed Project area does not contain Ione chaparral sensitive natural vegetation stands.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 82
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The activities of the proposed Project have the potential to have significant impacts on any riparian habitat, sensitive natural community, and/or suitable wildlife habitat as identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the CDFW and USFWS. However, the proposed Project has been designed to avoid these sensitive resources. In addition, with the implementation of MM BIO-1and BIO-8, impacts from proposed Project activities would be reduced to a less than significant level with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Section 404 of the CWA establishes a program to regulate the discharge of dredged or fill material into WOTUS, including wetlands. Federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA, include jurisdictional WOTUS such as, but not limited to, rivers, streams, lakes, marshes, ponds, intermittent drainages, and wetlands. Jurisdictional Determinations (JD) are issued by the USACE and determine whether a water will be regulated under criteria set forth in the CWA Section 404 guidelines, regulations promulgated by the EPA (USEPA 2016b).
Specifically, wetlands are defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Most jurisdictional wetlands in the U.S. meet three wetland assessment criteria: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Jurisdictional WOTUS can also be defined by exhibiting a defined bed and bank and an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM).
In May 2017 a wetland delineation field assessment within the proposed Project area was conducted to field verify site conditions and jurisdictional resources present. This wetland delineation was completed in accordance with the USACE wetland delineation guidelines. The delineation identified a preliminary total of 14.18 acres (19,706.66 linear feet) of wetland features including intermittent channels (i.e., Jackson Creek, Rabbit Creek, Grapevine Gulch), vegetated swales/ roadside drainages, seep wetlands, wastewater treatment ponds, and a wastewater conveyance canal.
Operation of the proposed Project would entail the release of treated effluent onto annual grasslands via the proposed irrigation distribution system on the Gansberg Ranch property. A new pipeline will also be installed to deliver this effluent. Intermittent drainages, vegetated swales/ roadside drainages, and seep wetlands are present within the proposed Project operation areas. To the extent feasible, wetlands and drainages were avoided during the preliminary design phase through changes in the location of the proposed Project irrigation distribution system to have a less than significant impact to wetlands and wetland habitat.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 83
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Placement of fill or work within the jurisdictional waters would require a CWA Section 404 permit from the USACE; which requires the submittal and verification of an Aquatic Resources Delineation Report from the USACE, and proof of compliance with the CWA Section 404. Furthermore, because the Project would require a CWA Section 404 permit, a Section 401 WQC would also need to be obtained. A Section 401 WQC would ensure that the activities of the proposed Project comply with all applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions.
MM BIO-9 provides requirements for completing these components of the Section 404 and 401 permitting process and would ensure that potential impacts to protected wetlands are adequately quantified, avoided, and/or mitigated through the Section 404 permitting process, reducing the potential for substantial adverse effects to a less than significant level. Therefore, with the implementation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-9, the proposed Project activities would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Finding: Less than Significant
Wildlife movement corridors are important habitats that allow wildlife to travel, migrate, or disperse between significant habitats (Harris and Gallagher 1989). Wildlife movement corridors have been recognized by federal agencies such as the USFWS and the State as important habitats worthy of conservation. In general, movement corridors are comprised of areas of undisturbed land cover that connects larger, contiguous habitats. The proposed Project area is located within rural areas, previously disturbed areas (e.g., roadways), and grassland and oak woodland vegetation communities. Additionally, Jackson Creek, Rabbit Creek, Grapevine Gulch, maintained stock ponds, and other unnamed intermittent water features are located within and adjacent to the proposed Project, and provide potential water sources for native wildlife species.
Construction activities and/or removal of vegetation could cause temporary disturbance to common wildlife movements; however, the extent of the disturbance is limited, as wildlife could move around the area, given the availability of neighboring open spaces near the proposed Project site. As a result, the proposed Project construction and operation is expected to have a less than significant impact on species movements. Thus, the potential impacts to native resident or migratory wildlife species are considered less than significant with no mitigation necessary. e/f) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 84
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Based on site-specific field surveys completed on May 2017, the proposed Project will not conflict with local ordinances relative to biological resources. The proposed Project was designed to avoid and minimize potential impacts to present natural habitats such as wetlands, riparian areas, and sensitive habitat including oak woodlands (including heritage oaks greater than or equal to 24 inches DBH). In-road portions of the proposed Project will avoid and minimize impacts, such as tree-trimming, to the extent feasible. The proposed Project area is not currently subject to a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), or other approved local, regional, or State plans. Additionally, in accordance with General Plan Goal 1, Policy 2, 4, and 30, the proposed Project is protective of the County’s streams, creeks, groundwater, wetland communities, riparian areas, fish and wildlife species, and their associated habitats, by avoiding, minimizing, and/or mitigating for proposed work in these areas. Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with any approved or planed local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. This potential impact would thus be considered less than significant, and no mitigation would be required.
The proposed Project has been designed to avoid the removal of trees to the greatest extent feasible. In addition, irrigation distribution locations of the proposed Project are designed to be located at a lower contour than oak species present within the proposed Project area. In-road work will be kept to the right-of-way to avoid and minimize tree disturbances. The proposed Project construction and operation does not conflict with the California Oak Woodlands Protection Act and/or other local, regional and/or State tree protection requirements; other habitat or community conservation plan(s); and/or any other approved local, regional, or State HCPs. Therefore, potential impacts to oaks during operation, are minimized to a less than significant level. If proposed Project activities affect individual oaks and/or oak woodland communities, impacts will be considered less than significant with the incorporation of MM BIO-1 and BIO-10.
3.4.4 Mitigation Measures
This section provides mitigation measures for potential impacts associated with biological resources within the proposed Project area.
MM BIO-1: Pre-Construction Environmental Awareness Training
Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct one Environmental Awareness Training for construction personnel. The Environmental Awareness Training shall be given to construction personnel to brief them on how to recognize special status plant species, wildlife species, and sensitive habitats that could occur in the proposed Project area (i.e., special status plant identification, amphibian identification and habitat, wetland habitats, riparian habitats, relevant BMPs, mitigation, and regulations). In addition, Environmental Awareness Training reference pamphlets shall be provided to keep onsite for use by the Agency or an environmentally-trained foreman for training new proposed Project personnel in the absence of the biologist. If special status species are encountered in the proposed Project work area, construction shall cease, and the Agency and qualified biologist shall be notified for guidance before any construction
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 85
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
activities are resumed. Depending on the listing of the observed species and its persistence in the area, the Agency shall notify the USFWS and/or CDFW for guidance.
MM BIO-1 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency shall ensure that a qualified biologist conducts one pre- construction Environmental Awareness Training.
Timing: Prior to the initiation of construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, the environmental training reference pamphlets shall be kept on the construction site, and a sign-in sheet for all personnel in attendance shall be included in the MMRP final Report.
Standards for Success: Construction personnel are trained in the key characteristics for identifying and avoiding impacts to special status species and sensitive habitats.
MM BIO-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, Rare and/or Special Status Plant Species
A. To avoid and/or minimize impacts to endangered, threatened, rare, and/or special status plant species within the proposed Project site, a qualified biologist or botanist shall conduct a pre-construction survey. The reconnaissance-level floristic field survey shall be timed to cover the appropriate bloom period for the special status plant species that have a moderate to high potential to occur in the proposed Project area. Specifically, for the proposed Project, the bloom period survey is recommended to be conducted during the mid-bloom period (e.g., May). If special status plants are determined to have no presence within the proposed Project site, then no further mitigation is required.
B. If special status plants are determined present within the proposed Project site during pre- construction field surveys, Project activities shall be reduced and minimized to avoid impact by:
• Mapping the population and placing flagging and/or exclusion fencing to protect special status plants within the proposed Project site during construction. Specifically, the area in which the hoary navarretia was detected during reconnaissance level biological surveys conducted in May 2017 shall be reassessed. Install environmentally sensitive fencing and appropriate signage at an appropriate buffer distance, starting from the edge of the special status plant and/ or plant population. Signage should indicate the area is environmentally sensitive and not to be disturbed. If any federal or State listed threatened or endangered plant species are detected in the proposed Project area that may be impacted, a 20-foot area surrounding the species shall be established. Within such exclusion zones, no construction work shall be conducted until consultation with CDFW or USFS personnel has been made and their recommendation for protection is incorporated, as needed; and
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 86
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Adjust Project activities away from special status plants to the extent feasible. The proposed Project disturbance area will be confined to the existing right-of-way and previously disturbed areas; therefore, minimizing any potential impact to special status plant species if observed during pre-construction surveys; and
• Supervision, guidance, and verification of the implementation of these measures shall be achieved by the Agency or a qualified biological monitor.
If construction actions are determined to occur within exclusion zones, the Agency shall incorporate a maintenance and monitoring program. This program shall reference the guidelines set forth by CNPS in their Policy on Mitigation Guidelines Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (CNPS 1998). Additional reporting requirements would be further defined after development of restoration and reclamation plan for rare plants, and as defined by the appropriate agency.
C. If special status plants are determined present in the proposed Project site during pre- construction field surveys and direct/ unavoidable impacts to special status plant species shall result from Project activities, then consultation with appropriate agencies (i.e., CDFW and/or USFWS) will be required to develop acceptable mitigation (e.g., agency recommended mitigation may include translocation of individual plants, rectification of impact by seed collecting and stockpiling for replanting/replacement, mitigation fees, and/or permitting).
MM BIO-2 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency shall ensure that a qualified biologist or botanist conducts a pre-construction reconnaissance-level floristic field survey.
Timing: One mid-bloom period survey shall to be conducted (e.g., May) for the identified special status plant species. Monitoring and reporting, if appropriate, shall be completed during and after construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The survey and monitoring of special status plants, if identified, shall be conducted by a qualified botanist or biologist, and a brief Memo shall be documented and kept on file with the Agency. The memo shall include a summary of survey results, affected populations or relocated populations, mitigation, and monitoring, as needed.
Standards for Success: No “take”/ net loss of any endangered, threatened, rare, and/or special status plant species.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 87
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
MM BIO-3: Elderberry Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle
If suitable host plants (elderberry [Sambucus spp.] with stems greater than one inch) for the VELB are within the proposed Project area or within 165 feet (50 meters) feet of the proposed Project area, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be implemented, as recommended by the USFWS (USFWS 2017d).
A. Areas that shall be avoided, including areas where activities that may damage or kill an elderberry shrub (e.g., trenching, paving, etc.) shall be delineated with exclusionary fencing. These areas may need an avoidance area of at least six meters (20 feet) from the drip-line, depending on the type of activity. These areas to be avoided during construction activities will be fenced and/or flagged as close to construction limits as feasible.
B. A qualified biologist will provide an environmental awareness training for all construction personnel on the identification of VELB, its host plant and habitat, status of the VELB, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for non- compliance.
C. As much as feasible, all Project activities that could occur within 50 meters (165 feet) of an elderberry shrub, will be conducted outside of the flight season of the VELB (March - July).
MM BIO-3 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency shall ensure that the above avoidance and minimization measures (i.e., exclusionary fencing and worker environmental awareness training) are implemented.
Timing: Prior to the initiation of construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, the environmental training reference pamphlets shall be kept on the construction site, and a sign-in sheet for all personnel in attendance shall be included in the MMRP final Report.
Standards for Success: Construction personnel are trained in the key characteristics for identifying and avoiding impacts to VELB and its habitat, and no impacts to VELB and/or its habitat will occur.
MM BIO-4: Compliance with Safe Harbor Agreement Between USFWS and EBMUD Within the Proposed Project Area
The property owned by EBMUD that is included within the proposed Project area is enrolled within a SHA between the USFWS and EBMUD. Specifically, the purpose of this SHA is to 1) promote the enhancement and management of habitat for CRLF, CTS, and VELB on EBMUD watershed lands in San Joaquin, Amador, and Calaveras counties; and 2) to provide certain regulatory assurances to EBMUD (USFWS ND). Currently, EBMUD and USFWS are the only two parties within the agreement.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 88
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The Agency proposed Project activities within the SHA boundary must be included under the covered activities as defined within the SHA. If proposed Project activities on EBMUD property are not included within the existing SHA, a modification in the form of an amendment to the covered activities and participating parties shall be made to the existing agreement. If required, the amendment shall be achieved through (EBMUD) submitting an application for amendment in the form of written notice to the other party (USFWS). A written concurrence from the other party (USFWS) is then required for the amendment to become effective. As stated in the SHA, the notice shall include a statement of the proposed modification, its purpose, and its expected results. The parties shall respond to proposed modifications within 60 days of receipt of such notice, and proposed modifications shall become effective upon the other parties’ written concurrence.
MM BIO-4 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency shall comply with all conditions of the SHA agreement between USFWS and EBMUD, including amended conditions should they be required by USFWS.
Timing: Prior to construction, all proposed Project activities to take place within the SHA boundary must be covered within the covered activities as defined within the SHA.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: A summary of the proposed Project activities that occur within the SHA boundary shall be written and submitted to EBMUD and USFWS 30 days following the completion of the proposed Project. This summary is intended to show compliance with the SHA.
Standards for Success: Proposed Project activities within the SHA boundary are in compliance with the SHA, and no impacts to CRLF, CTS, and VELB occur.
MM BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, and Western Spadefoot During Construction
A. If construction activities (i.e. grading, trenching, ground disturbance, etc.). that have the potential to impact the habitat of CTS, WPT, or western spadefoot, occur within the project area, The Agency shall ensure that exclusion fencing shall be installed when working within 100 feet of a perennial stream and within 300 feet of potential breeding ponds.
B. If initial ground disturbing activities should take place during the dry season, generally from April 15 to the first qualifying rain event (i.e., frontal precipitation event of more than 0.25 inch within 24 hours), on or after October 15. During this season frogs, turtles, and salamanders are typically located closest to breeding ponds, none of which are crossed by the proposed Project.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 89
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
C. If initial ground disturbing activities take place outside of the dry season, a qualified biological monitor shall be on site to monitor for CTS, WPT, and/or western spadefoot in the area during all initial ground disturbing activities.
• If CTS, WPT, and/or western spadefoot are documented anytime during proposed Project construction, Project activities will cease in the immediate vicinity until the CTS, WPT, and/or western spadefoot moves to a new location (out of harm’s way) without interference.
• Staging areas, including fueling and maintenance areas, shall be kept at least 100 feet away from perennial streams and 300 feet from potential breeding ponds. The Agency shall prepare a Spill Prevention and Clean-Up Plan; and
• The proposed Project shall administer appropriate BMPs to protect water quality and control erosion.
MM BIO-5 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency shall ensure that exclusion fencing shall be installed as well as monitor any qualifying construction activities, when necessary.
Timing: Prior to and during construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The above and minimization measures shall be implemented by the Agency and a brief memo will be developed to document the measures implemented, which will be kept on file with the Agency.
Standards for Success: No direct or indirect impacts to CTS, WPT, and/or western spadefoot.
MM BIO-6: Development and Implementation of a Mitigation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander
To mitigate for impacts to potential suitable CTS habitat, the Agency shall develop and implement a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW for the proposed Project. The purpose of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to mitigate for potential impacts to CTS and includes an outline of management activities at the existing WWTP as well as the construction specifications and maintenance of proposed ponds on the Gansberg Ranch property. For example, existing and newly constructed ponds may be maintained and/or constructed for the benefit of CTS to facilitate long-term protection of the species and their habitat.
In addition, the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan outlines a monitoring and reporting protocol to implement following the completion of Project construction.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 90
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
MM BIO-6 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency, in coordination with USFWS and CDFW, shall develop and implement a Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for CTS.
Timing: The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan will be developed prior to the initiation of construction and will be implemented during and following construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall include a monitoring and reporting protocol, which will include documentation to demonstrate compliance with the Plan. Such monitoring documents shall be kept on file with the Agency.
Standards for Success: All measures within the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan are implemented and the ponds are created and/or maintained for the benefit of CTS.
MM BIO-7: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance and Impacts to Nesting Raptors and Other Migratory Birds
The Agency will implement one of the following measures, depending on the specific construction timeframe, to avoid disturbing nesting raptors and other migratory birds:
1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting season (i.e., approximately February 15 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction nesting survey within the proposed Project area and within an approximate 100-foot buffer of the proposed Project area. If no active nests are detected, then no additional mitigation is required.
2. If surveys indicate that raptor or other migratory bird nests are found in any areas that would be directly affected by construction activities, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site until after the breeding season, or after a wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged (i.e., typically late June to mid-July). The extent of these buffers shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the appropriate regulating agency (e.g., CDFW and/or USFWS) and shall depend on the special status wildlife species present, the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise, topographical or artificial barriers, and other disturbances.
3. If construction activities begin outside the breeding season (i.e., approximately September 1 through February 14), then construction may proceed until it is determined that an active migratory bird nest would be subject to abandonment because of construction activities. Optimally, all necessary vegetation removal shall be conducted before the breeding season so that nesting birds would not be present in the construction area during construction activities. If any bird nests are in the proposed Project area under pre-existing construction conditions, then it is assumed that they are habituated (or will habituate) to the construction activities. Under this scenario, the pre-construction survey described previously should still be
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 91
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
conducted on or after February 15 to identify any active nests in the vicinity. A qualified biologist should monitor active sites periodically until after the breeding season or after the young have fledged (typically late June to mid-July). If active nests are identified on or immediately adjacent to the proposed Project area, then all non-essential construction activities (e.g., equipment storage, meetings, etc.) should be avoided in the immediate vicinity of the nest site, but the remainder of construction activities may proceed.
MM BIO-7 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency shall ensure that a qualified biologist will complete nesting raptor and other migratory bird surveys.
Timing: One nesting survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within one week of initiating the proposed Project, should the proposed Project occur between February 15 and August 31.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist and a brief Memo shall be documented and kept on file with Agency.
Standards for Success: No raptor and/or other migratory bird nests shall be disturbed due to the proposed Project.
MM BIO-8: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance and Impacts to Riparian Habitat and/or Sensitive Natural Communities and Habitat
This mitigation measure is to protect riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and/or any other critical habitat. In relation to the proposed Project this mitigation measure pertains to CTS, WPT, and western spadefoot and their associated upland and aquatic habitat; riparian habitat adjacent to proposed Project water features (e.g., Jackson Creek, Rabbit Creek, Grapevine Gulch, etc.), and wetlands (e.g., stock ponds); and all other sensitive natural communities. To avoid and minimize disturbance and impacts to these habitats and sensitive natural communities the following shall be implemented:
• If riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and/or any other critical habitat are present within the proposed Project area, then they shall be identified and flagged by the Agency or a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. Specifically, when working within 100 feet of a water feature (e.g., stream, creek, wetland, pond, etc.).
• All ground and vegetation disturbance in riparian habitat shall be minimized during proposed Project implementation. Construction activities in riparian habitat shall be confined to the defined proposed Project work areas, including access routes and staging areas. Active work shall not occur in areas designated as exclusionary by the qualified biologist.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 92
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• If riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and/or any other critical habitat are present within the proposed Project area, then an Agency representative shall periodically monitor work in these areas; including but not limited to within the floodplain, adjacent to and/or within water features (e.g., streams, creeks, ponds, etc.), and/or in sensitive biological communities. All on-site personnel shall be instructed on the importance of avoiding and minimizing disturbance in these areas if present within the proposed Project area.
• If proposed Project work needs to occur within the buffered exclusion area and/or within an environmentally sensitive area, then an Agency representative shall coordinate to define potential work constraints and specifications prior to the initiation of any proposed Project work activities, as needed.
MM BIO-8 Implementation:
Responsible Party: A qualified biologist or the Agency shall conduct sensitive area/habitat delineation of environmentally sensitive areas and flag where the proposed Project contractor will install exclusion fencing.
Timing: Prior to construction, exclusion fencing, and buffer distances, shall be established, including staging or ground-disturbing activities within the proposed Project area, including staging and access areas.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The Agency shall flag and monitor exclusion areas within the proposed Project area.
Standards for Success: Disturbance to CTS, WPT, and western spade foot and their associated upland and aquatic habitat; riparian habitat, water features/wetlands, and all other sensitive natural communities shall be minimized and avoided to extent feasible.
MM BIO-9: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Wetlands
The Agency plans to avoid or minimize potential impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional WOTUS to the extent feasible. If wetland avoidance is not feasible, the Agency shall apply for a CWA Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) through the USACE, and CWA Section 401 WQC through the RWQCB for the permanent and/or temporary impacts (e.g., dredge or fill) of the wetlands and jurisdictional WOTUS. Temporary impacts to wetlands and WOTUS shall be addressed with onsite restoration for impacts from proposed Project activities.
MM BIO-9 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency is responsible for applying for all permits and approvals needed for temporary and/or permanent impacts to any wetlands or WOTUS within the proposed Project area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 93
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Timing: Permits shall be obtained prior to construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The Agency shall ensure that all permits be obtained prior to construction and the appropriate fees paid to comply with the USACE current compensatory mitigation schedule, as needed. The Agency shall comply with Project permit stipulations. The Agency may prepare a brief letter report on the compliance with this mitigation measure for the USACE and the Agency’s files.
Standards for Success: No net loss of wetlands from the proposed Project.
MM BIO-10: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Oak Trees and Oak Woodlands
The County adopts oak and oak woodland State regulations to protect and minimize impacts to individual oaks, heritage oaks (i.e., old growth), and oak woodlands. Heritage oaks include all old growth oak species (Quercus spp.) that measure 24 inches DBH or greater. To minimize impacts to oaks and oak woodlands in the proposed Project area, the following mitigation is required:
• The proposed Project design will be done to avoid and minimize impacts to the number of oaks, heritage oaks, and oak woodlands areas to the maximum extent feasible. The location of all oak trees to be retained shall be shown on all site plans (e.g., site grading, drainage, and utility plans, etc.).
• Following completion of project plans, a tree survey report shall be conducted by the Agency or a qualified arborist prior to removal of any trees within the Proposed Project alignment. In accordance with the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (California PRC Section 21083.4), the arborist survey shall identify all oak trees of five inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), with the exception of black oak (Quercus kelloggii).
• If oak trees, as identified in the California OWCA, are proposed for removal within the Proposed Project alignment, the Agency’s contractor shall mitigate for the loss of native oak trees by contributing funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund of the Agency’s choice to purchase oak woodland conservation easements.
• For existing oak trees within the proposed Project construction corridor, prune branches under the supervision of qualified arborist or the Agency.
• Prior to ground disturbing activities, place a four-foot-tall fence (i.e., brightly colored orange biodegradable fencing) at least two feet outside of the drip line of mature trees (five inches DBH, or ten inches for aggregate multi-trunk trees); that are to be saved in the Project area and which are located within 50 feet of any grading, in-road construction, underground utilities, or other development activity.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 94
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
MM BIO-10 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency.
Timing: Prior to and during construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: For trees to be retained during proposed Project activities, a qualified biologist or the Agency shall monitor on-site disturbance minimization procedures if work is occurring within the tree dripline/ protection zone.
For all trees removed during proposed Project activities, a qualified arborist or the Agency shall assess tree individuals and prepare a tree survey report. Surveys shall be completed prior to construction commencement and/or tree removal.
Standards for Success: To avoid or minimize impacts to protected trees, specifically oaks, heritage oaks, and oak woodlands.
3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
This section was developed by Stantec pursuant to Section 15064.5 of CEQA. The purposes were to (1) identify and record cultural and Tribal cultural resources in the Project area; (2) make preliminary evaluations of such resources’ significance according to the criteria of the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); and (3) recommend procedures for avoidance or mitigation of adverse effects to CRHR-eligible resources.
3.5.1 Regulatory Setting
This regulatory setting lists cultural and Tribal cultural resources regulations relevant to the proposed Project.
Federal
National Historic Preservation Act
Most regulations at the federal level stem from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and historic preservation legislation such as the NHPA of 1966, as amended. NHPA established guidelines to "preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and to maintain, wherever possible, an environment that supports diversity and a variety of individual choice." The NHPA includes regulations (Section 106) which pertain to all projects (including the proposed Project) that are funded, permitted, or approved by any federal agency and which have the potential to affect cultural resources. Provisions of NHPA establish the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) maintained by the National Park Service, the Advisory Councils on Historic Preservation (ACHP), State Historic Preservation Offices, and grants- in-aid programs.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 95
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
American Indian Religious Freedom Act and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act recognizes that Native American religious practices, sacred sites, and sacred objects have not been properly protected under other statutes. It establishes as national policy that traditional practices and beliefs, sites (including right of access), and the use of sacred objects shall be protected and preserved. Additionally, Native American remains are protected by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA).
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology’s Guidance for Assessing the Paleontological Potential of Rock Units
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) have identified two phases for identification of the potential for paleontological resources (i.e., fossils): 1) assess the potential that nonrenewable paleontological resources could be directly or indirectly impacted or destroyed by the proposed Project activities, and 2) generate and implement measures to mitigate any potential impacts from proposed Project activities.
The SVP classifies the potential for paleontological resources within rock units as units having high, undetermined, low, or no potential for containing paleontological resources.
High potential is characterized as, “rock units from which vertebrate or significant invertebrate, plant, or trace fossils have been recovered, including but not limited to sedimentary formations, some volcaniclastic formations, some low-grade metamorphic rocks which contain significant paleontological resources anywhere within their geographical extent, sedimentary rock units temporally or lithologically suitable for the preservation of fossils, rock units which contain potentially datable organic remains older than late Holocene, and rock units which may contain new vertebrate deposits, traces, or trackways”. (SVP 2010)
The SVP classifies underdetermined potential as, “rock units for which little information is available concerning their paleontological content, geologic age, and depositional environment”. Low potential is described as, “poorly represented by fossil specimens in institutional collections, or where fossils are only preserved in rare circumstances”. Rock units with no potential to contain paleontological resources include high-grade metamorphic rock (i.e., gneisses, schists) and plutonic igneous rocks (i.e., granites, diorite) (SVP 2010).
State
CEQA, PRC Section 21083.2, and CEQA Guidelines 15064.5
Includes provisions for significance criteria related to archaeological and historical resources. A significant archaeological or historical resource is defined as one that (a) meets the criteria of the CRHR, (b) is included in a local register of historical resources, (c) or is determined by the Lead Agency to be historically significant. A significant impact is characterized as a, “substantial
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 96
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018 adverse change in the significance of a historical resource.” PRC Section 5024.1 authorizes the establishment of the CRHR. Any identified cultural resources must therefore be evaluated against the CRHR criteria.
CEQA includes in its definition of historical resources “any object [or] site …that has yielded or may be likely to yield information important in prehistory” (14 CCR 15064.5[3]), which is typically interpreted as including fossil materials and other paleontological resources. More specifically, destruction of a “unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature” constitutes a significant impact under CEQA per State CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
Treatment of paleontological resources under CEQA is generally similar to treatment of cultural resources, requiring evaluation of resources in the Project area; assessment of potential impacts on significant or unique resources; and development of mitigation measures for potentially significant impacts, which may include monitoring, combined with data recovery excavation and/or avoidance.
PRC Section 5024.1 California Register of Historical Resources
In order to be determined eligible for listing in the CRHR, a property must be significant at the local, State, or National level under one or more of the following four criteria as defined in PRC 5024.1 and CEQA Guideline 15064.5(a).
• (1) It is associated with events or patterns of events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of the history and cultural heritage of California and the United States. (2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to the nation or to California’s past. (3) It 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. (4) It has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the State and the nation;
• In addition to meeting one or more of the above criteria, a significant property must also retain integrity. Properties eligible for listing in the CRHR must retain enough of their historic character to convey the reason(s) for their significance. Integrity is judged in relation to location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
PRC Section 21083.2 Treatment of Unique Archaeological Resources
PRC Section 21083.2 governs the treatment of unique archaeological resources, defined as, “an archaeological artifact, object, or site about which it can be clearly demonstrated” as meeting any of the following criteria:
• Contains information needed to answer important scientific research questions and that there is a demonstrable public interest in that information;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 97
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Has a special and particular quality such as being the oldest of its type or the best example of its type;
• Is directly associated with a scientifically recognized important prehistoric or historic event or person; or
• If it can be demonstrated that a project will cause damage to a unique archaeological resource, appropriate mitigation measures shall be required to preserve the resource in place and in an undisturbed state. Mitigation measures may include, but are not limited to, 1) planning construction to avoid the site, 2) deeding conservation easements, or 3) capping the site prior to construction. If a resource is determined to be a “non-unique archaeological resource”, no further consideration of the resource by the Lead Agency is necessary.
PRC Section 7050.5 Encountering Human Remains
The possibility of encountering human remains cannot be entirely discounted. Pursuant to PRC Section 7050.5 if human graves are encountered, work should halt in the vicinity and the County Coroner should be notified immediately. At the same time, an archaeologist should be contacted to evaluate the situation. If human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours of this identification.
Assembly Bill 52 (Public Resources Code Section 21084.2)
AB 52 changes sections of the PRC to add consideration of Native American culture within CEQA. The goal of AB 52 is to promote the involvement of California Native American Tribes in the decision-making process when it comes to identifying and developing mitigation for impacts to resources of importance to their culture. To reach this goal, the bill establishes a formal role for Tribes in the CEQA process. CEQA lead agencies are required to consult with Tribes about potential Tribal cultural resources in the Project area, the potential significance of project impacts, the development of project alternatives, and the type of environmental document that should be prepared. AB 52 specifically states that a project that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a Tribal cultural resource is a project that may have a significant effect on the environment.
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Conservation Element related to cultural resources are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 98
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal C-7. Preserve the County’s historical resources.
Policy C-7.1. Balance the community’s interest in historic preservation with the rights of individual property owners.
Policy C-7.2. Promote use of building envelopes or cluster development as a means of protecting historical resources when land is developed.
Policy C-7.3. Support the preservation of historic structures, including rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of structures. Encourage property owners to preserve and maintain historic structures.
Policy C-7.4. Promote the preservation of historically significant Gold Rush sites, mining sites, and other identified sites.
Policy C-7.5. Collaborate with interested groups to develop interpretive materials for historically-important sites.
Policy C-7.6. Promote historic preservation as an engine for Amador County’s tourist- economy.
Goal C-8. Preserve the County’s cultural resources.
Policy C-8.1. Balance the community’s interest in the protection of cultural resources with the rights of individual property owners.
Policy C-8.2. Encourage project design that will protect cultural and archaeological resources and consider using incentives to support protection of these resources when land is developed.
Policy C-8.3. Educate local realtors, property owners, and developers regarding the need to protect and preserve cultural resources, with the objective of increasing cultural resource awareness among existing and new property owners.
Policy C-8.4. Encourage other interested groups to develop interpretive materials for culturally and archaeologically important sites.
Goal G-3. Amador County will promote the interests of its residents in its dealings with the State and federal governments.
Policy G-3.4. Consult with Native American Tribes to aid in the protection of traditional Tribal cultural places when reviewing future development projects.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 99
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.5.1 Environmental Setting
The following section describes the regional and local cultural setting for the proposed Project. The section includes the methodology used for establishing the contextual setting along with a summary of the natural environment, prehistoric context, ethnographic context, historic context, and paleontological context.
Methodology for Establishing Setting
Records Search
A records search of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) at the North Central Information Center (NCIC) was completed for the proposed Project on May 11, 2017. The study area for the records search consisted of the Project area and surrounding areas within ¼-mile of the Project area. Previous surveys, studies, and cultural resources site records were reviewed. Records were also examined in the Historic Property Data File for the County, which contains information on locations of recognized historical significance, including those evaluated for listing in the NRHP, the CRHR, the California Inventory of Historic Resources, California Historic Landmarks, and California Points of Historical Interest. The purpose of the records search was to: 1) determine whether known cultural resources have been recorded within or adjacent to the Project area; 2) assess the likelihood for unrecorded cultural resources to be present based on historical references and the distribution of nearby sites; and, 3) develop a context for the identification and evaluation of cultural resources.
The records at the NCIC indicate that nine cultural resources studies have been previously completed within the records search area. Of the nine studies, seven have been completed within the Project area, six of which included pedestrian survey. Table 3.5-1 summarizes these studies.
Five cultural resources were identified within the records search area. None were identified within the Project area. Table 3.5-2 summarizes these cultural resources.
Table 3.5-1 Cultural Resources Studies Conducted In or Within 1/4-Mile of the Project Area.
Within Study No. Title Author Year Findings Project Area?
S-285 The Archeology of the Camanche Jerald J. Johnson 1967 Yes, Yes Reservoir Locality, California cultural resources identified.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 100
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Within Study No. Title Author Year Findings Project Area?
S-285B The Archeology of Amador-33 Patti Jo Palumbo 1967 Yes, No cultural resources identified.
S-672 Cultural Resources Assessment of the Peak & Associates, 1995 No cultural Yes Proposed CSA#3 Intertie and Water Inc. resources Treatment Plant, Amador County, identified. California
S-2736 Cultural Resources Inventory Report for Teresa O’Brien 2001 No cultural No Camanche Water Treatment Plant resources Improvements identified.
S-5055 Cultural Resources Survey of the Patricia Ryan Farrell 1990 Yes, Yes Proposed Camanche Oaks cultural Development Near Camanche Village, resources Amador, California identified.
S-7232 Archaeological Survey Report for Eric Wohlegemuth 2006 Yes, Yes Improvements to the Agency WWID #11 and J. Garibaldi. cultural Waste Water Treatment Plant and resources Disposal Facility identified.
S-7753 Phase 2 Regional Waste Water Treatment Laura Leach-Palm 2005 No cultural Yes Plan for EBMUD Camanche North and resources (*does South Shore Recreation Areas and identified. not Amador Water Agency Waste Water include survey)
S-10108 Final Cultural Resources Survey Report Denise Jurich and 2009 No cultural Yes Camanche Water System Compliance Jesse Martinez resources Project, Amador County, California identified.
None Cultural Resources Survey Report for the URS 2014 Yes, Yes Camanche Water Transmission Line cultural Project resources identified.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 101
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Table 3.5-2 Cultural Resources In or Within 1/4-Mile of the Project Area
Within Recorded by/ Trinomial Primary No. Site type Description Project Year Area?
CA-AMA- P-03-000127 Prehistoric Bedrock milling Sacramento State No 000091 feature; lithic College Field Class scatter / 1963a
CA-AMA- P-03-000129 Multicomponent Historic period Sacramento State No 000093/H trash scatter College Field Class and a bedrock / 1963b milling feature
CA-AMA- P-03-000133 Prehistoric Lithic scatter D. Simeroth and D. No 000097 and bedrock Palumbo / 1963c milling feature
CA-AMA- P-03-000865 Prehistoric Bedrock milling P. Ryan Farrell and No 000586 feature M. Marine / 1990
CA-AMA- P-03-000809 Prehistoric Bedrock milling E. Wohlgemuth No 001221 feature and J. Garibaldi / 2006
AB 52 Native American Consultation
Pursuant to the California PRC Section 5097.9, State and local agencies cooperate with and assist the NAHC in its efforts to preserve and protect locations of sacred or special cultural and spiritual significance to Native Americans. The following Tribes contacted the CEQA lead agency, the Agency, to be included in Native American consultations under AB 52: Buena Vista Rancheria of Me- Wuk Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), and the Ione Band of Miwuk Indians. All Tribes who asked to be consulted with under AB52 were contacted by letter, telephone, and/or e-mail to request information about the Project area on December 14, 2017. The UAIC responded on January 18, 2018 requesting consultation for the Project, files for all existing cultural resource assessments including records search results, Geographic Information System (GIS) shapefiles for the proposed Project area, and a UAIC Tribal Monitor for this Project. The Agency responded on January 24, 2018 confirming receipt of the UAIC’s response, offering to submit records search information and shapefiles, and offering to schedule a site visit with a UAIC Tribal representative. As of March 26, 2018, Native American outreach under AB52 is on-going for the Project.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 102
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Field Survey
Stantec archaeologists completed pedestrian surveys of the Project area from June 5-7, 2017.
Periodic trowel scrapings were employed to clear small patches of vegetation in areas with poor ground visibility although most of the Project area exhibited 50-percent or greater ground visibility. During the field survey, all accessible areas were examined closely for evidence of prehistoric archaeological site indicators such as stone flakes; grinding and mashing implements (such as groundstone, mortars, pestles, handstones, and millingslicks); bone, and discolored soils (which could contain lithics, bone, shell, other organics, and/or fire‐affected rocks). All areas were also examined closely for evidence of historic period‐site indicators such as glass and ceramic fragments; metal objects; milled and split lumber, and structure or feature remains such as building foundations, fence posts, and discrete trash deposits such as wells, privy pits, or dumps.
The survey consisted of walking parallel 15-meter-wide transects, oriented to a bearing that followed the long axis of each Project component site. Digital photographs were taken to document ground conditions, and all observations were recorded in the field. Weather was sunny with clear skies for the duration of the survey.
No cultural resources were identified as a result of the survey.
Natural Environment
An overview of the natural environment setting is provided in Section 3.4, Biological Resources, and provides context within which to interpret the cultural resources identified in the proposed Project area.
Prehistoric Context
Archaeological work during the 1920s and 1930s led to the cultural chronology for central California presented by Lillard, Heizer, and Fenenga in 1939. This chronology was based on the results of excavations conducted in the lower Sacramento River Valley. The chronology identified three archaeological cultures: Early, Transitional, and Late (Lillard et al 1939). An antecedent to the Early Culture was postulated, but neither characteristics nor probable origins of this earlier culture were discussed in detail (Lillard et al 1939). Heizer (1949) redefined the description of these three cultures. He subsumed the three cultural groups into three time periods: the Early, Middle, and Late Horizons. Heizer (1949), however, primarily focused his new archaeological research and reexamination of Lillard et al. (1939) on the Early Horizon, which he named Windmiller.
Ragir (1972) reanalyzed, updated, and elaborated the description, temporal span, and geographic distribution of Windmiller. Ragir (1972) refined the temporal span for Windmiller, dating it from 4,500-2,500 Before Present (BP), with a maximum age of 7,000 BP. The 7,000 BP dates for the origin of Windmiller was postulated because the culture described at 4,000 years
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 103
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
ago appears to be fully developed and seems well integrated into the regional economic system (i.e., artifacts of exotic materials, such as marine shell and obsidian are present in the assemblage). Heizer (1949) and Ragir (1972) presented a set of characteristics to identify Windmiller. Some of these characteristics are: large and heavy, stemmed and leaf-shaped projectile points commonly made on a variety of materials other than obsidian; perforate charmstones; Haliotis and Olivella shell beads and ornaments; trident fish spears; baked clay balls (presumably for cooking in baskets); flat slab millingstones; small numbers of mortars; and ventrally extended burials oriented toward the west (Heizer 1949, Ragir 1972). The subsistence pattern of Windmiller groups probably emphasized hunting and fishing, with seed collecting (possibly including acorns) supplementing the diet (Heizer 1949, Ragir 1972, Moratto 1984).
Windmiller groups at about 4,000 BP are firmly established in the Lower Sacramento River Valley and are interacting with their neighbors. Windmiller groups acquired: obsidian from at least two Coast Range and three trans-Sierran sources; haliotis and olivella shells and ornaments from the coast; and quartz crystals from the Sierra foothills (Heizer 1949, Ragir 1972). It is hypothesized that the bulk of these materials were acquired through trade. Some of these materials, however, may have been acquired as part of seasonal movements between the Central Valley and the Sierra foothills. There is evidence for seasonal transhumance in the distribution of Windmiller artifacts, sites, and burial patterns. Johnson’s work (1967, 1970) along the edge of the Sierra Nevada foothills at Lake Camanche and CA-AMA-000056, the Applegate site, suggest a link between Windmiller of the Central Valley and the Sierra Nevada mortuary caves.
In addition, analysis of Windmiller burial orientation (Schulz 1970) and skeletal analyses (e.g., Harris Lines) by McHenry (1968) suggest a high percentage of winter death among Windmiller groups. Incorporating all these data, Moratto (1984:206) states that as early as 4,000 BP Windmiller groups may have been exploiting the foothills of the Sierra Nevada during the summer and returning in the winter to villages in the Central Valley. Beyond lithic procurement Heizer does not discuss the possibility of Windmiller ties to the foothills or the Great Basin. He (1949) does suggest, however, that the valley floor may have been abandoned at the end of the Early Horizon, with the valley edges becoming a location for "cultural blending" with groups beyond the geographic limits of the valley. Heizer (1949) acknowledged that there were general similarities between Windmiller assemblages and those of other cultures found in different regions of California. Consequently, there is evidence to support the hypothesis that there is a relationship between the Martis Complex and the Early Horizon or Windmiller of the Central Valley. Regardless, Ritter (1970: 532) thinks that the Spring Garden Ravine site highlights the adaptation to the ecotone between the pine forest and oak-chaparral woodland (i.e., the Transition Zone) by Martis cultural groups beginning around 4,000 BP. Ritter supports Elsasser’s earlier hypothesis that the Martis Complex reflects an adaptation to the ecology of the Transition Zone (Elsasser 1978).
The succeeding Middle Horizon, named the Cosumnes Culture by Ragir (1972), was first recognized at CA-SAC-000066. The Middle Horizon is characterized by: tightly flexed burial with variable orientation; red ochre stains in burials; distinctive Olivella and Haliotis beads and ornaments; distinctive charmstones; cobble mortars and evidence of wooden mortars;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 104
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
numerous bone tools and ornaments; large, heavy foliate and lanceolate concave base projectile points made of materials other than obsidian; and objects of baked clay. Middle Horizon cultures are generally quite different from Windmiller but do continue to exhibit some of the characteristics of Windmiller such as similar projectile point forms. The similarities in projectile point form may be indicative of cultural continuity and/or functional and adaptational success of particular forms. Regardless, many projectile point forms span long periods of time and may also be found in the assemblages of presumably different cultural groups. The Late Horizon, labeled the Hotchkiss Culture by Ragir (1972), ranges in age from 1,500 BP to contact. The Hotchkiss Culture primarily represents both local innovation and the blending of new cultural traits introduced into the Central Valley. It is distinguished by intensive fishing, extensive use of acorns, elaborate ceremonialism, social stratification, and cremation of the dead.
Ethnographic Context
The Project area is located within the ancestral territory of the Northern Sierran Eastern Miwok (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978), which are considered to be part of the Eastern Miwok division of the Miwokan language family, which is a subgroup of the Utian language group (Levy 1978). The name Miwok (plural of miwii) means “person” (Kroeber 1925:443).
Aboriginally, the Eastern Miwok were politically organized into tribelets, each tribelet controlling a designated territory with one or more permanent settlements and numerous temporary/seasonal camps within an area generally designated by geographic features (Levy 1978). The tribelet was led by a chief, who lived in the tribelet capital, where the assembly house was located (Levy 1978). The position of chief was patrilineal. The chief was the advisor, judge, protector, and mediator of disputes for the tribelet. He was a wealthy person, who would sponsor ceremonies, and who had certain privileges and rights within the community. Other prominent positions within the tribelet were the speaker, which was an elected position, and whose duties included proclaiming the chief’s edicts and messages to the community and obtaining contributions of food and ritual paraphernalia for ceremonies, and messengers, a hereditary position, who would deliver invitations to the chiefs of surrounding tribelets to attend ceremonies (Levy 1978).
House construction varied based on elevation. Conical dwellings, constructed using bark slabs were built at higher elevations, while at lower elevations, houses were conical and were made using thatch or tule matting. Assembly houses were either a semi-subterranean earth lodge or a circular brush house. Sweat house dimensions were 6 to 15 feet, and they were conical semisubterranean houses covered with layers of brush, bark, and earth (Levy 1978).
Northern Sierran Miwok tribelets typically varied in size from 100 to 300 individuals. The Eastern Miwok inhabited several geographic areas, roughly divided by each of the five Eastern Miwok languages: Bay Miwok (Saclan) from Walnut Creek east to the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta; Plains Miwok, who dwelt in the lower reaches of the Cosumnes and Mokelumne Rivers and on both banks of the Sacramento River from Rio Vista to Freeport; the Northern Sierra Miwok, within the foothills of the Mokelumne and Calaveras river drainages; Central Sierra Miwok, whose
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 105
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
territory included the foothills and mountains of the Stanislaus and Tuolumne drainages, and the Southern Sierra Miwok, who occupied the upper drainages of the Chowchilla and Merced Rivers (Levy 1978: 398).
The Eastern Miwok recognized several forms of social organization, including moieties, the belief that all living things belonged to one of two categories (land and water), and patrilineal lineages. Settlements were often formed by lineage, wherein members shared the same moiety (Levy 1978). Patrilineal descended shamanism was practiced within Eastern Miwok society. Shamans were categorized based on the type of service they offered, some helping patients with health issues, and others assisting with the success of hunts (Levy 1978). Bear shamans presided over certain ceremonies and were protected by a bear guardian spirit and Rattlesnake shamans also conducted certain ceremonies where they would handle snakes. Deer doctors could attract fawns, identify where deer were located, and assist with the success of deer hunts. Herb doctors utilized herbs and plants to heal minor wounds, while Spirit doctors, in more serious cases, called upon their guardian spirits, to locate and remove disease objects, including poison. Weather shamans controlled and influenced the weather (Levy 1978).
The Northern Sierra Miwok were hunter-gatherers and would obtain resources both from the higher elevations of the Sierras, but also the lower elevations of the great valley floor. Nuts, seeds, roots, and berries were all important to the Eastern Miwok, but especially acorn from the interior live oak (Q. wislizenii) and blue oak (Q. douglasii) were important to the Northern Sierra Miwok (Kroeber 1925; Levy 1978). Like other California Native groups, acorns were prepared first by shelling them, then grinding the meat (using a bedrock mortar and pestle), and sifting the meal using a basket (Levy 1978). After the acorn meat had been ground and sifted, the meal was leached of its tannins by pouring water over the meal within a shallow basin of sand, with each pouring of water gradually increasing in temperature. Once the leaching process was complete, the meal could be used for biscuits, bread, mush, or soup (Levy 1978).
In times when the acorn crop yield was poor, buckeye was utilized (Aesculus californica). Other nuts gathered included laurel (Umbellularia californica), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta var. californica), and pine nuts from the gray pine (Pinus sabiniana) and the sugar pine (Pinus lambertiana). Seeds, such as balsam root (Balsamorhiza sagittata), California buttercup (Ranunculus californicus), clarkia (Clarkia unguiculate), and Fitch’s spikeweed (Hemizonia fitchii), were also an important part of the diet (Levy 1978). Seeds were usually prepared by winnowing, then cooking, and grinding the seeds to create a flour, which was eaten dry or as a pinole mush (Levy 1978). Roots, including harvest Brodiaea (B. coronaria), culophus (Perideridia bolanderi), and Saint-John’s wort (Hypericum formosum), as well as greens, such as columbine (Aquuilegia Formosa), larkspur (Delphinium sp.), wild pea (Lathyrus vestitus), miner’s lettuce (Montia perfoliate), and various clovers (Trifolium ciliolatum, T. Wormskioldii, T. tridentatum), among other greens and foliage, were gathered on a seasonal basis. Although berries were not a huge part of the Eastern Miwok diet, some berries, such as chokeberries (Prunus virginiana var. demissa), wild Sierra currants (Ribes nevadense), gooseberries (Ribes roezlii), and blackberries (Rubus vitifolius) were consumed.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 106
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
In addition to plant-based resources, animals also played an important part of the Eastern Miwok diet. In the foothills, mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were a cornerstone of the diet, but black bear (Ursus americanus) and grizzly bear (Ursus horribilis), as well as smaller game, such as blacktailed jackrabbits (Lepus californicus), beaver (Castor canadensis), grey squirrels (Sciurus griseus), ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi), and woodrat (Neotoma sp.) were all hunted. The Eastern Miwok also hunted and caught various birds, including game birds such as the valley quail (Lophortyx californicus), and gathered insects, such as grasshoppers and yellow jacket larvae. Riverine resources, such as lampreys, river mussels, and freshwater clams, were also caught and consumed. The Sierra Miwok and the Plains Miwok did avoid consuming coyote, dog, eagle, great-horned owl, skunk, road runner, and all snakes and frogs (Levy 1978). Tobacco (Nicotiana bigelovii, N. attenuate) was gathered wild or in some cases, cultivated, and smoked. Salt was obtained through saline springs, from trade in the eastern Sierras, near Mono Lake, or by burning a plant (Umbeliferae family) gathered along the lower course of the San Joaquin River (Levy 1978).
The Eastern Miwok utilized the bow and arrow, and made coiled and twined style basketry, cordage used for fish nets, net bags, and string, deer and bear skins. In the lower elevations, tule was gathered to make tule balsas, but at higher elevations, logs were used to manufacture rafts (Levy 1978).
Historic Context
The County began life in 1854, originally as a portion of Calaveras County. The County developed in a prosperous business center during the gold rush and evolved into a rich agricultural area in the Sierra Nevada foothills in the late nineteenth century. Natural resources were plentiful with Dry Creek and the Mokelumne River and vast, wide open land ideal for cattle and sheep grazing and grain cultivation. Despite the initial population swell during the Gold Rush, the County towns were small with the vast county acreage largely dedicated to ranching. Located in the Jackson Valley, Ione, one of the larger County towns was founded in 1849 as a gold mining supply center, a stop for stagecoaches, and later, the Central Pacific Railroad. As the prosperity of the Gold Rush continued to nurture the area, Ione became the central district for trade in the County (Amador County 2017; City of Ione 2017a, 2017b).
Gold mining continued to prosper in areas near water in the 1850s and 1860s, like Lancha Plana on the Mokelumne River. However, agriculture remained the dominant economic industry in the County, particularly on land around Ione. Today, many ranchers can trace their family land back to the 1860s and 1870s. As, placer gold deposits depleted in the late nineteenth century, much of the County’s population moved elsewhere leaving many towns depleted, and others completely abandoned. Cattle ranching continued to dominate the area through the twentieth century. In 1944, the Gansberg family purchased land in the southwestern part of County. Their ranch spanned three California counties and one in Nevada, totaling 3,000 acres. The Gansbergs used their land primarily for pasture, irrigated by Jackson Creek. The family also operated a sand and gravel business along the creek (Anderson 2017; Kyle 2002; Nelson 2012).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 107
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Post-war California, like much of the country experienced a population boom which resulted in increased demands on electricity and water resources. In response, utility districts began expanding hydroelectric reservoirs and powerhouses. EBMUD identified a sparsely populated area and a natural water source. The location is along the Mokelumne River within portions of Amador, Calaveras, and San Joaquin Counties. Negotiations between EBMUD and the counties began in 1961 to create reservoirs along the river. However, the County stalled negotiations as the proposed Lake Camanche would inundate Jackson Valley Road. They eventually reached an agreement and Lake Camanche was completed in 1964, inundating the former gold rush towns of Lancha Plana and Poverty Bar, both abandoned and Camanche, a small gold rush town that had survived. After completion of the dam the land along its shoreline raised in value for recreation and residential purposes. In 1972, a developer purchased ranch land on the County side creating Village. Small residential subdivisions were established overlooking the lake adding new residential growth to neighboring Ione. Land not purchased by the developer continues to serve as dedicated ranch land run by the Gansberg family (Oakland Tribune 1961, 1973).
Paleontological Context
The paleontological database at the University of California Museum of Paleontology (UCMP) (UCMP 2018), regional geological mapping (Wagner et al. 1981), and the Project area-related scientific literature were reviewed to determine the potential for paleontological resources. The Project area lies within the east-central Great Valley. Strata of the Valley Springs to Mehrten Formations were deposited from large river systems that carried sediments westward from the high Sierra Nevada (Bartow 1992). The Valley Springs Formation is Oligocene to Miocene in age and consists of rhyolitic tuff and sedimentary rocks dominated by tuffaceous mudstone (Wagner et al. 1981; Bartow 1992). It is overlain by the Miocene to Pliocene Mehrten Formation, which consists of andesitic conglomerate, sandstone, and breccia (Wagner et al. 1981, Biewer et al. 2016).
A search of the UCMP database (UCMP 2018) found numerous relevant fossil sites. For the Mehrten Formation, there are 57 localities on record in California, including one plant locality within the County, and a vertebrate locality in each of the surrounding Calaveras, San Joaquin, and El Dorado counties. The Lake Camanche site, which produced a horse (Pliohippus) tooth, is near the Project area. Most of the Mehrten fossil localities occur further south in Stanislaus and Tuolumne counties. There are also numerous Tertiary vertebrate localities in neighboring San Joaquin County that are not assigned to a formation. Vertebrate fossils from the Mehrten Formation are common and include bones and teeth from horses, camels, giant sloths, mastodons, turtles, amphibians, and fish (Biewer et al. 2016, Casteel and Hutchison 1973, Wagner 1981). Plant fossils are also abundant (Axelrod 1980). The paleontological potential of the Mehrten Formation is considered high, given the numerous fossil localities recorded from this unit and the depositional environments that it represents.
For the Valley Springs Formation, there are five plant localities on record in California from Calaveras, El Dorado, and Sierra Counties (UCMP 2018). In the County, there are additional
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 108
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Tertiary Camanche Lake fossil plant localities east of the Project area from the older Eocene Ione Formation. Fossil plants from the area have been described by Axelrod (1980). The paleontological potential of the Valley Springs Formation is considered high, given the fossil localities recorded from this unit and the depositional environments that it represents.
3.5.2 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than V. CULTURAL and TRIBAL RESOURCES Significant No Significant Significant Would the Project: with Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to Section 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size, or object with cultural value to the California Native American tribe and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k). f) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size, or object with cultural value to the California Native American tribe and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 109
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The records search and survey did not identify historical resources within the Project area and the proposed Project would not change the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5. However, the possibility for encountering unanticipated cultural resources during construction of the proposed Project is always a possibility and MM CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources would be implemented
With the implementation of MM CUL-2, construction crews would be educated by a qualified archaeologist on potential cultural resources that may be encountered, reducing the potential to inadvertently impact resources during construction. MM CUL-2 provides construction crews and Agency procedures to follow to stop work and conduct appropriate assessment and treatment of the inadvertent find which would include the evaluation of the resource to assess its potential historical significance in relevance to PRC Section 15064.5 and the development of treatment measures in accordance with professional standards to specifically treat or record the resource thereby reducing any potential to substantially change the historical significance of the resource. Therefore, the potential to substantially cause an adverse change in the significance of a historical resources is less than significant with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource as identified in Section 15064.5?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The records search and survey did not identify archaeological resources within the Project area. However, given that portions of the Project area are within an area designated by the County as having high archaeological sensitivity (Amador General Plan 2016), and given the Project area’s proximity to geographic features which would make it a desirable location for prehistoric occupation (proximity to freshwater, gentle slopes), there is the potential for construction activities associated with the Project to unearth potentially significant archaeological resources. In order to prevent the construction activities from causing a substantial adverse change to any undiscovered resources, the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
• MM CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training; and
• MM CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources.
With the implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2, construction crews would be educated by a qualified archaeologist on potential cultural or Tribal cultural resources that may be encountered, reducing the potential to inadvertently impact resources during construction. MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 provide construction crews and Agency procedures to follow to stop work and conduct appropriate assessment and treatment of the inadvertent find which would
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 110
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
include the evaluation of the resource to assess its potential archaeological significance in relevance to PRC Section 15064.5 and the development of treatment measures in accordance with professional standards to specifically treat or record the resource thereby reducing any potential to substantially change the archaeological significance of the resource. Therefore, the potential to substantially cause an adverse change in the significance of archaeological resource is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
c) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The paleontological potential of the Project area is high. Both the Mehrten and Valley Springs formations are sedimentary units with fossil plant localities in and around the County. Vertebrate fossils are also commonly found in the Mehrten Formation. According to the SVP (2010) guidelines, both rock units have high potential to yield significant paleontological resources.
Given the high paleontological potential of rock units in the Project area, there is the potential for ground disturbing Project construction activities to unearth potentially significant paleontological resources. To reduce the potential for construction activities to cause a substantial adverse change to any undiscovered resources the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
• MM CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training;
• MM CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources.; and
• MM CUL-5: Paleontological Resources Construction Monitoring.
With the implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-4, construction crews would be educated on potential paleontological resources that may be encountered, reducing the potential to inadvertently impact resources during construction. MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-4 provide construction crews and Agency procedures to follow to stop work and conduct appropriate assessment and treatment of the inadvertent find which would include the evaluation of the resource to assess its potential paleontological significance and the development of treatment measures in accordance with professional standards to specifically treat or record the resource thereby reducing any potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.
MM CUL-4 should be applied during all ground disturbance, but MM CUL-5 should only be applied to areas of ground disturbance greater than 0.5-meter deep where excavation will occur into ground that has not been previously disturbed. The latter could include new pipelines, storage reservoirs, and auxiliary treatment facilities. Prior to construction a qualified paleontologist shall review the final project footprint and determine which components should be monitored during construction. With the incorporation of mitigation, the potential to destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature is less than significant.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 111
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
d) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
There is no indication that the Project area has been used for burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, given that portions of the Project area are within an area of high archaeological sensitivity, there is a potential for inadvertent discoveries of human remains. In the event that human remains are encountered during construction of the proposed Project, MM CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training and MM CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains, would be implemented to educate construction staff of human remains and burial site features and to provide a procedure for stopping work and contacting the coroner that would reduce any potential for impact to a less than significant level. Therefore, the potential to disturb any human remains would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size, or object with cultural value to the California Native American tribe and that is listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k).
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
AB 52 Tribal consultations identified potential Tribal cultural resources and consultation was requested. There is the potential for past Tribal use within the Project area and nearby areas, indicating there is the potential for construction activities associated with the Project to unearth potentially significant Tribal cultural resources. In order to prevent the construction activities from causing a substantial adverse change to any undiscovered resources the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
• MM CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training; and
• MM CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources.
With the implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 construction crews would be educated on potential Tribal cultural resources that may be encountered during ground disturbing activities. The mitigation measures would provide construction crews and the Agency’s appropriate procedures for stopping work and conducting appropriate assessment and treatment of the inadvertent find which would include the evaluation of the resource to assess its potential Tribal cultural resource significance in relevance to PRC Section 21074 or its eligibility for listing as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k); thereby reducing any potential to significantly impact a Tribal cultural resource. Therefore, the potential for the Project to cause a substantial adverse change to the significance of a Tribal cultural resource is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 112
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
f) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size, or object with cultural value to the California Native American tribe and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
As described in impact ‘e)’ above, there is the potential for Tribal cultural resources within the Project area. Given past California Native American Tribal uses in the surrounding areas, there would be the potential for construction activities associated with the Project to unearth potentially significant California Native American Tribal cultural resources. In order to prevent the construction activities from causing a substantial adverse change to any undiscovered resources the following mitigation measures would be implemented:
• MM CUL-1: Pre-Construction Survey and Cultural Resource Worker Awareness Training; and
• MM CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources.
With the implementation of MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 construction crews would be educated on potential California Native American Tribal cultural resources that may be encountered. Construction crews and the Agency would have procedures to follow to stop work and conduct appropriate assessment and treatment of the inadvertent find which would include the evaluation of the resource to assess its potential California Native American Tribal significance in relevance to PRC Sections 21074 and 5024.1 and if significant, treatment and measures for protecting or preserving the significance; thereby reducing any potential to significantly impact. Therefore, the potential for impacts to significant California Native American Tribal cultural resources is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
3.5.3 Mitigation Measures
MM CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training
A. Cultural Resources On-Call Monitoring
Due to the higher potential for cultural resources within the Project area, there is a high sensitivity for subsurface cultural resources deposits within the Project area, the Agency shall retain an on- call qualified archaeologist (who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology) to conduct a pre-construction construction worker awareness
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 113
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
training. The qualified archaeologist shall also be available on-call throughout construction to consult on any inadvertent cultural or Tribal cultural resources found during construction.
The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a report documenting the pre-construction worker awareness training as well as any on-call services. This report shall include a brief summary of the pre-construction cultural resource awareness training, a description of any inadvertent discoveries and monitoring (if needed), and measures taken to avoid resources (if needed). The Agency shall keep all reports on file and submit final monitoring reports to the NCIC.
B. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resource Awareness Training
The Agency shall ensure that the qualified archaeologist shall conduct the pre-construction cultural resource awareness training. The training shall be for all construction personnel involved in any ground disturbing construction activity for the entire duration of the Project. Construction personnel shall be informed of the possibility of encountering subsurface prehistoric or historical cultural resources and/or human remains within the Project area and the protocol to be followed if a cultural or Tribal cultural resource or human remains are encountered as detailed in MM CUL-2 and CUL-3. In addition, training reference pamphlets shall be provided to keep onsite for use by the Agency or trained foreman for training new proposed Project personnel in the absence of the archaeologist.
Sensitive cultural resources the construction personnel should be made aware of include:
Archaeological and/or Tribal Materials – may include, but are not limited to, flaked stone tools (projectile point, biface, scraper, etc.) and debitage (flakes) made of chert, obsidian, etc., groundstone milling tools and fragments (mortar, pestle, handstone, millingstone, etc.), faunal bones, fire-affected rock, dark middens, house pit depressions and human interments.
Tribal Cultural Resources – A site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, which is of cultural value to a Tribe – and is either: on or eligible for the CRHR or a local historic register, – or the CEQA lead agency, at its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a Tribal cultural resource – See: PRC 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B).
Historic-era Resources – may include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, bones, cut (square) nails, containers or miscellaneous hardware, glass fragments, cans with soldered seams or tops, ceramic or stoneware objects or fragments, milled or split lumber, earthworks, feature or structure remains and trash dumps.
Paleontological Resources – are any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the Earth’s crust since some past geologic time and may include fossil materials such as bones, leaf impressions and other carbonized remains and shells of invertebrates such as snails and clams.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 114
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
MM CUL-1 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency, representatives, and contractor.
Timing: An on-call qualified archaeologist shall be obtained prior to construction. Pre- construction cultural resource awareness training shall take place prior to construction and on-going during construction prior to new staff beginning work on the site.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: A monitoring report shall be completed by the qualified archaeologist for any on-call services completed. This report shall include a brief summary of the pre-construction cultural resource awareness training, any on-call evaluation or consultation on inadvertent finds, and monitoring. The Agency shall keep all monitoring reports on file and submit final monitoring reports to the NCIC.
Standards of Success: The prevention of any unknown or known cultural resources from being disturbed/destroyed by Project construction without proper documentation and recordation.
MM CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources
In the event of discovery of cultural or Tribal cultural resources during construction activities the following steps outlining the proper handling, evaluation, and treatment of cultural or Tribal cultural resources shall be undertaken to ensure protection of potentially significant historically, archaeologically, or Tribally significant resources.
Proper Handling:
If subsurface cultural or Tribal cultural resources are inadvertently uncovered during Project ground disturbing activities, the Agency’s contractor shall adhere to the following procedures and methods:
• Immediately stop all work in the vicinity;
• Immediately contact the Agency Project Manager or representative;
• Do not harass, damage, touch, or remove any cultural or Tribal cultural resources materials once resource is identified;
• Leave all spoils in their current location unless directed by Agency representatives;
• Record the location and keep notes of all calls and events providing them to the Agency representative daily, or as requested;
• Secure the discovery location with flagging, plywood, or other appropriate material around the exposed site or a person watching the site as directed by the Agency representative, until cleared by the Agency representative in conjunction with a qualified archaeologist;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 115
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Treat the find as confidential. Do not publicly disclose the location. Only authorized personnel, or individuals with the permission of the Agency representative (or the land owner) shall be allowed on the site;
• Upon approval of Agency, work may resume within no less than 100 feet of the discovery or further as directed by the Agency; and
• Upon clearance of Agency, work may resume in the location where cultural resources were discovered after evaluation and clearance by the Agency or qualified archaeologist.
Upon notification by the contractor, the Agency shall adhere to the following procedures and methods:
• Record the location;
• Consult with the on-call qualified archeologist who shall facilitate evaluation and treatment procedures;
• Relocate work no less than 100 feet from the discovery; and
• Treat the find as confidential. Do not publicly disclose the location. Only authorized personnel, or individuals with the permission of the Agency (or the land owner) shall be allowed on the archaeological site.
Upon notification by the Agency, the retained qualified archaeologist shall adhere to professional standards regarding the evaluation and treatment of the discovered cultural or Tribal cultural resources and shall implement the following avoidance, evaluation, and/or treatment procedures and methods:
• Examine the site to confirm that no additional cultural or Tribal cultural resources are in the disturbed area where the resource was found;
• Recommend the appropriate discovery securing measures such as flagging, plywood, other material, or monitor around the exposed site until the evaluation is complete;
• Coordinate with Agency to determine if design modifications are feasible to avoid the resource. If the resource can be avoided appropriate security measures such as flagging or other exclusion fencing shall be placed around the resource until construction activities within 250 feet of the resource are complete; and
• If the resource cannot be avoided, the Lead Agency will have a qualified archaeologist complete an evaluation of eligibility to the CRHR.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 116
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• If evaluation results in the determination that a resource is historically, archaeologically, or Tribally significant, mitigation as recommended by the archaeologist/Tribal representative and agreed upon by the Agency would be implemented and the resource would be recorded for documentation in accordance with Agency, Tribal, and industry standards. If the resource is not found significant, construction may resume.
MM CUL-2 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency, representatives, and contractor.
Timing: During all ground-disturbing activities.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Agency may document consultation with the qualified archaeologist (and Tribal representative if a Tribal cultural resource) and determination of recommended protection and/or avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. The Agency may prepare a memorandum incorporating notes and records from the contractor and qualified archaeologist to document steps taken to comply with the avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. The memorandum shall be saved as a file copy by the Agency and submitted to the NCIC.
Standards of Success: The evaluation and recording of any newly identified cultural or Tribal cultural resources and treatment by avoidance, protection, or documentation of any discovered resources that qualify as historically, archaeologically, or Tribally significant.
MM CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains
Section 7050 of the California Health and Safety Code states that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly disturb a human burial site. If human remains are encountered (or are suspected) during any project-related activity, the Agency, Agency’s representatives, and Agency’s contractor shall complete the following steps:
• Immediately stop all work in the vicinity;
• Immediately contact the Agency Project Manager or representative;
• Contact a qualified archaeologist (someone who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology) who shall then notify the County Coroner immediately pursuant to PRC Section 7050.5. The County Coroner may assess the human remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify the NAHC within 24 hours of such identification. The NAHC shall identify the most likely descendant (MLD);
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 117
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Once given the permission by the Agency (and the land owner), the MLD shall be allowed onsite. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation to the Agency for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains, and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. MLD recommendations must be made within 48 hours of the NAHC notification to the MLD;
• Relocate work under direction of the Agency within no less than 100 feet of the discovery or as otherwise directed by the Agency qualified archaeologist;
• Consult with the onsite qualified archaeological monitor to confirm that no additional human remains are in the area;
• No additional work shall take place within the immediate vicinity of the find until the Agency’s qualified archaeologist gives approval to resume work in that area;
• Once work resumes in a location where human remains have been discovered and cleared, the onsite monitor shall observe further ground-disturbing construction activities closely for evidence of additional human remains;
• Do not touch, damage, remove any human remains, associated materials, or associated spoils;
• Record the location of the discovered remains and document all follow-up phone calls, site visits, and events; and
• Treat the find as confidential and do not publicly disclose the location. The Agency shall provide security to the area as needed. Only authorized personnel, or individuals with the permission of the Agency (and the land owner) shall be allowed onsite.
MM CUL-3 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency, representatives, and contractor.
Timing: During all ground-disturbing activities.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The find shall be immediately reported to the County Coroner. The recording and evaluation of any newly identified human remains shall be conducted by qualified professional archaeologist in conjunction with the County Coroner and a report detailing the recording, location, evaluation, and treatment of human remains, shall be kept on file at the Agency and submitted to the NCIC.
Standards of Success: The proper recording, evaluation, and treatment of any newly identified human remains.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 118
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
MM CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources
If any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be halted immediately in the subject area and the Agency shall be immediately notified. A qualified paleontologist (meeting the qualifications of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines) shall be retained to evaluate the find. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Agency and a qualified paleontologist would may meet to determine the avoidance measures, such as surface collection or excavation. All significant paleontological resources recovered may be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist according to current professional standards such as the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines on assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources (SVP 2010).
MM CUL-4 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency, representatives, and contractor.
Timing: During all ground-disturbing activities.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Agency and a qualified paleontologist would meet to determine the appropriate avoidance measures or other appropriate mitigation. All significant paleontological resources recovered may be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist according to SVP (2010) standards. A report shall be kept on file by the Agency.
Standards of Success: The proper recording, evaluation, and treatment of any newly identified paleontological resource.
MM CUL-5: Paleontological Resources Construction Monitoring
The Agency shall retain a qualified paleontologist to review the final project footprint and determine which components should be monitored during construction. The monitoring program could include new pipelines, storage reservoirs, and auxiliary treatment facilities where excavation greater than 0.5 meters deep will occur into ground that has not previously been deeply disturbed.
The qualified paleontologist will be onsite during select ground disturbance activities. The paleontologist will inspect the excavation walls and the spoils for paleontological resources. If any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be temporarily halted in the subject area while the paleontologist evaluates the fossils. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the Agency and the paleontologist would meet to determine appropriate mitigation, such as salvage of exposed material or excavation. All significant paleontological resources recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 119
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018 according to current professional standards such as the SVP’s guidelines on assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources (SVP 2010).
MM CUL-5 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency, representatives, contractor, and qualified paleontologist.
Timing: During all ground-disturbing activities greater than 0.5 m deep in ground that has not previously been deeply disturbed.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The qualified paleontologist will be onsite during select ground disturbance activities. The paleontologist will inspect the excavation walls and the spoil for paleontological resources. All significant paleontological resources recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist according to SVP (2010) standards. A report shall be kept on file by the Agency.
Standards of Success: The proper recording, evaluation, and treatment of any newly identified paleontological resource according to SVP (2010) standards.
3.6 GEOLOGY AND SOILS
3.6.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The CWA (CWA, 33 USC 1344) focuses primarily on WOTUS and is further described in Section 3.4 (Biological Resources) and Section 3.8 (Hydrology and Water Quality). However, the CWA focuses on sediment control in two aspects. First, the USACE administers Section 404, which regulates the discharge of fill into WOTUS. Second, Section 401 and 402 of the CWA apply to non-point source discharges, where erosion control is an integral part of achieving permit compliance (USEPA 2017).
3.6.1.1.2 Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977
The Earthquake Hazards Reduction Act of 1977 established the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) “to reduce the risks of life and property from future earthquakes in the U.S. through the establishment and maintenance of an effective earthquake hazards reduction program.” The four principal goals of the NEHRP are:
• Develop effective practices and policies for earthquake loss reduction and accelerate their implementation;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 120
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Improve techniques for reducing earthquake vulnerabilities of facilities and systems;
• Improve earthquake hazards identification, risk assessment methods, and their use; and
• Improve the understanding of earthquakes and their effects.
Many of the tools used to assess, as well as mitigate, earthquake hazards and impacts were developed under the NEHRP (Earthquake Hazards and Reduction Act 1977).
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the mapping of zones around active faults in California, in an effort to prohibit the construction of structures for human occupancy on active faults and minimize damage due to rupture of a fault. Active faults are those that have ruptured within the past 11,000 years. Where the act identifies an Earthquake Fault Zone, a geologic investigation and report is necessary to prevent siting of buildings on active fault traces (DOC 2017b).
Seismic Hazard Mapping Act
The Seismic Hazard Mapping Act is intended to delineate zones where earthquakes could cause hazardous ground shaking and ground failure, including liquefaction and landslides. Currently, zones near the San Andreas Fault in the urban centers of the Greater San Francisco Bay Area and Los Angeles have been delineated. Local cities and counties within these zones regulate construction in order to minimize loss associated with these seismic hazards (DOC 2017c).
California Building Code
Title 24, Part 2 of the California Building Standards Code of the CCR contains specific requirements for construction with respect to earthquakes and seismic hazards intended to be protective of public health. Chapter 16 Section 1613 Earthquake Loads of the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) (effective January 1, 2017) deals with Structural Design and requires that every structure, and portion thereof, including nonstructural components that are permanently attached to structures and their supports and attachments, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of earthquake motions (California Building Standards Commission 2017).
Local
3.6.1.3.1 Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Safety Element of the General Plan related to geology, soils, earthquakes, and landslides are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 121
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal S-4: Protect people and property from seismic hazards.
Policy S-4.1: Enforce site-specific seismic design category requirements per the California Building Code (CBC) to minimize earthquake damage.
Policy S-4.3: Discourage new construction of structures or improvements in or near a seismic risk area or geologic hazard area unless these projects meet design standards to minimize or eliminate seismic risk.
Goal S-5: Protect people and property from landslides, mudslides, and avalanches.
Policy S-5.1: Use the development review process to lessen the potential for erosion and landslides. Restrict grading which steepens unstable slopes.
Policy S-5.2: Limit development in areas with high landslide, mudslide, or avalanche susceptibility.
3.6.1.3.2 Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
In 2014, the County Office of Emergency Service (OES) updated the Hazard Mitigation Plan (HMP) which identifies potential long-term risks to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. The HMP lays out a strategy that will enable the County to become less vulnerable to future disaster losses. The HMP was prepared to meet the requirements of the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 to maintain the County’s eligibility for FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Hazard Mitigation Grant Programs. The HMP covers unincorporated Amador County including the proposed Project area (Amador County 2016b).
3.6.1.3.3 Amador County Code
Title 15, including Chapter 15.04 of the County Code provides regulations for building, including adoption of the CBC, which is described in further detail above. Chapter 15.40 includes regulations governing grading and erosion control, including engineering requirements, grading plans, and BMPs related to erosion (Amador County 2017).
3.6.2 Environmental Setting
General Geologic Setting
The County is characterized by gently sloping foothills in the west, to steep sloping mountainous terrain in the east typical of the Sierra Nevada Mountain range. The proposed Project area ranges from approximately 250 feet to 400 feet in elevation amsl, depending on the location within the Project area. Bedrock geology is composed of northwest trending belts of metamorphic, volcanic, and igneous rocks (Alameda County General Plan FEIR 2016). The proposed Project area specifically is characterized by Miocene era sedimentary rocks with moderately to well consolidated sandstone, shale, conglomerate, and fanglomerate rock types (DOC 2010).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 122
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Earthquake Potential
Sierra County is classified as a low-severity earthquake zone and contains relatively inactive faults (Amador County General Plan FEIR 2016). There are no Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones located within the Project area (DOC 2015). The Foothills Fault System is the closest fault to the proposed Project area, approximately six miles to the east. This is classified as a late Quaternary fault (<130,000 years) in a moderately constrained location. The Midland Fault Zone is located approximately 35 miles to the west of the Project area and is classified as an undifferentiated Quaternary fault (<1.6 million years) in an inferred location. The Vernalis fault is located approximately 40 miles to the southwest and is also classified as an undifferentiated Quaternary fault in an inferred location (USGS 2014). No other faults are located within 50 miles of the Project area.
Soil Characteristics
Based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey for the County, the following soils series are present within the proposed Project area (USDA 2017):
• Pentz sandy loam, 2 to 16 percent slopes;
• Inks loam and Rock land, 3 to 45 percent slopes; and
• Pardee cobbly loam, 3 to 31 percent slopes.
These soils are considered to be shallow and well drained found on hills scattered within the lower foothill regions.
Liquefaction Potential
Liquefaction, a process in which the soil behaves like a liquid, can damage buildings, roads, and pipelines through loss of structural support capabilities and uneven settlement of the soil. Recently saturated loose, granular sediment and strong ground shaking are requirements for liquefaction to occur (USGS 2017b). Due to the limited ground-shaking potential in the area and the relatively well-drained characteristics of the soils, the Project area would have a relatively low liquefaction potential.
Landslide Potential
The risk of landslides in the County is generally low due to the relatively flat topography in this area which limits the risk associated with landslides. Additionally, soils that are underlain with dense bedrock are generally considered to have a “low risk” of landslides occurring and the prevalence of igneous and metamorphic rock in this area limits the potential for landslides to occur.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 123
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.6.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Significant with Significant Would the Project: Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
a) Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
Finding: Less than Significant
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 124
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The proposed Project area is not located in a fault zone delineated on the California Geological Survey, Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map (DOC 2015). The nearest fault is approximately six miles east of the Project area, however, this is not an active fault. Additionally, the proposed Project does not include construction of structures for human occupancy and therefore would not subject people or structures to adverse effects due to rupture of a known fault. Staff from the Unit 6 WWTP would work within the Project area, however this would be the same as existing conditions and would not be considered a significant impact. Therefore, impacts are considered less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking.
Finding: Less than Significant
The County is classified as a low-severity earthquake zone and contains relatively inactive faults including quaternary (displacement during the last 1.8 million years) and late Quaternary (displacement during the last 700,000 years) faults. No recent displacement has occurred along the faults located within 50 miles of the proposed Project area. The low severity zone designation and relative inactivity of the faults within the area, combined with the fact that the Project would be located within an open, relatively flat area indicates there is a limited potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death, resulting from strong seismic ground shaking. Therefore, the potential for impact is considered less than significant.
iii) Seismic related ground failure, including liquefaction.
Finding: Less than Significant
As discussed in the seismic ground shaking discussion above and the Environmental Setting (Section 3.6.2), the proposed Project area would not be susceptible to ground shaking due to the lack of active faults in the area. Additionally, the potential for ground failure resulting from liquefaction would be low due to the inactivity of faults in the area and the presence of well- drained soils in the proposed Project area. Furthermore, the proposed Project improvements would not be intended for human habitation beyond the daily workers who would maintain the existing WWTP and associated facilities. This would further reduce the potential for risk from liquefaction to occur. Therefore, the potential to expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, is considered less than significant.
iv) Landslides
Finding: Less than Significant
Soils underlying the Project area are mostly characterized as Pentz, Inks, and Pardee well drained soils with ranging slopes. Although these soils have ranging slopes, they are generally not susceptible to landslides due to well drained nature of the soils. Geology in the Project area is
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 125
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
generally characterized by Miocene metamorphic, volcanic, and igneous rocks. Overall, the Project area is located within a foothills system with gently sloping topography and mixed grass and oak woodlands. Additionally, no structures for residential purposes or public gathering places would be included as part of the proposed Project. According to the USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey, the Project area is not located in an area that is prone to landslides (USDA 2017). Due to the characteristics of the underlying geology, soils, and the fact that no structures for habitation or public gatherings are proposed for construction, no impacts related to landslide risk are considered less than significant.
b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The construction activities associated with the proposed Project, including, general improvements to the Unit 6 WWTP, expanding the effluent storage capacity, and installing the pipeline system have the potential to remove topsoil and increase erosion in the area. MM GEO-1, which includes the development of a SWPPP, would be implemented in order to reduce erosion and loss of topsoil from construction activities and would include BMPs such as measures to trap sediment and prevent soil erosion or transport to nearby surface water courses to ensure potential impacts are less than significant. These plans shall be implemented and inspected accordingly throughout the construction process. Additionally, these plans would include measures for restoring and stabilizing the Project area after construction to minimize and control erosion after completion of the proposed Project. The implementation of the erosion control plan, along with the BMPs, would minimize any substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil, reducing impacts to a less than significant level. Therefore, the potential for the proposed Project to result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c) Would the Project be located on strata or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project is located on mostly Pentz and Pardee soils underlain by dense bedrock, which lessens the seismic risk. Igneous and metamorphic bedrock provide the least amount of seismic hazard due to ground shaking. These soils, as well as the bedrock, are inherently stable, generally not susceptible to landslide or lateral spreading, and are not likely susceptible to subsidence or liquefaction. As a result, hazard potentials related to seismic ground failure, including liquefaction are considered low. Therefore, no impacts are considered to be less than significant.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 126
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
Finding: Less than significant
Expansive or collapsible soils are characterized by the ability to undergo significant volume change (shrink and swell) as a result of variation in soil moisture content. Expansive soils are commonly very fine-grained with a high to very high percentage of two to one clays. Soils moisture can change due to many factors, including perched groundwater, landscape irrigation, rainfall, and utility leakage. Engineering standards govern expansion potential evaluations and the Expansion Index and is calculated pursuant to the Uniform Building Code (UBC) Test Standard 18-1 (ASTM D4829) in the 1994 UBC Section 1803.2 Table 18-1-B which directs expansive soil tendency be graded by this method. The UBC mandates that “special [foundation] design consideration” be employed if the Expansion Index is 20, or greater (UBC 1994).
The proposed Project is not known to occur in an area with soils that have high clay content and consist mostly of well-drained sandy-loamy soils. These soils would be considered to have a relatively low shrink swell potential and the proposed Project would be designed to adhere to the International Building Code (IBC) and structural design principals to cushion against any expansive activity in adjacent soils. Therefore, the impact associated with expansive soils in conjuncture with the proposed Project would be less than significant. e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project is designed to improve the wastewater treatment system and does not include uses for septic systems. As such, it would not affect the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would result from project development.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 127
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.6.4 Mitigation Measures
MM GEO-1: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures
The construction contractor shall be required to comply with a site-specific Erosion Control and SWPPP to reduce the risk of substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil in accordance with requirements of the latest amendment of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit Order 2009-0009-Department of Water Quality (DWQ). The Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. The Erosion Control and SWPPP shall identify appropriate BMPs to prevent erosion or soil loss from the proposed Project site. These measures shall include the implementation of construction staging in a manner that minimizes the amount of area disturbed at any one time; secondary containment for storage of fuel and oil; and the management of stockpiles and disturbed areas by means of earth berms, diversion ditches, straw wattles, straw bales, silt fences, gravel filters, mulching, revegetation, and temporary covers as appropriate. The SWPPP shall also meet post-construction performance standards to ensure the post construction site is stabilized appropriately.
MM GEO-1 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency shall ensure the SWPPP is prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and implemented consistent with all applicable requirements.
Timing: The SWPPP shall be prepared prior to construction and implemented during the duration of construction, and the site should be stabilized post-construction.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The Agency shall monitor implementation of this mitigation measure and a copy of the SWPPP shall remain on file at the Project site as well as the Agency offices.
Standards of Success: Minimize on- and off-site erosion and prevent introduction of significant amounts of sediment into any stream or drainage.
3.7 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
3.7.1 Regulatory Setting
A hazardous material is defined by the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as a material that poses a significant present or potential hazard to human health and safety or the environment if released because of its quantity, concentration, or physical or chemical characteristics (26 CCR 25501). For the purposes of this analysis, hazardous materials include raw materials and material remaining on- site as a result of past activities. Applicable regulations and policies considered relevant to the proposed Project are summarized below.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 128
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Federal
The principal federal regulatory agency responsible for the safe use and handling of hazardous materials is the USEPA. Two key federal regulations pertaining to hazardous wastes are described below. Other applicable federal regulations are contained primarily in Titles 29, 40, and 49 of the CFR.
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enables the USEPA to administer a regulatory program that extends from the manufacture of hazardous materials to their disposal, thus regulating the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste at all facilities and sites in the nation.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), also known as Superfund, was passed to facilitate the cleanup of the nation’s toxic waste sites. In 1986, the Superfund was amended through the Superfund Amendment and Reauthorization Act Title III (community right-to-know laws). Title III states that past and present owners of land contaminated with hazardous substances can be held liable for the entire cost of the cleanup, even if the material was dumped illegally when the property was under different ownership.
State
California regulations are equal to, or more stringent than, federal regulations. The USEPA has granted the State of California primary oversight responsibility to administer and enforce hazardous waste management to ensure that hazardous wastes are handled, stored, and disposed of properly to reduce risks to human health and the environment. Several key laws pertaining to hazardous wastes are discussed below.
Hazardous Waste Control Act
The Hazardous Waste Control Act created the State hazardous waste management program, which is similar to, but more stringent than, the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act program. The act is implemented by regulations contained in Title 26 of the CCR, which describes the following required aspects for the proper management of hazardous waste:
• Identification and classification;
• Generation and transport;
• Design and permitting of recycling, treatment, storage, and disposal facilities;
• Treatment standards;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 129
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Operation of facilities and staff training; and
• Closure of facilities and liability requirements.
These regulations list more than 800 materials that may be hazardous and establish criteria for identifying, packaging, and disposing of them. Under the Hazardous Waste Control Act and Title 26, the generator of hazardous waste must complete a manifest that accompanies the waste from the generator to the transporter to the ultimate disposal location (DTSC 2018a).
Emergency Services Act
Under the Emergency Services Act, the State developed an emergency response plant to coordinate emergency services provided by Federal, State, and local agencies. Rapid response to incidents involving hazardous materials or hazardous waste is an important part of the plan, which is administered by the California OES. The office coordinates the responses of other agencies, including the USEPA, the California Highway Patrol, RWQCBs, air quality management districts, and county disaster response offices (Cal OES 2015).
Other Laws, Regulations, and Programs
Various other State regulations have been enacted that affect hazardous waste management, including:
• Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65), which requires labeling of a substance known or suspected by the State to cause cancer; and
• California Government Code Section 65962.5, which requires the Office of Permit Assistance to compile a list of possible contaminate sites in the State.
State and Federal regulations also require that hazardous materials sites be identified and listed in public records. These lists are:
• Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information System;
• National Priorities List for Uncontrolled Hazardous Waste Sites;
• Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;
• California Superfund List of Active Annual Workplan Sites; and
• Lists of State-registered underground and leaking underground storage tanks.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 130
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Circulation, Land Use, and Safety Elements of the General Plan related to hazards and hazardous materials are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal C-2: Maintain and improve water supply planning and infrastructure.
Policy C-4.4: Promote use of protective measures to limit the effects of industrial or hazardous materials sites on surface water resources and groundwater recharge zones.
Goal S-1: Prevent loss of life or property from flooding.
Policy S-1.3: Reduce urban runoff and maintain the carrying capacity of floodplains or flood channels. Require provision of on-site retention and detention basins in new development applications as needed to reduce downstream flooding hazards.
Goal LU-12: Reduce fire risks to existing and future structures.
Policy LU-12.1: Ensure that appropriate levels of emergency services, including fire protection, can be demonstrated for new development.
Goal S-2: Reduce fire risks to current and future structures.
Policy S-2.2: Guide new development to areas where adequate fire protection, roads, and water service are available to support fire response.
Goal S-4: Protect people and property from seismic hazards.
Policy S-4.3: Discourage new construction of structures or improvements in or near a seismic risk area or geologic hazard area unless these projects meet design standards to minimize or eliminate seismic risk.
Goal S-6: Protect people and resources from hazards posed by mining facilities and hazardous materials sites.
Policy S-6.1: Coordinate with State and federal agencies to limit hazardous materials risks through the land use planning process. Utilize existing County hazardous materials facility information to identify areas of hazardous materials use and restrict the use of hazardous materials to nonresidential and non-sensitive areas.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 131
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Policy S-6.2: Locate hazardous materials facilities so as to limit potential hazards related to the proximity of sensitive populations and the distance and routes traveled for local deliveries.
Policy S-6.3: Encourage the use of programs and products to reduce and replace the use of hazardous materials where feasible.
3.7.2 Environmental Setting
The existing WWTP currently chlorinates to disinfect its effluent. In addition, a small amount of potentially hazardous materials will be used for fuel and lubricants for machinery and will be utilized during construction of the proposed Project. Any hazardous materials used in the construction, start-up, or operations of the proposed Project, such as diesel for equipment, would be handled according to current practices.
Hazardous Sites
In addition, the proposed Project area is not listed by any federal, state, or local database that identifies known hazardous materials sites. No schools exist within one-quarter mile of the Project site and the Project site is not included on any list of hazardous materials sites (DTSC 2018b).
Airports
The County has five airports that are all located in the west side of the County (Amador County 2016). These include one public airport, Westover Field, located in the unincorporated area between the Cities of Sutter Creek and Jackson. The other five private airports are Eagle’s Nest, Horse Shoe A Ranch, Ranch Airstrip, and Howard Airport and Camanche Skypark, both of which are located in the same area directly east of the southern portion of the proposed Project. Howard Airport is located one mile from the Unit 6 WWTP and the Camanche Skypark is located one and one-half mile from the Unit 6 WWTP.
Fire Risk
The severity of wildland fires is influenced primarily by vegetation, topography, and weather (temperature, humidity, and wind). California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) has developed a fire hazard severity scale that considers vegetation, climate, and slope to evaluate the level of wildfire hazard in all State Responsibility Areas (SRA). A SRA is defined as the part of the state where CAL FIRE is primarily responsible for providing basic wildland fire protection assistance. Areas under the jurisdiction of other fire protection services are considered to be Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). The current Project area is designated as a SRA with moderate fire hazard severity ratings (CAL FIRE 2007). Fire hazard zoning is used to indicate both the likelihood for a fire (e.g., prevalence of fuels) and the potential for damage (e.g., proximity to residences).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 132
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.7.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS No Significant with Significant Would the Project: Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard
for people residing or working in the Project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 133
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Temporary construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve the transport and use of limited quantities of miscellaneous hazardous substances including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, and oils. These chemicals would be brought to the proposed Project area, as well as transported along the roadways. Federal and State laws regulate the handling, storage, and transport of these and other hazardous materials, as well as the mechanisms to respond and clean up any spills along local and regional roadways. Chemicals present on site or used for the proposed Project would be handled in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations (including those laws mentioned in the regulatory setting above) for hazardous substances.
As these materials are required for operation of construction vehicles and equipment, standard BMPs would be implemented under the SWPPP to reduce the exposure to or potential for accidental spills involving the use of these materials. Due to the minor amounts of hazardous materials necessary, short-term duration of presence at the site, and applicable regulatory requirements, proposed Project construction and operation would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. In addition, with the implementation of MM HAZ-1, potential impacts are considered less than significant.
b) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Temporary construction activities associated with the proposed Project would involve the transport and use of limited quantities of hazardous materials including gasoline, diesel fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, and oils. Chemicals present on site during Project construction would be handled by the contractor in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local regulations for hazardous substances, and any spills would be immediately cleaned up and disposed of in the appropriate manner. The proposed Project area is not listed by any Federal or State database that identifies known hazardous materials sites (DTSC 2018b). To ensure hazardous materials are not released into the environment during construction, MM HAZ-1 would be implemented and involves the development and implementation of a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan reducing the potential for a spill to create a significant hazard to the public or environment by quickly and efficiently having materials on-site to treat and clean up any potential spill. Therefore, with the incorporation of MM HAZ-1 impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 134
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
c) Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project is not expected to emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile (i.e., 0.25 miles) of an existing or proposed school. The closest schools, Ione Junior High School and Ione Elementary School, are located at 450 S Mill Street and 415 S Ione Street, respectively, in the community of Ione. They are approximately 9.5 and 10 miles away, respectively, from the proposed Project area. Therefore, there is no impact.
d) Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
Finding: No Impact
A review of the EPA hazardous materials sites database did not identify the proposed Project area as having a known hazardous materials site within its boundaries (DTSC 2018b, USEPA 2018a). Additionally, the proposed Project area was not listed on the databases searched for this report, including those compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Therefore, no impacts would occur. e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. The nearest public airport to the proposed Project area is the Westover Field Airport which is located approximately 11 miles away from the north portion of the proposed Project. Therefore, there is no potential for the Project to result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proposed Project area and no impact would occur. f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the Project area?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project would be located within two miles of two private airstrips. Howard Airport and Camanche Skypark, both of which are located in the same area directly east of the southern portion of the proposed Project. Howard Airport is located one mile from the Unit 6 WWTP and the Camanche Skypark is located one and one-half mile from the Unit 6 WWTP.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 135
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
However, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proposed Project area. The proposed Project area is adjacent to the Village Units and the existing WWTP. The existing WWTP and the Villages, some of which are also within two miles of the private airports, do not result in any hazards currently. The construction and the operation of the proposed Project would be similar to that of current use. While the construction would increase workers onsite, they would not be at risk of a safety hazard due to the private airports as they would be in the same area where people currently live and work. Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the proposed Project area and potential impacts are considered less than significant.
g) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant
The completed Project would not result in any physical features that would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, emergency evacuations. Access for all fire and police emergency response vehicles would be maintained on Highway 88 and any of the smaller county roads throughout the construction period. Therefore, potential impacts to emergency, fire, and police response would be less than significant. h) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The proposed Project area is primarily surrounded by open grassland setting and according to the General Plan, the County is at very high risk to experience catastrophic wildfires. Most of the County is considered to be in a Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) zone. Wildfires occurring in the WUI zone pose severe risks to life, property, and infrastructure and are one of the most dangerous and complicated fire situations. Generally, the steeper slopes present, the greater rate a fire can spread. However, the majority of the proposed Project area is relatively flat.
Equipment used during trenching, grading, and other construction activities may generate sparks that could ignite dry vegetation on or adjacent to the construction area and cause wildland fires in the area. The nearest fire station to the proposed Project area is approximately ten miles from the east side of the proposed Project area at the Ione Fire Station, which is located at 600 Preston Ave, Ione, CA 95640.
To reduce the risk of fire, MM HAZ-2, Fire Suppression and Control, would be incorporated into the proposed Project. This mitigation measure includes roles and responsibilities in the event of a fire, specific equipment to prevent and control fires, and coordination with the fire chief and/or the County on specific fire suppression actions to be taken. This would reduce the potential for a
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 136
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
fire that could be caused by sparks from construction activities by taking precautions outlined in MM HAZ-2, thus reducing the impact to a less than significant level Therefore, the potential impact would be considered less than significant with MM HAZ-2 incorporated.
3.7.4 Mitigation Measures
MM HAZ-1: Develop or use current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
The Agency’s contractor shall develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) within the Project SWPPP in accordance with Federal and State requirements to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities for all contractors. The SPCCP shall include the following measures:
• Storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils shall not take place within 100 feet of Lake Camanche or its tributaries and liquid hazardous materials shall be covered and stored within secondary containment where containment is 110 percent of liquid material volume;
• Materials shall be stored in appropriate containers and contents labeled;
• Material volume shall be restricted to the volume that can be addressed by available spill kits and supplies.
• Used containers shall be disposed of at an appropriate landfill or other legal disposal or recycling facility;
• Bulk storage tanks shall have secondary containment systems. Secondary containment shall be at least 110 percent of storage tank capacity or more if the area is uncovered to account for storm events;
• Spill cleanup shall occur immediately, and notification shall be given to the Agency, CDFW, USFWS, RWQCB, or the USACE, as appropriate;
• Workers shall be trained to properly handle hazardous materials, cleanup spills, and report spills. Construction workers shall be trained to identify indicators of contaminated soils such as soil discoloration, odors, differences in soil properties, and buried debris. Construction workers shall be trained to be aware of proper handling techniques and appropriate responses and actions to be taken if hazardous materials are accidentally released, with special emphasis on those hazardous materials with the greatest potential to occur at the Project area;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 137
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Soils contaminated with fuels or chemicals shall be disposed of in a suitable location to prevent discharge to surface waters and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the U.S. DOT, the USEPA, the RWQCB, and other agencies including but not limited to California EPA;
• Excess or unused quantities of hazardous materials shall be removed upon Project completion. Although hazardous waste generation is not anticipated, any such wastes produced during construction shall be properly containerized, labeled, and transported to an approved hazardous waste disposal facility; and
• All nonhazardous waste materials including construction refuse, garbage, and sanitary waste, shall be disposed of by removal from the work area to an approved disposal facility. All nonhazardous waste containers shall be covered when not in use, at the end of each shift and before a rain or other precipitation (snow) event.
• Vehicles shall be monitored for fluid leaks and shall be maintained regularly to reduce the chance of leakage.
• Vehicles refueling shall only occur on flat level ground where there is little chance of a spilled substance reaching a stream or waterway over an impermeable surface. A spill kit shall be available as appropriate for the activity.
• Refueling and vehicle maintenance shall be performed at least 100 feet from receiving waters.
• All fueling materials shall be properly labeled.
• Oil, antifreeze, solvents, and other materials related to equipment maintenance shall be disposed of or recycled appropriately offsite. If these materials have to be stored before disposal/recycling, they shall be stored in covered areas in containers with 110 percent capacity with berms and lined with impermeable material to contain any spills. The impermeable material should be maintained free of holes, etc. that would permit leaks to contact the ground surface or otherwise leave the containment area.
The Agency shall review and approve the SPCCP before onset of construction activities. The Agency shall routinely inspect the construction area to verify that the measures specified in the SPCCP are properly implemented and maintained. The Agency shall notify its contractors immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and shall require compliance.
The Federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined in the USEPA’s CFR (40 CFR 110) is any oil spill that (1) violates applicable water quality standards, (2) causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or (3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 138
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
If a spill is reportable, the Agency’s contractor shall take action to contact the appropriate safety and clean-up crews and ensure the SPCCP is followed. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the RWQCB by the contractor. The submittal must include a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases would be documented on a spill report form.
In the unlikely event of a reportable spill, the following parties shall be notified:
1. Call 911:
• For spills that involve injury requiring medical treatment;
• For spills that involve fire or hazards;
• For spills that are potentially life threatening; and
• For spills that occur after work hours.
2. Call the County Department of Environmental Health at: (530 )993-6716
• For chemical spill situations which do not require 911 assistance;
• For spills that cannot be cleaned up by personnel on site.
3. Call Central Valley RWQCB at: (530) 542-5400
• Immediately for a major spill;
• Within 24 hours of a minor spill.
MM HAZ-1 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency’s contractor shall develop and implement a SPCCP to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities for all contractors.
Timing: The SPCCP shall be implemented prior to and during all phases of construction.
Monitoring and Reporting: Evaluation and monitoring of SPCCP shall be conducted by the Agency.
Standard of Success: Minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities in accordance with the requirements of this measure as well as State and federal laws.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 139
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
MM HAZ-2: Fire Suppression and Control
The Agency‘s contractor shall ensure fire control measures are in place to reduce the risk of fires during the proposed Project. The fire prevention and control measures shall include requirements for onsite extinguishers; roles and responsibilities of the Agency and the contractor including what to do in the event of a fire; and fire suppression equipment and critical fire prevention and suppression items.
MM HAZ-2 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency’s contractor shall ensure fire control measures including but not limited to fire suppression and management measures are in place and on site and readily accessible during construction in the event of a fire.
Timing: Control measures shall be implemented during all phases of construction.
Monitoring and Reporting: Evaluation of the fire suppression and control measures shall be conducted by the Agency. The Agency inspector or other Agency personnel shall verify that fire suppression and control equipment/items are available on site during construction.
Standard of Success: Preparedness for and minimization of the start and spread of wildfire during construction activities for all contractors.
3.8 Hydrology and Water Quality
3.8.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The CWA (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.), formerly the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, was enacted with the intent of restoring and maintaining the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the WOTUS. The CWA requires states to set standards to protect, maintain, and restore water quality through the regulation of all contaminates in surface water. The following sections of the CWA are relevant to the proposed Project (USEPA 2017):
CWA Section 402: Point source and certain non-point discharges to surface water are regulated by the NPDES permit process. In California, NPDES permitting authority is delegated to, and administered by, the nine RWQCBs. The Central Valley RWQCB has jurisdiction over the proposed Project area.
The SWRCB issues both General Construction Permits and individual permits under the auspices of the federal NPDES program. Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) with the SWRCB to be covered under
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 140
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
the State NPDES General Construction Permit for discharges of storm water associated with construction activity. Construction activities that are subject to this General Permit includes clearing, grading, disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of at least one acre of total land area. The Agency must implement control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the General Permit. A SWPPP describes BMPs the discharger will use to protect storm water runoff and reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period. The SWPPP must contain the following: a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (SWRCB 2017a).
CWA Section 404: Regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into WOTUS and requires a permit for actions involving the discharge of dredged or fill material into WOTUS (USEPA 2018b).
CWA Section 401: Regulates surface water quality and a Water Quality Certification is required for federal actions (including construction activities) that may entail impacts to surface water. National Flood Insurance Policy Act (USEPA 2016a).
National Flood Insurance Program
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for managing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which makes federally backed flood insurance available for communities that agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood damage.
The NFIP, established in 1968 under the National Flood Insurance Act, requires that participating communities adopt certain minimum floodplain management standards, including restrictions on new development in designated floodways, a requirement that new structures in the 100- year flood zone be elevated to or above the 100-year flood level (known as base flood elevation). To facilitate identifying areas with flood potential, FEMA has developed Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that can be used for planning purposes, including floodplain management, flood insurance, and enforcement of mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements.
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The State of California established the SWRCB, which oversees the nine RWQCBs, through the Porter-Cologne Act. Through the enforcement of the Porter-Cologne Act, the SWRCB determines the beneficial uses of the waters (surface and groundwater) of the State, establishes narrative and/or numerical water quality standards, and initiates policies relating to water quality. The SWRCB and, more specifically, the RWQCB, is authorized to prescribe WDRs for the discharge of waste, which may impact waters of the State. Furthermore, the development of water quality
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 141
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
control plans, or Basin Plans, are required by Porter-Cologne Act to protect water quality (SWRCB 2017b).
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Conservation Element related to hydrology and water quality and are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal LU-6: Ensure that adequate water supply, wastewater disposal, and public services are available prior to development.
Policy LU-6.1: Ensure that new development is able to meet water supply, wastewater disposal, and public service standards.
Goal E-10: Encourage alternative means of providing water to agricultural users.
Policy E-10.1: Promote use of reclaimed water in compatible farming and ranching settings.
Policy E-10.2: Support the continued availability of water supplies to agricultural users. Agricultural water users.
Goal C-1: Ensure that all future development permitted in the county can be provided adequate amounts of water.
Policy C-1.1: Coordinate with the county’s water suppliers to ensure that water is available to serve both current and planned future residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural needs. Include upland areas in future water management plans.
Policy C-1.2: Guide future development to areas of the county where adequate water supplies can be ensured.
Policy C-1.3: Limit reliance on groundwater wells as sources for community water systems. Where possible, encourage connection of developments to existing water supply systems.
Policy C-1.4: Encourage new development, renovation, landscape, and agricultural projects to include water conservation measures, including use of graywater, reclaimed, or recycled water for irrigation, water-conserving plumbing fixtures, and low-water landscapes.
Goal C-2: Maintain and improve water supply planning and infrastructure.
Policy C-2.1: Encourage integrated management of surface water and groundwater resources, wastewater, stormwater treatment and use, and the development of reclaimed water.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 142
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Policy C-2.2: Encourage conjunctive use of groundwater and surface water by water agencies to improve water supply reliability.
Policy C-2.3: Support the county’s water suppliers, including public agencies and private entities within Amador County, in their efforts to protect water rights and water supply contracts.
Policy C-2.4: Pursue management strategies that develop upstream/ downstream interregional conjunctive use/water transfer programs to meet future water needs in Amador County.
Policy C-2.5: Support efforts by water and wastewater agencies to respond to state mandates addressing the future challenges posed by climate change.
Policy C-2.6: Reduce erosion and sediment loads which might limit the lifespan of existing water storage facilities.
Policy C-2.7: Promote development patterns and practices which permit the continued use and future development of water storage and power generation facilities on the county’s streams and rivers.
Policy C-2.8: Support federal, state, and local projects or designations that preserve the County’s long-term water needs.
Goal C-3: Minimize negative effects of sewage treatment on water quality.
Policy C-3.1: Guide future development to areas of the county with the ability to obtain adequate wastewater service and treatment capacity.
Policy C-3.2: Encourage recycling and water-saving features in new development, including use of graywater, recycled, or reclaimed water for irrigation, to limit the water flows to septic systems and leach fields.
Policy C-3.3: Encourage countywide coordination and organizational structures to maximize recycled water reuse opportunities throughout the county.
Policy C-3.4: Work with landowners and wastewater providers to provide alternative systems for inadequate or failing septic and sewer systems.
Goal C-4: Minimize negative effects of point and non-point sources on water quality.
Policy C-4.1: Encourage site plan elements in proposed development such as reduced pavement/cover and permeable pavement, as well as drainage features which limit runoff and increase infiltration and groundwater recharge.
Policy C-4.3: Promote agricultural and development practices which limit soil erosion and runoff.
Policy C-4.4: Promote use of protective measures to limit the effects of industrial or hazardous materials sites on surface water resources and groundwater recharge zones.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 143
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal C-5: Reduce the negative effects of new development on stormwater runoff and non- point source water pollution.
Policy C-5.1: Develop Low Impact Development (LID) standards for new construction, including residential developments of five or more units, and commercial or industrial projects. These standards should be incorporated into the County’s development ordinances.
Policy C-5.2: Encourage the use of LID strategies to help Amador County sustain and improve both surface- and groundwater quality.
Amador County Code
Located within areas of special flood hazard established in Section 15.16.070 are areas designated as floodways. Since the floodway is an extremely hazardous area due to the velocity of floodwaters which carry debris, potential projectiles and erosion potential, the following provisions apply (Amador County 2017):
A. Prohibit encroachments, including fill, new construction, substantial improvements and other development unless certification by a registered professional engineer or architect is provided demonstrating that encroachments shall not result in any increase in the base flood levels during the occurrence of the base flood discharge;
B. If subsection A of this section is satisfied, all new construction and substantial improvements, and other proposed new development shall comply with all other applicable flood hazard reduction provisions of Article V. (Ord. 1503[part], 2000).
3.8.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project site (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 18040005) is in the interface between the Central Valley and the foothills of the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, directly north of Lake Camanche. It is located in the Lower Cosumnes-Lower Mokelumne Watershed. The water in this area primarily comes from the North Fork Mokelumne and its tributaries (USEPA 2018c).
Major hydrologic sources in the area include the Lake Camanche, Rabbit Creek, and Camanche Creek. Lake Camanche is fed by the (Lower) Mokelumne River (i.e., tributary to the San Joaquin River). The water entering Lake Camanche is influenced by the amount of water released from the Pardee Reservoir/Dam; which is the primary water source for EBMUD. Lake Camanche typically fills to capacity from snow melt just before summer season. During summer months, Lake Camanche supplies continuous water downstream irrigation (Ahearn et al. 2005). Rabbit Creek and Camanche Creek are also tributaries to the Mokelumne River.
Specifically, within the proposed Project area, sub-tributaries to the hydrologic resources described above include Jackson Creek, the primary water source for vegetated swales and intermittent channels located within the proposed irrigation distribution system on the Gansberg Ranch property, Rabbit Creek, the primary water source for vegetated swales and intermittent
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 144
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
channels crossing the dirt roadway with the Hunt Club property, Grapevine Gulch, the primary water source for intermittent channels and roadside drainages crossing Curran Road, and the WWTP ponds and one unnamed channel running along the northern boundary of the existing WWTP.
The proposed disposal areas and the Gansberg Ranch property are dominated by grassland habitat and vegetative species. However, because area soils are believed to be relatively poor and/or shallow, evapotranspiration for on-site vegetation and soil conditions are expected to reflect reduced rainy season values under high rainfall conditions. 3.8.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant with No Significant Significant Would the Project: Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a, f) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) 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? d) 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 which would result in flooding on- or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm
water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 145
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Less Than Potentially Less than IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Significant with No Significant Significant Would the Project: Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including
flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
a, f) Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
There is potential for pollutants to enter the Mokelumne Watershed, primarily Lake Camanche, during proposed Project construction. Additionally, activities related to the construction of the proposed Project would create the potential for soil erosion and possibly increase sedimentation, both onsite and downstream of the proposed Project area. Construction activities also increase the potential for accidental release of pollutants that could affect not only surface waters, but the beneficial uses associated with them. Such pollutants include oil and gas from machinery, chemicals associated with construction, and waste material. Many construction-related pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality by increasing constituent levels in surface waters and could lead to an exceedance of water quality standards. Proposed construction activities could violate these standards if mitigation measures are not implemented and could cause harm to surrounding habitats and their associated plant and animal life. Construction will require special consideration to prevent significant impacts to the surface waters. This specifically includes measures to block pollutants from entering any drainages, ditches, and other water features and to prevent soil erosion that would result from construction activities.
Grading and the removal of vegetation during proposed Project construction could expose site soils to rain, surface water runoff sheetflows, and potential erosion prior to successful revegetation or completion of improvements. The potential for erosion hazards within the proposed Project area is moderate given the steepness of the existing ground terrain. Rainfall
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 146
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
and associated stormwater runoff could result in periods of sheet erosion within areas of exposed or stockpiled soils. If uncontrolled, these soil materials could cause sedimentation and blockage of drainage channels. Further, the compaction of soils by heavy equipment may reduce the infiltration capacity of soils and increase the potential for runoff and erosion. Stormwater runoff could also wash construction materials into receiving water bodies that discharge outside of the proposed Project area and negatively affect water quality. Non- stormwater discharges could result from activities such as discharge or accidental spills of hazardous substances such as fuels, oils, concrete, paints, solvents, cleaners, or other construction materials.
Because implementation of the proposed Project could result in the introduction of sediment and other nonpoint source pollutants into onsite drainage channels and ultimately offsite drainage channels as a result of temporary construction activities, short-term, construction- related water quality degradation would be considered a significant impact. The General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity (General Permit) adopted by the SWRCB will be obtained prior to construction as detailed in MM GEO-1. The General Permit requires the lead agency and/or contractor to develop and implement a SWPPP. This plan must specify BMPs that would prevent all construction pollutants from contacting stormwater, with the intent of keeping all products of erosion from moving off site into receiving waters. The permit also requires elimination or reduction of non-stormwater runoff. The proposed Project will adhere to the conditions of the General Permit, SWPPP, BMPs, and MM GEO-1; therefore, there will be a less than significant impact to water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
The proposed Project would replace the existing 12-acre spray field disposal system at the Unit 6 WWTP with a reuse program that would provide the equivalent of expanding the spray fields to approximately 26.5 acres. This would be accomplished though the development of a reclaimed water irrigation system on the Gansberg Ranch property.
Long-term operation of the site would not adversely affect water quality or lead to violation of water quality standards. The proposed Project would adhere to WDRs as written in the land- application permit by the RWQCB.
The peak irrigation month is July, in which nine inches of effluent are applied to the land (a net average application rate of 8,000 gal/ac/day in July). Of these nine inches, approximately 6.3 inches (70%) is expected to be taken up by the vegetation through Evapotranspiration (ET), and 0.45 inches (5%) will be evaporated directly to the atmosphere. The rest, roughly 2.25 inches (25%), will leave the crop root zone via the subsurface. It is this 2.25 inches of water that may “perch” on the shallow, underlying bedrock, and flow down-gradient along the soil/bedrock interface towards area drainage courses.
In order to reduce the potential impacts for perched water to enter the surrounding drainages, and in accordance to California well standards, all proposed Project components shall be placed outside the specified minimum horizontal separation distance between wells and sewage cesspools or seepage pits of 150 feet and wells and sewer lines of 50 feet (DWR 2016). By
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 147
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
placing the proposed Project components outside of the minimum horizontal separation distance, it will ensure that no public or personal potable water wells will be contaminated by the proposed Project. The potential for operational activities to violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise degrade water quality is considered less than significant.
Potential impacts from the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level through the implementation of MM GEO-1. As such the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to water quality degradation with mitigation incorporated. b) Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there should be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Finding: Less than Significant
It is not expected that the proposed Project construction would deplete groundwater supplies. Construction activities would not use groundwater. No new wells that could place additional water supply demands on the local aquifer are proposed as part of the proposed Project. It is expected that water demands needed to operate the upgraded WWTP would be similar to existing conditions and would not place additional stress on the local groundwater table.
Also, the Gansberg Ranch property would allow piping and layout for a larger effluent storage volume, if ever needed by other interested parties in the area.
Newly constructed facilities (e.g., effluent storage area, force-main pipeline, and storage pond) would not result in an increase impervious surface area. According to the USGS soil survey (NRCS 2017), the proposed Project soils are generally not well suited for pond storage areas, however, due to certain designs the limitations can be overcome or minimized by special planning, design, or installation. Consequently, the proposed Project is not expected to substantially interfere with local groundwater recharge. In light of these proposed Project characteristics, impacts to groundwater resources are considered less than significant. c) Would the Project 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?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading, trenching, and other earth movement that may result in soil disturbance that could temporarily alter minor drainage patterns and increase hazard of erosion and sedimentation. It is anticipated water/drainage features will be avoided during the final placement of the upgraded WWTP storage and disposal
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 148
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
facilities; however, if final design requires alteration of an existing water then MM BIO-9 would be implemented and applications for CWA Section 404 NWP through the USACE and CWA Section 401 WQC through the RWQCB for the permanent and/or temporary impacts (e.g., dredge or fill) of the wetlands and jurisdictional WOTUS would be prepared. In addition, implementation of MM GEO-1: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures would minimize the potential for the proposed Project to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Topographic conditions at the proposed Project area would not be substantially altered and drainage patterns would generally be similar to existing conditions. The construction of the upgraded WWTP facilities, including treatment ponds, force-main pipe, headworks, and pump station would have a slight increase of impervious surface area; however, overall the proposed Project would cause a net-decrease of runoff from the site.
Construction of the storage pond(s) would entail re-grading and excavating to allow for an approximate total storage volume of 82 acre-feet. Berms would be constructed around the storage pond(s) restricting the movement of water from entering or leaving the pond(s). Although the proposed Project could slightly change the drainage pattern around the proposed pond(s), it would not result in increased erosion or siltation on or off-site. The storage pond(s) would create a reduction in stormwater runoff because any water collected in the proposed storage pond(s) would be retained, while currently precipitation runs off into the storm drainage system.
While the proposed WWTP and associated Project improvements would add a minor amount of additional impervious coverage, the total area converted to impervious surface would not significantly alter the drainage of the site. With the addition of the treatment ponds and storage pond, which would decrease the surface water and stormwater drainage, it is unlikely the total amount of drainage would increase from proposed Project operations. Therefore, any surface and stormwater drainage from the proposed Project area during operation will be easily accommodated by the existing drainage system.
In addition, grading and surface contouring and appropriate drainage design features will be implemented to minimize disruption to any drainage flows and the performance of existing networks of stormwater drainage culverts by not exceeding sufficient capacity of those existing networks. The proposed Project will not significantly increase impervious areas or generate increased stormwater flows, and therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. d) Would the Project 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 which would result in flooding on- or off- site?
Finding: Less than Significant
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 149
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Construction of the proposed Project would involve grading, trenching, and other earth movement that would result in soil disturbance that could temporarily alter minor drainage patterns and increase the rate or amount of surface runoff; however, all disturbed areas will be restored to pre-existing conditions to the extent feasible. It is anticipated water/drainage features will be avoided during the final placement of the new WWTP storage and disposal facilities; however, if final design requires alteration of an existing water then MM BIO-9 (described above) would be implemented. In addition, implementation of MM GEO-1: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures would minimize the potential for the proposed Project to substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, reducing impacts to a less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operational impacts to the existing drainage pattern are addressed in Impact C above, impacts are considered less than significant. e) Would the Project create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
The proposed Project could provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff during construction in the event of an unexpected spill. Implementation of BMPs and MM HAZ-1 for spill prevention and containment will be implemented to minimize the potential for polluted runoff due to the proposed Project.
Additionally, the proposed upgrades to the WWTP and facilities would not create or contribute substantial additional amounts of runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems. Nor would the proposed upgrades to the WWTP provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff under normal operations. As discussed in Impacts (c) and (d), the volume of water available as surface water runoff would likely be less with the proposed Project compared to existing conditions. However, any increase in runoff from the proposed Project would be quite minor, if it increases at all. The ditches and berms will include swales resembling roadside ditches and will be located in down gradient areas to control runoff. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, the impact is less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
g) Would the Project Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
Finding: No Impact
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 150
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The proposed Project would not include the construction of housing and would not place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area. The proposed Project area is designated as not occurring within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, no impacts would occur. h) Would the Project Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project would not place structures which would impede or redirect flood flows within a 100-year flood hazard. The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FEMA 2018) designates the proposed Project area as not occurring within a 100-year flood zone. The reservoir storage ponds would not have any sort of structure that would impede or redirect flood flows. Therefore, no impacts would occur. i) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
Finding: Less than Significant
While the proposed Project is located near Lake Camanche, it would not include any activities within the direct vicinity of a levee or dam. No housing or structures for human use are present or would be placed within the proposed Project area as a result of the proposed Project so there would be no potential risk of loss, injury or death. Additionally, the FEMA FIRM (FEMA 2018) designates the proposed Project area as not occurring within a 100-year flood zone. Therefore, the proposed Project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death as a result of flooding or dam or levee failure and impacts would be considered less than significant. j) Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death as a result of inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project’s inland and low-gradient inland location negates the risk of a seiche, tsunami or mudflow. The project would not create any housing or other structures and would not expose people or structures to impacts from inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. Therefore, there is no impact.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 151
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.8.4 Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-9: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Wetlands
See MM BIO-9. Section 3.4
MM GEO-1: Sediment and Erosion Control Measures
See MM GEO-1, Section 3.6
MM HAZ-1: Develop or Use Current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan
See MM HAZ-1, Section 3.7
3.9 Land Use and Planning
3.9.1 Regulatory Settings
There are no State requirements related to land use that are applicable to the proposed Project.
Federal
Safe Harbor Agreement
The SHA is a voluntary agreement involving private or other non-Federal property owners which protects special status species as defined in the FESA. A SHA follows the USFWS’s SHA policy (64 FR 32717) and regulations (64 FR 32706), both of which implement section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA. The agreement is executed between the property owner and either the USFSW (the federal agency that regulates federally listed terrestrial wildlife, non-anadromous inland fish, and migratory birds) or NOAA, the federal entity which is responsible for most listed marine and anadromous fish species. In general, a SHA ensures the property owner that in exchange for actions that contribute to the recovery of listed species on non-federal lands, participating property owners shall receive formal assurances from the USFWS that if they fulfill the conditions of the SHA, the USFWS will not require any additional or different management activities by the participants without their consent. At the conclusion of the SHA’s life, property owners may return the enrolled property to the baseline conditions that existed at the beginning of the SHA (USFWS 2018c).
The EBMUD property that is included within the proposed Project area is enrolled within a SHA between the USFWS and EBMUD. The purpose of this SHA is to 1) promote the enhancement and management of habitat for CRLF, CTS, and VELB on EBMUD watershed lands in San Joaquin, Amador, and Calaveras counties; and 2) to provide certain regulatory assurances to EBMUD (USFWS ND).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 152
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Local
Amador County General Plan 2016
The following goals and policies from the Land Use Element of the General Plan are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). The goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal LU-1: Attain a diverse and integrated mix of residential, commercial, agricultural, industrial, recreational, public, and open space land uses.
Policy LU-1.1: Protect existing land uses and public facilities from encroachment by incompatible land uses.
Policy LU-1.3: Encourage development patterns which support water quality objectives; protect agricultural land and natural resources; promote community identities; minimize environmental impacts; enable viable transit, bicycle and pedestrian transportation; reduce greenhouse gas emissions; and promote public health and wellness.
Policy LU-1.5: Encourage the continued viability of agricultural production in the County’s agricultural areas.
Goal LU-10: Guide future residential and local commercial uses into established cities, unincorporated Regional Service and Town Centers, and existing community areas (e.g. Pioneer, Volcano, Camanche, Fiddletown, Red Corral).
3.9.1.2.1.1 Amador County General Plan Zoning Consistency
The land uses designated in the General Plan are primarily implemented by the Amador Zoning Code. Table 3.9-1 below identifies the current zone district or districts which correspond to each General Plan land use designation (Amador County 2016a).
Table 3.9-1 Zoning District-General Plan Designation Consistency
General Plan Land Use Designation Compatible Zoning Districts AT Agricultural-Transition A, AG, RE, R-1, R-1A AG Agricultural-General AG, A, RE, R-1A, MR RR Rural Residential RE, R-2A, R-1, R-1A RL Residential-Low Density R-1, R-1A, PD RM Residential-Medium Density R-2, R-3, PD RSC Regional Service Center M, MM, LM, PD, R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2 TC Town Center R-1, R-2, R-3, C-1, C-2, LM, MM, PD SPA Special Planning Area PD, X, M
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 153
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
General Plan Land Use Designation Compatible Zoning Districts C Commercial C-1, C-2, H, PD, LM I Industrial M, MM, LM, MR PS Public Service PD WP Water Project A, AG, O-s, R-1A, MR OR Open-Recreation O-S, R-1A, MR, AG, PD GF General Forest AG, A, O-S, R-1A, MR, TPZ MRZ Mineral Resource Zones X, MR, R-1A OF Open-Forest AG, O-S, R-1A, MR OW Open-Wilderness AG, O-S, R-1A, MR
3.9.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project has taken General Plan and Zoning goals, objectives, and regulations into consideration during the planning stages. The proposed Project would be located on privately and publicly owned land within the western portion of the County.
The General Plan designated land uses for the Project area are as follows:
• Agricultural General (AG) • Special Planning Area (SPA)
• Agricultural Transition (AT) • Public Service (PS)
• Rural Residential (RR)
The majority of the proposed Project area is designed as AG lands under the General Plan with smaller portions of AT, RR, and one SPA. The AG land designations are primarily intended for grazing or farming purposes while the AT designation is primarily agricultural land that is being transitioned into RR land. Camanche Village is designated as RR which is low density housing. North of Lake Camanche the proposed Project area is designated as a SPA and passes through the Hunt Club. The existing Unit 6 WWTP is designated as PS which is consistent with its current use as a wastewater treatment facility (Amador County 2016a).
The zoning designations for the Project area are as follows:
• Exclusive Agriculture District (AG • Single Family Residential District (R1 District) District)
• Special Use District (X District) • Two-Acre Residential District (R2A District)
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 154
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The majority of the Project area is zoned as X District and AG District with smaller portions zoned as R1 District and R2A District where the proposed pipeline alignment goes through Camanche Village (Amador County 2018b). Additionally, the proposed Project would go through a number of individual parcels with various Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs). The APN for the Unit 6 WWTP is 003420097000 and the Gansberg Ranch property APNs are 005220004000 and 005250010000 (Amador County 2018a).
The AG District is applied to all lands that are considered agriculture preserves and are subject to the provisions in the Williamson Act. Public utilities and public services, structures, and buildings are considered a compatible use in AG District zoned lands and would not require a use permit if they are a secondary operation to the agricultural operations and fall in conjuncture with the agricultural operations. The Unit 6 WWTP is zoned as an X District which does not have any special provisions regarding wastewater treatment or the associated facilities. The new treatment facility would also be located in an area zoned as an X District which would not have any restricted uses regarding public utilities or associated infrastructure. The Hunt Club is also zoned as an X District and operated under the terms of a “Safe Harbor” agreement which requires any construction activities on the property to comply with the terms of the agreement. Additionally, under the County code, wastewater facilities are considered a compatible use for any parcel zoned as R1 District or R2A District and don’t require a use permit (Amador County 2018b).
3.9.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than X. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation
a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 155
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
a) Would the Project physically divide an established community?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project would involve improvements to the existing wastewater facilities in this area of the County and would not involve physically dividing an established community. The improvements to the Unit 6 WWTP would remain within the existing footprint of the facility and the associated pipeline improvements would be constructed underground through portions of the Project area, including through the Camanche Village area. Temporary construction impacts would occur within Camanche Village; however, these would be temporary and would not permanently divide this community. Once constructed, the pipeline would be underground and would not have a substantial impact on the Camanche Village area. Therefore, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on established communities in the area.
b/c) Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project would not conflict with any land use plans, policies, or regulations that are applicable to the Project. No change in land use or zoning designations would occur as a result of implementation of the proposed Project. As discussed in the Section 3.9.1 and 3.9.2 above, the proposed Project would be compatible with all General Plan land use and the County Zoning designations. Public utilities for the land use and zoning designations associated with the proposed Project parcels would be a compatible use and would not likely require and Approved use permit from the County. However, if the County determines a use permit is required, it would be obtained prior to construction and would therefore be in compliance with land use and zoning designations. The proposed Project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project, and any potential impact would be a less than significant impact.
The land north of Lake Camanche is owned and managed by EBMUD and is enrolled in a SHA between the USFWS and EBMUD. Any proposed Project activities on the property will require compliance with the terms of the SHA. Prior to the proposed Project, the Agency will ensure compliance with the SHA, as described in MM BIO-04. Additionally, there are no other approved habitat conservation plans or natural communities’ conservation plans that apply to the proposed Project area (California Regional Conservation Plans 2017). Therefore, the proposed Project would not conflict with the Safe Harbor agreement or any other habitat conservation plan or natural communities’ conservation plan and there would be less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 156
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.9.4 Mitigation Measures
MM BIO-4: Compliance with Safe Harbor Agreement Between USFWS and EBMUD Within the Proposed Project Area
See MM BIO-4. Section 3.4.
3.10 Mineral Resources
3.10.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 (30 U.S.C 21(a))
The Mining and Minerals Policy Act of 1970 declared that it is in the national interest to foster and encourage private enterprise in the following ways:
• Development of economically sound and stable domestic mining and mineral related industries;
• Orderly and economic development of mineral resources to satisfy industrial, security, and environmental needs;
• Research to promote wise and efficient use of resources; and
• Research and development of mining and reclamation methods to lessen the impact of mining on the environment.
This act codified the importance of mining and mineral resources and recognized that public policy should evaluate these resources. State
Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
The State of California enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA) in 1975 in part to identify the location of and preserve access to significant mineral deposits. The State geologist is required by SMARA to prepare maps that identify MRZ including areas of presence or likely presence of significant mineral deposits, MRZ-2. Areas that may have mineral resources, but where the presence cannot be determined from available information are also identified as MRZ-3. Additionally, SMARA requires local governments to evaluate the presence of mineral resources in their general plans and when making land use decisions.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 157
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Economic Development Element of the General Plan related to mineral resources are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal E-13: Maintain the viability of mineral and aggregate resources and encourage mineral and aggregate resource production in the county.
Policy E-13.1: Ensure extraction and processing of mineral resources and aggregate deposits may continue. Encourage extraction and processing of mineral and aggregate resources.
Policy E-13.2: Promote the expansion or greater utilization of Amador County’s mineral and aggregate resources.
Policy E-13.3: Promote value-added manufacturing and processing of Amador County’s minerals.
Policy E-13.4: Guide development away from areas where mineral and aggregate extraction is currently occurring and where resources are known to exist. Consider the location of known resources when approving new development.
3.10.2 Environmental Setting
Mineral resources are generally finite and occur in sporadic deposits, which often create a relative scarcity and a need to protect access to supplies. Many mineral resources are important to global, National, State, and local economies. In 2015, California had approximately 717 active mines responsible for approximately 4.2 percent of the U.S. non-fuel mineral production (California Geological Survey 2015). The largest component of this production was derived from sand and gravel mining. The County was founded upon the discovery of gold in the Sierra Nevada foothills in 1849. The County’s mineral resources remain an important part of the County’s economy and identity to this day. The current mining operations in the County include clay, gold, lignite, and aggregate materials, but the County’s mineral products include (among others), clay, sand, gravel, aggregate, quartz sand, copper, silver, gold, soapstone, marble, slate, greenstone, river rip rap, road base, limestone, sandstone, zinc, chromite, talc, lignite, and diamonds (Amador County 2016a). The proposed Project area is not located in a designated MRZ, which is a “land classification created by the California Geological Survey used to designate sites with known deposits of commercially viable mineral or aggregate material. (Note: In addition to state designated MRZs, the County designates local MRZs through application of the MRZ land use designation)” (Amador County 2016a). There are no MRZs directly surrounding the proposed Project area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 158
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.10.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than XI. MINERAL RESOURCES Significant with No Significant Significant Would the Project: Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
a) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 by the State Geologist that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project are does not fall within an area classified as MRZ-2 according to the General Plan (Amador County 2016a). The area to the east of the proposed Project area is classified as both MRZ-2a and 2b, however the proposed Project does not fall within these zones (Amador County 2016a). Therefore, the proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource classified MRZ-2 and therefore, no impact would occur. b) Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. According to the General Plan (Amador County 2016a) and the County Zoning Ordinance, the proposed Project area is not located within or near an area of known important mineral resources (Amador County 2016a). Therefore, no impact would occur.
3.10.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 159
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.11 NOISE
The purpose of this section is to analyze the potential noise impacts associated with construction and operation of the proposed Project. It includes the Regulatory Setting, the Environmental Setting and existing noise conditions in the proposed Project area. The potential impacts of the proposed Project related to noise and any relevant mitigation measures are also discussed in the Impact Analysis section.
3.11.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Federal, state, and local agencies regulate different aspects of environmental noise. Generally, the federal government sets noise standards for transportation-related noise sources closely linked to interstate commerce. These include aircraft, locomotives, and trucks. No federal noise standards are directly applicable to the proposed Project. However, the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines potentially harmful noise exposure (the level at which hearing loss may occur from long-term exposure) as exposure to greater than 85 A- weighted decibels (dBA) averaged over eight hours. For noise greater than 90 dBA, the allowable exposure time is correspondingly shorter (Cal/OSHA 2018).
State
The State government sets noise standards for transportation noise sources such as automobiles, light trucks, and motorcycles.
General Plan Noise Element Guidelines
The State of California General Plan Guidelines establishes guidelines for the preparation of local general plan noise elements, including a sound level/land use compatibility chart that categorizes, by land use, outdoor day-night average noise level (Ldn) ranges in four categories (normally acceptable, conditionally acceptable, normally unacceptable, and clearly unacceptable). For many land uses, the chart shows overlapping Ldn ranges for two or more compatibility categories (OPR 2017).
The noise element guidelines identify the normally acceptable range of Ldn values for low- density residential uses as less than 60 decibels (dB) and the conditionally acceptable range as 55–70 dB. The normally acceptable range for high-density residential uses is identified as Ldn values of less than 65 dB, and the conditionally acceptable range is identified as 60–70 dB. For educational and medical facilities, Ldn values of less than 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 60–70 dB are considered conditionally acceptable. For office and commercial land uses, Ldn values of less than 70 dB are considered normally acceptable, and Ldn values of 67.5–77.5 are categorized as conditionally acceptable.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 160
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
These overlapping Ldn ranges are intended to indicate that local conditions (existing sound levels and community attitudes toward dominant sound sources) should be considered in evaluating land use compatibility at specific locations. When noise levels are in the conditionally acceptable range, new construction should be undertaken only after a detailed analysis of the noise reduction requirements is made and needed noise insulation requirements are included in the design.
Local
Noise sources associated with industrial, commercial, and construction activities are generally subject to local control through noise ordinances and general plan policies. Local general plans identify general principles intended to guide and influence development plans.
As mentioned above, noise sources associated with industrial, commercial, and construction activities are generally subject to local control through noise ordinances and general plan policies. Local general plans typically identify principles intended to guide and influence development plans.
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Noise Element of the General Plan related to noise are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below, in addition to the noise level performance standards for non-transportation noise sources as shown in Table 3.11-1.
Goal N-1. Manage noise levels throughout the County through land use planning and development review and promote a pattern of land uses compatible with current and future noise levels.
Policy N-1.1. Enforce noise standards to maintain acceptable noise limits, especially near noise-sensitive uses. Noise measurement methods are subject to County approval.
Policy N-1.2. Encourage the use of siting and building design techniques as a means to minimize noise impacts.
Policy N-1.3. Evaluate potential noise conflicts for individual sites and projects and require mitigation of all significant noise impacts (including construction and short-term noise impacts) as a condition of project approval.
Policy N-1.4. Protect existing areas with acceptable noise environments, and also those locations deemed “noise sensitive” from new noise sources.
Policy N-1.5. Promote the use of ‘smart design’ including berms, landscaping, setbacks, and architectural design features for noise abatement as an alternative to sound walls to enhance community aesthetics and minimize barriers to pedestrians. Use of sound walls should be restricted to cases where all other methods have been exhausted.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 161
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Table 3.11-1 Noise Level Performance Standards for Non-Transportation Noise Sources1
Daytime Nighttime Noise Level Descriptor (7 a.m.-10 p.m.) (10 p.m.-7 a.m.)
Hourly average level 60 dBA 45 dBA Maximum equivalent levels 75 dBA 65 dBA
1The noise standard is to be applied at the property planes of the affected land use. Source: Amador County 2016a
3.11.2 Environmental Setting
Noise is commonly defined as unwanted sound in the environment. The definition of sound is: any pressure variation in air that the human ear can detect. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough, at least 20 times per second, they can be heard and hence are called sound. The frequency of sound is the number of pressure variations per second, and is expressed as cycles per second, called Hertz (Hz).
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
• Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, dissatisfaction;
• Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, learning; and
• Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling.
Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise, or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists, and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.
This definition reflects a subjective reaction to the characteristics of the physical phenomenon of noise. People judge the relative magnitude of sound sensation in subjective terms such as “noisiness” or “loudness.” Although elevated noise levels can result in physiological damage and hearing loss, excessive noise in the environment more commonly impairs general human well-being by contributing to psychological stress and irritation. Such health effects can result when noise interferes with everyday human activities such as sleep, talking, recreation, relaxation, and tasks requiring concentration. When noise is either disturbing or annoying, whether by its pitch or loudness, it may be considered objectionable.
The overall noise level associated with a given noise environment is called the “ambient” noise level. Ambient noise can be generated by a number of sources, including mobile sources such as automobiles, trucks, trains, and airplanes, and stationary sources such as construction sites,
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 162
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
machinery, and industrial operations. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it. With regard to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur (Caltrans 2013a):
• The average healthy ear can barely perceive noise level changes of three dBA (A- weighted decibel);
• A change in level of five dBA is a readily perceptible increase in noise level; and
• A ten dBA change is recognized as twice as loud as the original source.
These relationships occur in part because of the logarithmic nature of sound and the decibel system. Noise levels are measured on a logarithmic scale, instead of a linear scale. On a logarithmic scale, the sum of two noise sources of equal loudness is three dBA greater than the noise generated by just one of the noise sources (e.g., a noise source of 60 dBA plus another noise source of 60 dBA generate a composite noise level of 63 dBA). To apply this formula to a specific noise source, in areas where existing levels are dominated by traffic, a doubling in the volume of the traffic will increase ambient noise levels by three dBA. Similarly, a doubling in the use of heavy equipment, such as use of two landfill dozer/compactors where formerly one was used, would also increase ambient noise levels by three dBA. The definitions of the sound measurements are described below in Table 3.11-2.
Table 3.11-2 Definition of Sound Measurement
Sound Measurements Definition
Decibel (dB) A measure of sound on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure amplitude to a reference sound pressure amplitude. The reference pressure is 20 micro-pascals.
A-Weighted Decibel (dBA) An overall frequency-weighted sound level in decibels that approximates the frequency response of the human ear.
Maximum Sound Level (Lmax) The maximum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Minimum Sound Level (Lmin) The minimum sound level measured during the measurement period.
Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) The equivalent steady state sound level that in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy.
Day-Night Sound Level (Ldn) The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring during a 24-hour period, with ten dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 163
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Sound Measurements Definition
Community Noise Equivalent The energy average of the A-weighted sound levels occurring Level (CNEL) during a 24-hour period with five dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and ten dB added to the A-weighted sound levels occurring during the period from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
Peak Particle Velocity (Peak A measurement of ground vibration defined as the maximum Velocity or PPV) speed (measured in inches per second) at which a particle in the ground is moving relative to its inactive state. PPV is usually expressed in inches/second.
Vibration Velocity Level in A logarithmic scaling of vibration magnitude referenced to 1 Decibels (VdB) micro-inch/second and based on the root mean square velocity amplitude. Comparable to sound decibels.
Frequency: Hertz (Hz) The number of complete pressure fluctuations per second above and below atmospheric pressure.
Factors that affect the transmission of noise between the noise source and the receptor include:
• Line of sight: Barriers, such as topography, sound walls and other structures, between a noise source and recipient can provide varying degrees of noise attenuation, particularly when placed near the noise source; and
• Distance: A reduction in noise level of roughly six dBA occurs with each doubling of distance from a noise source, depending on the hardness of intervening surfaces.
Roadways, including state highways and local roads, are identified as the most prevalent major noise sources in the County. Additional major noise sources include Union Pacific railways, Westover Field County Airport and the Eagle’s Nest private airstrip, as well as industrial operations such as Sierra Pine and large quarry operations such as Unimin Corporation, ISP Granule Products Inc., and George Reed Construction Inc. (Amador County 2016a). George Reed Construction Inc. as well as roads SR 88 and Camanche Road, are the major noise sources located in close proximity to the proposed Project area as shown on the Noise Sources map in the General Plan (Amador County 2016a). Private airports Howard Airport and Camanche Skypark are also located in close proximity to the proposed Project but are not identified as major noise sources by the County. One single-engine aircraft is based on the field at Howard Airport and two single-engine aircrafts at Camanche Skypark (FAA 2018).
The existing noise environment in the vicinity of the proposed Project area is created by a mixture of residential, agricultural, and recreational use. Manmade noise within the area is characterized by traffic traveling on SR 88 and local roads on the west and east sides of the proposed Project area, as well as recreation noise from boats in Lake Camanche and firearm noise from the EBMUD property. With the exceptions noted above, the Gansberg Ranch
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 164
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018 property and EBMUD property retain a more natural quality, and their predominant soundscapes are of chirping birds and other wildlife. The nearest sensitive receptors include the 765 residences of Lake Camanche Village Units 1-6, particularly those of Units 1, 2, 4, and 6, that are directly adjacent to the proposed force main (pipeline) and effluent reservoir along Quiver Drive, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, Papeo Street, and Village Drive (USCB 2016). Additional sensitive receptors include recreation users at EMBUD property, adjacent to the proposed Project, and Lake Camanche, approximately one mile south of the southernmost extent of the proposed Project, as well as passing motorists along Quiver Road, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, Papeo Street, and Village Drive.
Table 3.11-3 describes the current noise conditions along the major roadways in the proximity to the proposed Project area. Traffic is the primary source of noise levels within the County (Amador County 2016a).
Table 3.11-3 Summary of Roadway Traffic Noise Modeling under Existing Conditions
Average Distance to Ldn Contour (feet) Roadway Daily dBA Ldn Segment Location Name Traffic at 100ft (Trips) 65 dBA 60 dBA 55 dBA East of San Amador SR 88 Joaquin 8,700 65.8 114 245 527 County Line County Camanche San Joaquin Camanche 1,195 53.1 16 34 74 Parkway County Line Rd North of Camanche Camanche Buena Vista 808 51.4 12 27 57 Road Parkway South of South of Camanche Jackson Jackson 1,658 54.5 20 43 92 Road Valley Rd Valley Rd Jackson South of SR Camanche Valley Road 640 50.3 11 23 49 88 Rd (west)
Ldn = Estimated day-night average levels Source: Amador County 2016a
Wastewater treatment plants have several pieces of mechanical equipment and processes that create high noise levels. Hydraulic pumps, generators, pipes, and exhaust fans are all components in the wastewater industry that create noise. Noise is defined as unwanted sound and that becomes unwanted when it interferes with normal activities, when it causes actual physical harm, or when it has adverse effects on health. Sound pressure levels are used to measure the intensity of sound and expressed in terms of decibels.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 165
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
A second consideration under this section is ground vibration. Typically, developed areas are continuously affected by vibrations but these are not normally noticeable to humans. Offsite sources that may produce perceptible vibrations are usually caused by construction equipment, traffic on rough roads, while smooth roads rarely produce perceptible ground borne noise or vibration. While traffic noise and vibration impacts related to WWTP in the long term are minimal, there are impacts to be addressed during the construction of any facilities due to excavation and other construction activities along roads, streets, and adjacent to neighborhoods.
The proposed Project involves the modification of the existing WWTP, construction of a pump station, construction of either an approximate 3.5-mile force main, construction of new storage facilities on the Gansberg Ranch property, as well as the construction of an irrigation distribution system on the Gansberg Ranch property. Noise impacts from the proposed Project can be categorized as those resulting from construction and those from operational activities. Construction would have a short-term effect, while operational noise would continue throughout the lifetime of the proposed Project.
All new treatment upgrades for the proposed Project will occur on the existing WWTP site on Quiver Drive, approximately 500 feet from the nearest residence. The proposed pipeline alignment would follow Quiver Drive to Curran Road, and then follow an existing improved dirt road through land owned by EBMUD to its northern boundary. From the northern boundary of the EBMUD property, the alignment will remain within existing easements along Grapevine Gulch Road and through the residential areas of Village Units 1 and 2 to the Gansberg Ranch southern property boundary where it reaches the approximate location of the proposed effluent storage reservoir area.
Effluent storage will be constructed near the southern boundary of the Gansberg Ranch property as well as an irrigation distribution system for delivery of the recycled water to the proposed reclamation areas on the property. In conjunction with the new pipeline, a new pump station will be constructed.
3.11.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XII. NOISE No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project result in: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in
the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 166
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XII. NOISE No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project result in: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport
of public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people
residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
a) Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Construction
The construction of the proposed Project would entail the use of construction-related equipment (i.e., excavators, backhoes, dump trucks, scrapers, compactors, hydraulic breakers, etc.). Temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels would result from operation of machinery and equipment used in the construction process. The maximum noise levels of typical construction equipment is shown below in Table 3.11-4. Residences are located as near as 50 feet to the proposed Project area. Construction is expected to last approximately 18 months. Noise from construction typically attenuates at a rate of six dB per doubling of distance. Additional attenuation varying from one to four dB per doubling of distance also occurs where the ground is acoustically absorptive, depending on topography and ground cover (Caltrans 2013a). Assuming a nominal worst-case construction noise-level for several pieces of equipment operating simultaneously, construction noise can be expected to be as high as the following levels at 50 feet from the construction activity (FHWA 2006):
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 167
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Table 3.11-4 Typical Construction Equipment Maximum Noise Levels, Lmax
Specification Maximum Type of Equipment Sound Levels (dBA at 50 feet) Pickup Truck 55 Pumps 77 Air Compressors 80 Backhoe 80 Compactor 80 Front-End Loaders 80 Portable Generators 82 Dump Truck 84 Tractors 84 Auger Drill Rig 85 Concrete Mixer Truck 85 Cranes 85 Dozers 85 Excavators 85 Graders 85 Jackhammers 85 Man Lift 85 Scrapers 85 Concrete Saw 90 Hydraulic Breaker 90 Source: FHWA 2006
The nearest residences would be within 50 feet of Quiver Road, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, Papeo, Street, and Village Drive. The surrounding region overall is a mix of residential, agricultural, and recreational lands. Therefore, the potential for the proposed Project to result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, would be considered significant.
With the implementation of the MM NOISE-1, Noise Reduction Measures, construction activities would occur outside the County’s noise-sensitive hours and occur only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Amador County 2016a). As such, the potential noise impacts are expected to be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 168
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Operation
Construction activities related to the upgrades at the existing WWTP site, the construction of the proposed pipeline, and the placement of the effluent storage and disposal sites may have a short-term increase in noise impacts; however, operational noise after the completion of the proposed Project will return to normal levels.
The proposed pump station facilities would be located sub-grade; therefore, noise generation would not likely attenuate outside of the facilities. Noise impact from operation of the system would be considered less than significant. b) Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Finding: Less than Significant
Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events (Caltrans 2013b). Table 3.11-5 below summarizes the general threshold at which human annoyance could occur is noted as 0.1 in/sec PPV.
Table 3.11-5 Guideline Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Maximum PPV (in/sec) Human Response Transient Sources Continuous/Frequent Sources
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Source: Caltrans 2013b
Construction
Construction equipment used during the proposed Project such as backhoes, excavators, mechanical compactors, hydraulic breakers and other equipment may generate localized ground borne vibration or noise levels. Ground vibration generated by construction equipment spreads through the ground and diminishes in magnitude with increases in distance. Table 3.11-6 below shows the vibration source levels for the various construction equipment. The effects of ground vibration may be imperceptible at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g.,
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 169
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage. For most structures, a peak particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.5 inch per second or less is sufficient to avoid structural damage. The Federal Transit Administration recommends a threshold of 0.5 ppv for residential and commercial structures, 0.25 ppv for historic buildings and archaeological sites, and 0.2 ppv for non-engineered timber and masonry building.
Table 3.11-6 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Vibration Levels Approximate Lv1 at 25 Type of Equipment (PPV at 25 feet, in/sec) feet
Compactor 0.210 94
Hydraulic Breaker 0.089 87
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58
Source: FTA 2006 1RMS velocity in decibels (VdB) Construction of the Project would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration (i.e., pile drivers).
Ground vibration generated by construction equipment would be primarily associated with equipment similar to on-site trucks, bulldozers and excavators. Large excavators with single-tooth rippers and hydraulic breakers would also be used for trenching hard rock and highly compacted soil sections. Loaded trucks, bulldozers, and hydraulic breakers would result in vibration levels of less than 0.1 ppv at 25 feet (FTA 2006; Caltrans 2013b). The nearest building to the project site is approximately 50 feet from the proposed Project alignment. At a distance of 50 feet, bulldozers, loaded trucks, and hydraulic breakers would result in vibration levels of 0.031 ppv and 0.027 ppv, and 0.120 ppv, respectively. The predicted vibration levels at the nearest structure would not be anticipated to exceed the 0.5 ppv threshold for residential and commercial buildings, thus, the impact is less than significant.
Residences are located as near as 50 feet to the proposed Project alignment. All construction equipment discussed above, including large excavators and hydraulic breakers to trench hard rock and highly compacted soil sections, would potentially be used within the proposed Project area near these residencies. The vibration levels that would result from use of this equipment at a distance of 50 feet from the buildings, listed above, would be barely perceptible to residents but would not be anticipated to exceed the 0.25 PPV construction vibration annoyance threshold (Caltrans 2013b). Furthermore, potential ground borne vibrations or noise would be limited
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 170
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
within feasibility, temporary, and occur during daylight hours to reduce construction noise and vibration annoyance to residents. Thus, the impact is less than significant.
With the implementation of the MM NOISE-1, Noise Reduction Measures, construction activities would occur outside the County’s noise-sensitive hours and occur only during the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (Amador County 2016a). Therefore, ground borne noise and vibration impacts are considered less than significant.
Operation
The operation of the proposed Project will not be significantly different than the current operational practices relative to ground vibrations. Therefore, the proposed Project operation will not result in excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels. This impact is less than significant.
c) Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
Finding: Less than Significant
Construction
Noise associated with the construction activities of the proposed Project are temporary during construction and not considered permanent. Therefore, the proposed Project will not result in a sustained increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the proposed Project.
Operation
The operation of the proposed pump station(s) would result in an insignificant increase in permanent ambient noise levels, as they would be housed in a pump building and be located sub-grade. Noise generation would not likely attenuate outside of the building. The WWTP would operate much as it does currently. Permanent operational noise of the proposed effluent reservoir and irrigation distribution system at the Gansberg Ranch property would be limited to sprinkler noise and would not be significant. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact on noise levels associated with operation of the proposed Project.
d) Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 171
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Construction
Construction activities of the proposed Project would result in temporary increases in noise above existing levels. The construction of the proposed Project would entail the use of construction-related equipment (i.e., backhoe, dump truck, excavator, hydraulic breaker, etc.). Construction noise would result from operation of machinery and equipment used between the noise-sensitive hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. in accordance with the General Plan (Amador County 2016a). Construction would result in temporary or periodic increases in ambient noise levels, especially during trenching activities when installing the proposed pipeline and constructing the proposed pump station. Therefore, due to the temporary increase of noise impacts, with MM NOISE-1, these impacts are considered to be less than significant.
Operation
Temporary or periodic operational noise of the proposed Project would remain at the level that exists currently, including vehicle activity entering and leaving the site during scheduled and emergency maintenance visits as necessary for the force main, as well as the effluent reservoir and irrigation distribution system at the Gansberg Ranch property, and therefore, would not have a significant impact on noise levels.
e) For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport of public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: No Impact
The proposed Project area is not located within an airport land use plan, nor within two miles of a public airport. The nearest public airport to the proposed Project area is the Westover Field Amador County Airport, located approximately 12 miles northeast of the proposed Project area in the City of Jackson, California. The proposed Project would not cause exposure to excessive noise levels from airport/aircraft operations. Therefore, no impacts are anticipated.
f) For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the Project area to excessive noise levels?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project area is not located in the vicinity of the private airstrip identified by the County as a major noise source. The Eagle’s Nest Airport, is located approximately 9 miles north of the northernmost extent of the Project. The airport has twelve single-engine aircrafts, six multi- engine aircrafts, two jet engine aircrafts and three helicopters based on the field and currently averages about three flights per day, although the use permit allows an average of 13 flights per day (Amador County 2016a, FAA 2018).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 172
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
While the proposed Project is located within the vicinity of two other private airstrips, these are not identified as major noise sources by the County (Amador County 2016a). Howard Airport is located approximately one mile east of the existing WWTP site on Camanche Parkway North and has one single-engine aircraft based on the field, and Camanche Skypark is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the existing WWTP site on Coal Mine Road and has two single-engine aircrafts based on the field. With consideration to the number and type of aircraft based there, excessive noise levels from the Howard and Camanche Skypark Airports are not expected within the proposed Project area and thus this impact is considered less than significant.
3.11.4 Mitigation Measures
MM NOISE-1: Noise Reduction Measures
The Agency shall incorporate the following BMPs to minimize noise impacts during construction activities:
• Construction shall be limited to outside the County’s noise-sensitive hours and occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
• All construction equipment shall be equipped with sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. Equipment shall have a muffled exhaust.
• Appropriate additional noise-reducing measures shall be implemented, including but not limited to:
o Changing the location of stationary construction equipment when practical;
o Shutting off idling equipment; and
o Notifying residences within 50-100 feet 48 hours in advance of starting construction in an area not previously affected by recent construction activities.
If construction activities are required outside of the daytime working hours described above, the Agency shall notify residents 48 hours in advance. If after-hour construction is required due to an emergency, the Agency will notify nearby residents immediately.
MM NOISE-1 Implementation
Responsible Party: The Agency’s contractor shall adhere to the construction schedule and noise mitigation measures.
Timing: During all phases of construction.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 173
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Monitoring and Reporting: The Agency shall document all after hour work that generates noise louder than background.
Standard of Success: Minimize noise complaints.
3.12 POPULATION AND HOUSING
3.12.1 Regulatory Setting
There are no applicable State, Federal, or local laws or policies related to the proposed Project regarding Population and Housing.
Local
Amador County General Plan 2016
The following goals and policies from the Land Use Element related to population and housing are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal LU-4: Ensure adequate wastewater treatment, storage, and disposal capacity exists to serve the county’s current and future demand.
Policy LU-4.2: Consider infrastructure availability and expansion in the evaluation of individual projects.
Goal LU-6: Ensure that adequate water supply, wastewater disposal, and public services are available prior to development.
Policy LU-6.1: Ensure that new development is able to meet water supply, wastewater disposal, and public service standards.
Goal LU-10: Guide future residential and local commercial uses into established cities, unincorporated Regional Service and Town Centers, and existing community areas (e.g. Pioneer, Volcano, Camanche, Fiddletown, Red Corral).
Amador Water Agency 2015 Urban Water Management Plan
The Agency 2015 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) has been prepared for the 2015-2020 period and assess the Agency’s ability to meet future demands of the water supply in the County. This UWMP outlines future needs for water and wastewater services for the Camanche Village area, including planned growth (Amador Water Agency 2016).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 174
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.12.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is located in the County (total population of approximately 38,091) approximately six miles southwest of the city of Ione (population 7,918) and 11 miles southwest of the City of Jackson (population 4,651). The proposed Project would primarily be located within the residential community of Camanche Village which currently has a population of approximately 847 (USCB 2010). This region of the County mostly consists of agriculture lands with a few residential areas as well as recreational uses within the Lake Camanche.
3.12.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the Significant with No Significant Significant Project: Mitigation Impact Impact Impact Incorporation a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
a) Would the Project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project would involve the improvement and expansion of existing wastewater treatment infrastructure which could indirectly induce population growth to the Village area. However, these improvements to the existing wastewater treatment system would be in response to the inadequate storage and treatment capacity required in order to meet the requirements of the Unit 6 facility as well as the planned housing developments of the Village area. Approximately 765 SFDEs have been built in the Village area and a total of approximately 2,200 SFDEs are planned to be constructed in the area according to the General Plan. Thus, the remaining wastewater treatment facilities (Unit 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, and 7) are also being further developed and planned for development in order to meet the needs of this planned housing development. The Unit 6 WWTP improvements would provide a total approximate capacity of approximately 64,000 gpd which would be sufficient capacity to serve the Unit 6 development
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 175
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
area. Therefore, the expansion of the Village area is currently being developed and planned for in regard to infrastructure needs and requirements in conjuncture with the proposed Project. Thus, the proposed Project would have a less than significant impact to directly or indirectly induce substantial population growth.
b) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No Impact
Implementation of the proposed Project would not displace any existing housing and would therefore not result in the necessity for the construction of replacement housing at an alternate location(s) because the proposed Project would occur within Agency owned parcels and undeveloped agricultural parcels. Where the proposed Project pipeline would go through the Village area, the Agency would obtain the proper easements and once constructed, the pipeline would be underground. Thus, there would be a temporary disruption from construction activities, however, this would not result in displacement of existing housing. Therefore, no impact would result from project development. c) Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Finding: No Impact
Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in the displacement of substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing in any other location(s) because the proposed Project would occur within Agency owned parcels and undeveloped agricultural parcels. Where the proposed Project pipeline would go through the Village area, the Agency would obtain the proper easements and once constructed, the pipeline would be underground. As such, no people would be displaced, and no additional housing units would be required. Therefore, no impact would result from project development.
3.12.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 176
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.13 PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES
3.13.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), otherwise known as the CWA, sets forth national goals that waters shall be “fishable, swimmable” waters (CWA Section 101 (a)(2)). To enforce the goals of the CWA, the USEPA established the NPDES program. NPDES is a national program for regulating and administering permits for discharges to receiving waters, including non-point sources. Under Section 1251 (b) of the CWA, Congress and the USEPA must recognize and preserve the primary responsibilities and rights of states concerning the reduction of pollution in water resources (USEPA 2017).
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit
Discharge of treated wastewater to surface WOTUS, including wetlands, require a NPDES permit. In California, the RWQCB administer the issuance of these federal permits. Obtaining an NPDES permit requires preparation of detailed information, including characterization of wastewater sources, treatment processes, and effluent quality. Whether or not a permit may be issued, the conditions of a permit are subject to many factors such as basin plan water quality objectives, impaired water body status of the receiving water, historical flow rates of the receiving water, effluent quality and flow, the air quality State Implementation Plan (SIP), the California Toxics Rule, and established total maximum daily loading rates for various pollutants. These factors are highly specific to the potential discharge point. Obtaining an NPDES permit is generally considered difficult in inland areas and may not be possible in sensitive areas (USEPA 2018b).
State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The State of California established the SWRQB, which oversees the nine RWQCBs, through the Porter-Cologne Act. Through the enforcement of the Porter-Cologne Act, the SWRCB determines the beneficial uses of the waters (surface and groundwater) of the State, establishes narrative and/or numerical water quality standards, and initiates policies relating to water quality. The SWRCB and, more specifically, the RWQCB, is authorized to prescribe WDRs for the discharge of waste, which may impact the waters of the State. Furthermore, the development of water quality control plans, or Basin Plans, are required by Porter-Cologne Act to protect water quality.
The SWRCB issues both General Construction Permits and individual permits under the auspices of the federal NPDES program. Projects disturbing more than one acre of land during construction are required to file a NOI with the SWRCB to be covered under the State NPDES
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 177
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
General Permit (Adopted Order 2009-0009-DWQ [As amended by 2010-0014-DWQ and 2012- 0006-DWQ]) for discharges of stormwater associated with construction activity. Construction activities that are subject to this General Permit includes clearing, grading, disturbances to the ground such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of at least one acre of total land area. The project proponent must implement control measures that are consistent with the State General Permit. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the General Permit. A SWPPP describes BMP the discharger would use to protect stormwater runoff and reduce potential impacts to surface water quality through the construction period. The SWPPP must contain the following: a visual monitoring program; a chemical monitoring program for “non-visible” pollutants to be implemented if there is a failure of BMPs; and a sediment monitoring plan if the site discharges directly to a water body listed on the 303(d) list for sediment (SWRCB 2017b).
California Occupational Safety and Health Administration
In accordance with CCR, Title 8, Section 1270 Fire Prevention, and Section 6773 Fire Protection and Fire Equipment, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) has established minimum standards for fire suppression and emergency medical services. The standards include, but are not limited to, guidelines on the handling of highly combustible materials, fire hosing sizing requirements, restrictions on the use of compressed air, access roads, and the testing, maintenance, and use of all firefighting and emergency medical equipment (Cal/OSHA 2017).
Assembly Bill 939
AB 939 (PRC 41780) was enacted to increase landfill life and conserve other resources through increased source reduction and recycling. AB 939 requires cities and counties to prepare Solid Waste Management Plans to implement AB 939’s goals, particularly to divert approximately 50 percent of solid waste from landfills. AB 939 also requires cities and counties to prepare Source Reduction and Recycling Elements. These elements are designed to develop programs to achieve diversion goals, stimulate local recycling in manufacturing and stimulate the purchase of recycled products. PRC 41780, as amended April 22, 2009 (AB 479), requires 60 percent diversion from landfills by January 2015 through source reduction, recycling, and composting activities. In addition, AB 470 also mandates additional recycling requirements for commercial businesses (CLI 2017).
Urban Water Management Plan Act
In 1983, the California Legislature enacted the UWMP (Water Code Sections 10610–10656). The UWMP requires that every urban water supplier that provides water to 3,000 or more customers, or that provides over 3,000-AFY shall prepare and adopt a UWMP. The UWMP states that urban water suppliers should make every effort to ensure the appropriate level of reliability in its water service sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers during normal, dry, and multiple-dry years. The UWMP also states that the management of urban water demands,
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 178
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018 and the efficient use of water shall be actively pursued to protect both the people of the state and their water resources (DWR 2015).
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Conservation and Safety Elements of the General Plan related to geology, soils, earthquakes, and landslides are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the Project are discussed in the impact analysis below.
Goal C-1: Ensure that all future development permitted in the county can be provided adequate amounts of water.
Policy C-1.4: Encourage new development, renovation, landscape, and agricultural projects to include water conservation measures, including use of graywater, reclaimed, or recycled water for irrigation, water-conserving plumbing fixtures, and low-water landscapes.
Goal C-3: Minimize negative effects of sewage treatment on water quality.
Policy C-3.1: Guide future development to areas of the county with the ability to obtain adequate wastewater service and treatment capacity.
Policy C-3.2: Encourage recycling and water-saving features in new development, including use of graywater, recycled, or reclaimed water for irrigation, to limit the water flows to septic systems and leach fields.
Goal S-2: Reduce fire risks to current and future structures.
Policy S-2.4: Work with fire districts or other agencies and property owners to coordinate efforts to prevent wildfires and grassfires including consolidation of fuel buildup abatement efforts, firefighting equipment access, and water service provision.
Amador County Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
The County’s Local Hazards Mitigation Plan is designed to be a comprehensive disaster preparedness program in order to reduce or eliminate long-term risks to people and property for hazards. The plan identifies goals, objectives, and measures for hazard mitigation and risk reduction for disasters such as earthquakes, flooding, dam or levee failure, hazardous material spills, epidemics, fires, extreme weather, major transportation accidents, and terrorism (Amador County 2014).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 179
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
3.13.2 Environmental Setting
Public services and utilities are typically provided by fire districts, public utility districts, school districts, sewer districts, water districts, and other single purpose districts in addition to those provided by the County and any State and Federal agencies.
Fire protection in the proposed Project area is provided through the joint effort of the Jackson Valley Fire Protection District, CAL FIRE, and the USFS. Police protection in the proposed Project area is under the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff’s Office. Additionally, there are no schools in the Project area and public utilities involving water and sewers systems in the proposed Project area are provided primarily by the Agency. Electrical power in the County is provided by the Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E).
Fire Protection
The proposed Project area is within the Jackson Valley Fire Protection District, however state and federal agencies, such as the CAL FIRE also support this fire district in the case of wildfires (Amador County 2016b). The nearest fire station to the Project area is the Ione Fire Station which is located at 22 W Jackson Street, Ione, California 95640 approximately seven miles north of the Project area. Additionally, the nearest CAL FIRE station to the Project area is located at 1855 New Hogan Parkway, Valley Springs, California 95252 approximately ten miles southeast of the proposed Project area.
Police Protection
The proposed Project area falls under the jurisdiction of the County Sheriff’s Office who is responsible for police protection and public safety in the vicinity of the proposed Project area. The nearest location of law enforcement services provided by the County Sheriff’s Office is located at 700 Court Street, Jackson, California 95642 (approximately 12 miles northeast of the Project area) (Amador County 2016b).
Schools
The County is a single district county run by the Amador County Unified School District (ACUSD). There are 13 schools within the County including two high schools, on continuation high school, one independent high school, two junior high schools, six elementary schools, and an opportunity school (Amador County 2016b). The nearest schools to the proposed Project area include Ione Elementary School and Ione Junior High School which are located approximately six miles to the north of the Project area in the City of Ione.
Water
The water supply within the County is largely operated by the Agency which provides treated water to Sutter Creek, Ione, Amador City and the surrounding areas. Additionally, the Agency also operates several groundwater wells serving the Village (Amador County 2016a). The Jackson Valley Irrigation District (JVID) also provides water services to the Project area (Amador County 2016b).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 180
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Wastewater
The Agency also provides the sanitary-sewer conveyance and disposal services for Project area. The Agency currently operates ten separate wastewater treatment facilities within the County, including the Unit 6 WWTP in the proposed Project area (Amador County 2016b).
Solid Waste
Solid waste disposal for the County is provided exclusively by a private company called ACES Waste Services (ACES). All solid waste that is collected by ACES is brought to the Western Amador Recycling Facility (WARF) in Ione, California which has a permitted capacity to accept 333 tons per day of solid waste (CalRecycle 2008). This landfill is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the proposed Project area.
3.13.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?
Police protection?
Schools?
Parks? b) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board. c) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of
existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 181
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES and UTILITIES No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation e) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? f) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s Projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? g) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? h) Comply with Federal, State, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste?
a) Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks?
Finding: No Impact
Fire protection and police services are not related to the proposed Project and there would be no increased demand for fire or police protection from the proposed Project. The construction activities would be temporary and would not affect the existing fire or police protection needs in the region. Additionally, the proposed Project would not impact schools because there are no schools or bus routes near the proposed Project area. As discussed in the environmental setting of this section, the nearest school to the proposed Project area is approximately six miles to the north of the Project area.
Furthermore, the Project area is currently agricultural and development lands and are not recreational areas therefore there would be no impact related to parks from the proposed Project. Project activities do not include residential development, and therefore, would not result in the need for or impacts to other public facilities. Thus, no impact from the proposed Project related to fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, or any other governmental facilities would occur.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 182
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
b) Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Finding: Less than Significant
The Unit 6 WWTP facilities are currently operating under a Central Valley RWQCB CDO No. R5- 2003-0126 partially due to inadequate capacity as well as water quality impacts caused by spills. The proposed Project would involve improvements to this existing WWTP that would both increase the capacity and improve the collection and disposal system pipeline which conveys wastewater from the Unit 6 WWTP to the Gansberg Ranch property. These improvements would not serve the entire Village service area; however, it would meet the requirements to serve the existing and previously approved parcels within the Unit 6 development. Therefore, because the proposed Project would be implemented in order to improve the existing capacity and efficiency of the Unit 6 WWTP in order to meet the current needs and approved uses of the area, this would be considered a less than significant impact. c) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project is designed to accommodate existing and approved wastewater treatment capacity for the Unit 6 development area. Because the inherit nature of this Project would be to improve the capacity and wastewater treatment facilities in this area through expansion and construction activities, these activities are being analyzed as part of this document to determine the environmental effects. All potentially significant environmental effects from Project implementation would be considered less than significant or would be mitigated for as discussed throughout Chapter 3.0 of this document. Therefore, this would be considered a less than significant impact from the proposed Project implementation.
d) Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?
Finding: Less than Significant
The existing WWTP facilities currently do not have sufficient capacity to accommodate wet weather events such as heavy flows during a 100-year storm event. Hence, the existing facilities are operating under a CDO No. R5-2003-0126 and are currently being designed to meet these existing conditions under the proposed Project. Once construction is complete, the proposed Project would be able to accommodate wet weather flows during a 100-year storm event and would have an ADWF capacity of approximately 64,000 gpd. Therefore, the proposed Project would be in compliance with the Regional Board policies regarding WDRs for 100-year storm events and would be designed to accommodate these conditions. Thus, the impact to storm water drainage facilities would be considered less than significant.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 183
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
e) Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the Project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Finding: Less than Significant
Construction of the proposed Project would require some water supply for dust control, clean- up, and other minor construction activities. Additionally, operations of the proposed Project may require some water supplies for periodic cleaning and maintenance of the Unit 6 WWTP and the pipeline, however this would be similar to existing conditions and would not require new sources of water in the Project area. The existing water supplies in the Project area would be sufficient for the Project construction activities and operation. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact to water supplies from Project implementation.
f) Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Finding: No Impact
As discussed under impact “b” above, the Unit 6 WWTP is currently operating under a CDO No. R5-2003-0126 issued by the Central Valley RWQCB due to inadequate storage and disposal capacity. The proposed Project is being designed to improve the capacity of the existing Unit 6 WWTP and the associated facilities to meet the ADFW capacity goal of 64,000 gpd. With these improvements, the Agency would be able to provide adequate wastewater and treatment facilities to the existing and previously approved parcels of the Village service area within the Unit 6 development. Additionally, since the Agency is the lead agency for this Project and would have the authority to determine existing capacity and projected demands, there would be no potential for the proposed Project to exceed this capacity. Therefore, the proposed Project would have no impact.
g) Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Finding: Less than Significant
Construction activities associated with the proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in solid waste, which might include extra pipeline material, concrete, or excess excavated materials. Most of the trash would come from the construction workers who would haul their trash out and clean up the area daily. The WARF is located approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the Project area, and as discussed in the environmental setting above, has a permitted allowance of accepting 333 tons per day of solid waste. Therefore, this landfill currently has the capacity to take the trash and debris associated with the proposed Project and therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 184
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018 h) Would the Project comply with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
Finding: No Impact
The California Integrated Waste Management Act requires every county to adopt an Integrated Waste Management Plan (IWMP) that describes county objectives, policies, and programs relative to waste disposal, management, source reduction, and recycling. The removal of solid waste due to proposed Project activities would comply with all Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Solid waste disposal services/facilities are currently available to accommodate proposed Project related waste in compliance with Federal, State, and local statutes and regulations. Therefore, no impacts would result from Project implementation.
3.13.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
3.14 RECREATION
3.14.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The proposed Project does not propose improvements on or affect access to or use of any federally-owned land. Therefore, there are no Federal regulations that apply to this project pertaining to recreation and recreational facilities.
State
California Government Code Section 65560(b)
California Government Code Section 65560(b) defines “open space land” as any parcel or area of land or water that is unimproved and devoted to an open space use. State law requires that the General Plan Open Space element to include a discussion of outdoor recreation in the count (CLI 2018c).
Local
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Open Space Element of the General Plan are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 185
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Goal OS-1: Ensure provision of park and recreational facilities serving residents and visitors.
Policy OS-1.2: Support efforts by Amador County Recreation Agency (ACRA) to provide a range of recreational facilities and programming to serve all county residents, including facilities and programs geared toward youth and seniors.
Amador County Recreation Agency Master Plan
Park land definitions and design guidelines for each park type are included in the County Recreation Agency Master Plan. Relevant park types to the Project are Local Natural Open Space and Community Parks. There are no goals and policies within the Master Plan that are relevant to the proposed Project.
3.14.2 Environmental Setting
The proposed Project is proposed to pass through the Hunt Club which is a recreation resource which is owned by EBMUD. The preserve provides hunting opportunities and facilities for hunting education and classes. The proposed pipeline would follow an existing improved dirt road through the EBMUD property along the eastern edge of the preserve. Nearby Lake Camanche offers opportunities for water recreation and camping. North of the Hunt Club is a 17-acre park site containing a small pond in the center called Papoose Pond (ACRA 2006). The park site is approximately 0.16 miles from the proposed pipeline.
3.14.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Less than XV. RECREATION Significant with No Significant Significant Mitigation Impact Would the Project: Impact Impact Incorporation a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
a) Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
Finding: No Impact
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 186
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The proposed Project is close to a community park and passes through the Hunt Club. Recreation users surrounding the proposed Project site, such as nearby hikers, hunters, and park users may be temporarily affected by the construction noise from the proposed Project, however use would not increase at either of these facilities nor would users be displaced. Therefore, there would be no impact.
b) Does the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Finding: Less than Significant
The proposed Project passes through the Hunt Club. Since the proposed effluent line will be placed within a previously disturbed and existing roadway on the perimeter of the EBMUD property recreation activities may be limited in this area. Due to the large parcel size of the Hunt Club (over 760 acres), limited access to the eastern perimeter of the preserve will not affect the overall function of the Hunt Club or the recreation opportunities available at the preserve. Also, the road will remain open during construction without access restrictions and operations at the Hunt Club will not be limited as a result of the Project.
3.14.4 Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
3.15 TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC
3.15.1 Regulatory Setting
Federal
No federal plans, policies, regulations, or laws related to transportation/traffic apply to the proposed Project.
State
California Department of Transportation
Caltrans manages interregional transportation, including the management and construction of the California highway system. In addition, the California DOT is responsible for the permitting and regulation of State roadways and requires that permits be obtained for transportation of oversized loads and transportation of certain materials, and for construction-related traffic disturbance (Caltrans 2017).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 187
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Amador County General Plan
The following goals and policies from the Circulation and Mobility Element of the General Plan related to transportation and traffic are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2016a). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed below.
Goal CM-1: Maintain adequate regional and local transportation facilities.
Goal CM-2: Maintain a safe, efficient, and comprehensive traffic circulation system.
Policy CM-2.2: Identify key roads and intersections with historical or projected traffic congestion and/or safety problems and apply creative management measures to improve circulation.
Policy CM-2.3: Work with Caltrans, Amador County Transportation Commission (ACTC), cities and surrounding jurisdictions to improve regional roadways.
Amador County Code
The following ordinances from Title 12: Roads and Other Public Places of the County Code related to transportation and traffic are relevant to the proposed Project (Amador County 2017). Those ordinances that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed below.
12.10.020 Encroachments--Restricted.
It is unlawful for any person to make any excavation or place an encroachment in, under or over any county road or right-of-way whether or not currently improved, except in the manner and mode provided in this chapter.
12.10.030 Exemptions.
The provisions of this chapter shall not apply to work done by the county or by any person performing work for the county pursuant to a contract.
12.10.040 Permit application--Information required.
Any person desiring to excavate, or to cause, allow or place any encroachment in, under or over any place mentioned in Section 12.10.020 shall file a written application with the director of public works. The application shall be in the form prescribed by the director and shall give the following information:
A. Name and address of the applicant, the owner or other person responsible for the proposed encroachment, and the contractor or other person actually making the proposed encroachment;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 188
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
B. Location of the encroachment;
C. Nature of the encroachment;
D. Estimated time to begin and complete the event, work or placement of any encroachment;
E. Site plans showing relation of encroachment to county road;
F. Other information as may be required by the director;
G. Signature of the applicant, property owner, and contractor.
12.10.060 Annual permits for certain public agencies.
Fees for encroachment permits issued to a public agency or public utility having lawful authority to occupy the highways (referred to herein as a "public agency") shall be paid and administered as follows:
A. A public agency may process an encroachment permit for a single project in the same manner as any other person under this chapter.
B. A public agency at its option may elect to apply for a blanket encroachment permit to cover all activities for which an encroachment permit from the county is required. Any such blanket permit will be valid upon issuance and remain valid for the remainder of the calendar year of issuance and will be administered as follows:
1. The public agency will notify the county department of transportation and public works when it intends to undertake work in the county right-of-way, or has undertaken emergency work in the county right-of-way, in accordance with notice requirements established by the department.
2. To insure itself against liability and costs of inspection related to each public agency project, the county will charge a fee based upon the current weighted hourly charge out rate of personnel directly involved in the inspection plus allowable overhead; the weighted hourly rate and overhead are based on requirements by the State of California Accounting Standards and Procedures for Counties, Appendix A-- Road Fund Accounting.
3. The county may request that the public agency deposit funds at the beginning of each permit year to cover the cost of inspection services, in an amount to be determined by the county department of transportation and public works. Unused funds at the end of the permit year will be refunded to the public agency or applied against the deposit for the next permit year, at the option of the public agency.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 189
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
4. The blanket permit contemplated by this subsection B shall apply to planned maintenance and repairs as well as unplanned work of an urgent nature. The blanket permit shall not apply to large projects undertaken by a public agency, which will be the subject of a separate encroachment permit or permits from the county under subsection A of this section.
5. The county may require a public agency to provide a bond in accordance with the provisions of Section 1468 of the California Street and Highways Code.
6. The county department of transportation and public works shall adopt procedures to implement this subsection.
Amador County Regional Transportation Plan
The following goals and policies from ACTC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) related to transportation and traffic are relevant to the proposed Project (ACTC 2015). Those goals and policies that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed below.
Goal 1A: Implement improvements to all modes of transportation that are needed to reduce congestion and improve mobility, optimize connectivity, enhance safety, preserve existing infrastructure, communities and the environment, and support socio-economic development throughout the Region.
Goal 2A: Maintain Level of Service (LOS) conditions "D", or better, within incorporated cities and developed communities and LOS "C", or better, for the remainder of the Region to the greatest extent feasible. (LOS for roadway segments is calculated under average daily conditions, whereas LOS for intersections is calculated under peak-hour conditions.)
Policy 2E: ACTC recommends that the cities and county maintain Level of Service (LOS) conditions "D", or better, within incorporated cities and other developed communities and LOS "C", or better, for the remainder of the Region as their "Threshold of Significance" for traffic impact analysis required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (LOS for roadway segments is calculated under average daily conditions, whereas LOS for intersections is calculated under peak-hour conditions.)
Policy 2J: The ACTC will use its mitigation mapping and monitoring program in order to help ensure that any adopted traffic impact mitigation measures required by CEQA are coordinated with the RTP and are implemented in a timely fashion.
Goal 3A: Assist the cities and county with improving the safety, operations, and surface conditions of their local streets and roads.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 190
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan
The following goals and objectives from ACTC Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan related to transportation and traffic are relevant to the proposed Project (ACTC 2017). Those goals and objectives that directly pertain to the proposed Project are discussed below.
Goal 1. Promote an efficient network of bikeways and pedestrian facilities throughout Amador County.
Objective 1E. Support local agency compliance with provisions related to public access of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, and other relevant guidance documents.
Goal 2: Improve bicyclist and pedestrian safety and security.
Objective 2F. Reduce the number, rate, and severity of bicycle and pedestrian involved collisions in Amador County.
3.15.2 Environmental Setting
Roadways
The proposed Project is located in the County off of Quiver Drive, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, Papeo Street, and Village Drive. The closest major roadways in the region are State Route 88, Camanche Parkway North, Camanche Road, and Jackson Valley Road. According to the General Plan, roadway classifications include arterials, major and minor collectors, and local roads (Amador County 2016a).
The main roads on which the proposed Project construction equipment and truck trips would occur are Camanche Road, Camanche Parkway North, Jackson Valley Road, Curran Road, Quiver Drive, Grapevine Gulch Road, and Village Drive, though access routes would vary depending on the origin of the worker or truck and the type of activity that day. Camanche Road and Curran Road are designated in the General Plan as “collector” roads, while the remaining roads are all designated as “local roads”. LOS is a qualitative measure of roadway operating conditions, ranging from LOS A, denoting best, or relatively congestion-free, conditions, to LOS F, or heavily congested conditions. Although the General Plan does not have specific LOS standards for several of these individual roads, the County’s LOS standard is LOS C for roads in rural areas. Annual average daily traffic (AADT), LOS, and Rural or Urban designation for individual roadways is provided in Table 3.15-1 below (Amador County 2016b).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 191
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Table 3.15-1 Estimated Level of Service for Roadways, Baseline 2013 Conditions
Rural, Roadway Name Location AADT LOS Urban North of Camanche Road Camanche 808 A Rural Parkway South of Jackson Camanche Road 1,658 A Rural Valley Road Jackson Valley Road South of State 640 A Rural (west) Route 88
Construction activity within existing streets would occur primarily in rural residential areas, including the following roadways: Quiver Drive, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, Papeo Street, and Village Drive, and an unnamed dirt road within and along the edge of the EBMUD property boundary. The proposed force main alignment would follow Quiver Drive to Curran Road and then follow an existing improved dirt road through the Hunt Club property to its northern boundary. From the northern boundary of the Hunt Club property, the alignment will remain within existing easements along the intersection of Grapevine Gulch Road and Papeo Street, and along Papeo Street and Village Drive through the residential areas of Village Units 1 and 2 to the Gansberg Ranch property boundary. Land uses along these roadways include residential areas, recreation, and agriculture. Roadways vary in width, each providing a full two lanes, with the exception of the unnamed dirt road. The total roadway proposed to be temporarily impacted is approximately 3.5 miles. Access to the existing WWTP, installation of the force main, and access to the new proposed effluent reservoir and irrigation distribution system will include the use of all of these roadways.
Construction of the proposed Project will have temporary effects on segments of the public roadway network by temporarily increasing traffic volumes on roads that provide access to the construction work areas and reducing the available width of some public roadways during periods of the day when force main installation would occur. Construction activities would normally occur on weekdays, excluding holidays, between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. for a period of approximately 18 months.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
The proposed Project area does not contain any walking trails or established bicycle routes identified by the ACTC in the Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan (ACTC 2017). Though surveys conducted by the ACTC found that bicyclists utilized Village roads, Curran Road, and Jackson Valley Road, there are currently no plans for creating bicycle facilities in the area.
Air Traffic
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has specific rules and regulations that govern airports and require an air space permit for equipment within a certain distance of an airport over a certain height. The proposed Project area is not located within an airport land use plan, nor
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 192
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
within two miles of a public airport. The nearest public airport to the proposed Project site is the Westover Field Amador County Airport, located approximately 12 miles northeast of the proposed Project area in Jackson, CA. The airport currently averages about 34 flights per day and 130 small general aircraft are based at the airport (Amador County 2016a, FAA 2018).
The County’s primary private airstrip is the Eagle’s Nest Airport, located approximately 9 miles north of the northernmost extent of the Project. The airport has 23 aircraft based on the field and currently averages about three flights per day, although the use permit allows an average of 13 flights per day (Amador County 2016, FAA 2018).
The proposed Project is located within the vicinity of two additional private airstrips. Howard Airport is located approximately one mile east of the existing WWTP site on Camanche Parkway North and one single-engine aircraft based on the field. Camanche Skypark is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the existing WWTP site on Coal Mine Road and two single- engine aircrafts based on the field (Amador County 2016a, FAA 2018).
Transit and Rail Services
Amador Transit, managed by the ACTC, is the sole public transit in the County (Amador County 2016a). The proposed Project area is not within any of Amador Transit’s routes as shown on their system map (Amador Transit 2018).
The rail services near the proposed Project area includes a freight rail line between the Central Valley and Ione, located approximately 3.75 miles north of the northernmost extent of the proposed Project area. There are no passenger rail services within the County (Amador County 2016a). 3.15.3 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XVI. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 193
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XVI. TRANSPORTATION and TRAFFIC No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that result in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
a) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Construction
Construction of the proposed Project would result in a temporary increase in truck trips on the local streets in order to deliver materials and construction equipment to the existing WWTP site and the proposed force main, effluent reservoir, and irrigation distribution system. Therefore, traffic will be temporarily impacted due to construction activities associated with the proposed Project. Increased traffic to the site is expected to occur over a period of approximately 18 months during peak hours (approximately 7:00 am to 6:00 pm), but once construction is complete, it will return to current levels. Local roads are generally narrow, and access may be temporarily restricted during construction times as trucks are using the roads. Standard traffic control measures will be implemented by the contractor to maintain safe flow of traffic in the area.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 194
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The installation of the proposed force main will require a County encroachment permit, as installation takes place in public roadways (Amador County 2016a). Installation will primarily consist of open cut trenching. Trench widths will vary depending on soil conditions and pipe diameter. Generally, open cut trenches will be approximately two feet wide and approximately five feet deep. Repairing roadways and asphalt trench restoration will be per the County's requirements. Installation of the proposed force main may temporarily affect the local roadways along Quiver Drive, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, and Village Drive. Trenching activities will also affect an unnamed dirt road along the EBMUD property boundary.
Construction within the paved roadways may require a lane closure, full road closure during off- peak hours, slowing of traffic, and/or rerouting of traffic where necessary. One-lane road closures would not create a significant impact to traffic resources as traffic control would be implemented to minimize impacts. Additionally, one-lane closures would not normally take place during non-working hours, including nighttime hours, weekends, and holidays. However, if any force main installation requires a full roadway closure, the traffic using these roadways would be required to detour to other roadways that would increase traffic on other local rural roadways. The proposed Project would not have significant impacts on pedestrian or bicycle facilities and would not impact mass transit.
With the implementation of MM TRANS-1 and TRANS-2, construction impacts related to the proposed Project along public roadways to transportation resources would not conflict with a local plan or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system and thus would be considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation
Following the completion of the proposed Project, the number of Agency employees would not significantly exceed the current number at the existing WWTP. Operation of the proposed Project would slightly increase vehicle trips by employees entering and leaving the site during scheduled and emergency maintenance visits as necessary for the proposed effluent reservoir and irrigation distribution system but would have a less than significant impact on traffic levels and would not conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy.
b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the County congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Construction
The proposed Project would cause short-term increases in traffic on local roads and nearby connecting roadways and arterials during the construction phase, including but not limited to Quiver Drive, Curran Road, Grapevine Gulch Road, Village Drive, Camanche Road, and Jackson Valley Road.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 195
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Impacts from traffic operations would mainly consist of construction workers temporarily traveling to and from the Project area as well as construction deliveries. An estimated average of 33 construction workers would drive to/from the proposed Project area on a daily basis for approximately 18 months. During the busiest days, the proposed Project is expected to generate approximately 22 daily trips on the surrounding transportation network. These construction trips would not necessarily occur at the same time, nor during the peak period for general traffic.
The minimal temporary increase in traffic due to proposed Project construction activities would not be expected to decrease the LOS, change travel demands, or create any long-term congestion. Implementation of MM TRANS-1 would limit temporary congestion and ensure continual controlled traffic flow. Therefore, the potential impact to congestion would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation
Operation of the proposed Project would slightly increase vehicle trips by employees entering and leaving the site during scheduled and emergency maintenance visits as necessary for the proposed effluent reservoir and irrigation distribution system but would not impact traffic congestion and would not change LOS standards for designated roads or highways.
c) Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that result in substantial safety risks?
Finding: No Impact
The FAA has specific rules and regulations that govern airports and require an air space permit for equipment within a certain distance of an airport over a certain height. The proposed Project area is not located within an airport land use plan, nor within two miles of a public airport. The nearest airports to the Project area are two small private airstrips: the Howard Airport, approximately one mile east of the existing WWTP site, and Camanche Skypark, approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the existing WWTP site (Amador County 2016a, FAA 2018). The nearest public airport to the proposed Project area is the Westover Field Amador County Airport, located approximately 12 miles northeast of the proposed Project.
Construction
Construction traffic is not expected to impact the primary roads used to access nearby existing airports, Coal Mine Road, and the eastern section of Camanche Parkway North. The proposed Project would not require a change in airport operations or air traffic of either private or public airports. Project construction would not require a FAA permit and would not be in violations of rules governing the Howard Airport, Camanche Skypark, or Westover Field County Airport airspace. Therefore, flight patterns in the Project vicinity would not be affected and no impacts would occur.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 196
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Operation
Operational changes in traffic levels are not expected on roads used to access nearby existing airports, and operation of the proposed Project will not change air traffic patterns that would result in a substantial safety risk. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Would the Project substantially increase hazards to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Construction
Roadways in and surrounding the proposed Project areas are generally straight with good sight distance, so visibility and access is acceptable. The maneuvering of slow-moving construction trucks and equipment among the general-purpose traffic could temporarily disrupt traffic flow and cause potential conflicts with other vehicles. Project construction would require the transportation of heavy machinery and light trucks on the roads described above. The truck trips would be temporary and the frequency minimal and site-specific. Additionally, open trenches would pose potential hazards for drivers. However, implementation of MM TRANS-1 would reduce driver risk within the Project area. Therefore, impacts from increased hazards or incompatible roadway uses are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Operation
The proposed Project does not include any new design features on existing roadways, and therefore, would not result in any associated hazards. MM TRANS-2 would be implemented to restore roadway conditions when the proposed Project is complete, and traffic levels would also return to pre-Project conditions. Therefore, impacts from increased hazards or incompatible roadway uses are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
e) Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access?
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Construction
The proposed Project is not expected to interfere with emergency access. Implementation of MM TRANS-1 will ensure adequate emergency access and interference with normal traffic flows to be minimal. In the event that construction activities prevent local residents’ access, detour routes would be identified. Additionally, MM TRANS-1 would be implemented to notify emergency service providers of the timing, location, and duration of construction activities. This measure allows emergency service providers to proactively route vehicles away from the construction as necessary. Therefore, impact to emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 197
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Operation
MM TRANS-2 would be implemented to restore roadway conditions when the proposed Project is complete, and traffic levels would also return to pre-Project conditions. Therefore, impact to emergency access would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. f) Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Finding: No Impact
Construction
The proposed Project is not along an existing or planned bus route and does not contain any bicycle or pedestrian facilities. Since there are no existing alternative transportation facilities or plans in place during construction, no impact would occur.
Operation
The proposed Project does not include development that would interfere with existing or future alternative transportation infrastructure such as bike racks or bus turnouts. The proposed Project would not add residences or other land uses that would generate a need for alternative transportation, and therefore would not impact currently existing alternative transportation plans or programs.
3.15.4 Mitigation Measures
MM TRANS-1: Traffic Management Plan, Public Notification, and Emergency Access
Prior to construction, the Agency’s contractor shall develop, submit, receive approval from the County, and comply with a traffic control plan. Elements of the plan will likely include, but are not necessarily limited to the following measures:
• Minimum Interference with Traffic: All work or use shall be planned and executed in a manner that will cause least reasonable interference with the safe and convenient travel of the general public at the place where the work or use is authorized; and at no time shall a public highway be closed during peak hours, or the use thereof denied the general public, without the written permission of the road commissioner. Limit lane closures to the greatest extent possible. Lanes would be made accessible by covering trenches with steel plates outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress. To the maximum extent feasible, maintain access to private driveways located within construction zones.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 198
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
• Warning Signs, Lights, and Safety: Provide, erect and/or maintain such lights, barriers, warning signs, patrols, watchmen and other safeguards as are necessary to protect the traveling public. Install traffic control devices as specified in Caltrans’ Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones where needed to maintain safe driving conditions.
• Clean Up Right-of-Way: During construction, the paved roadway surfaces shall be kept free of dirt or gravel as much as practical. Any potential hazard, such as mud or gravel will be removed immediately. Upon completion of the work, all materials shall be removed, and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before the work started.
Restoration and Repair: Upon completion of the work, guidelines for the repair or restoration of the right-of-way will be followed as provided by the County Code, or as directed by the road commissioner.
MM TRANS-1 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency’s contractor shall prepare the traffic control plan. The Agency’s contractor shall be responsible for restoring the road to pre-construction conditions. This mitigation measure will be referenced in the proposed Project specifications bid for the proposed Project.
Timing: Prior to and during all phases of construction.
Monitoring and Reporting: The Agency shall monitor all road closures.
Standard of Success: Safe, efficient travel in the Project vicinity with minimal traffic delays, emergency access, and minimal to no public complaints.
MM TRANS-2: Restore Road to Pre-Existing Conditions
Roads that are damaged by construction will be restored to pre-construction conditions by the Agency’s contractor. This may include repaving, graveling and/or grading disturbed areas. The Agency’s contractor shall document road conditions pre-construction to provide a basis for restoration.
MM TRANS-2 Implementation:
Responsible Party: The Agency’s contractor shall document road conditions pre-construction to provide a basis for restoration. This mitigation measure will be referenced in the specifications bid for the proposed Project.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 199
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Timing: The Agency’s contractor shall document road conditions pre-construction to provide a basis for restoration. Post-construction, the Agency’s contractor will restore roads to existing conditions.
Monitoring and Reporting Program: The Agency shall monitor implementation of the mitigation measure before and after construction is complete.
Standards for Success: Restoration of roads to pre-construction conditions.
3.16 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
3.16.1 Impact Analysis
Less Than Potentially Significant Less than XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE No Significant with Significant Impact Would the Project: Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)? c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Biological and Cultural Impacts (a)
a) Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 200
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Finding: Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation
Biological Resources
As disclosed in Section 3.4 of this document, biological resources that may occur in the proposed Project area that may be affected by the proposed Project include a known population of hoary navarretia as well as other special status plant species that have a moderate to high potential of occurring in the proposed Project area, specifically those species with bloom periods outside the time of the field survey. Hoary navarretia was observed in the proposed Project area during the biological surveys conducted in May 2017. Observations included one small population within a non-inundated drainage in the eastern portion of the proposed reclamation area. With the implementation of MM BIO-1, MM BIO-2, and MM BIO-8, the proposed Project is not expected to significantly impact any local, State, or Federal listed rare and endangered plant species (See Section 3.4.3 and Table 3.4-1).
The proposed Project has the potential to affect the VELB and the CTS and/or their habitats. However, mitigation shall be implemented, and the proposed Project has been designed so that it will not reduce wildlife habitat or species, cause a fish or wildlife species population to drop below self-sustaining levels, or threaten to eliminate a rare or endangered plant or animal. Nor would the proposed Project substantially reduce fish habitat or wildlife species density. Construction impacts would be limited in size, temporary, and minimized by implementing erosion control BMPs and a SWPPP. For example, sediment control measures would be taken to minimize impacts to surrounding waterways and drainages. With the implementation of MM BIO- 1, MM BIO-3, BIO-4, BIO-5, and BIO-6, the proposed Project is not expected to significantly impact any local, State, or Federal listed rare and endangered wildlife species (See Section 3.4.3 and Table 3.4-1).
Cultural Resources
Tribes in the area were contacted by letter, telephone, and/or e-mail to request information about the Project area and were mailed outreach letters on December 14, 2017. The UAIC responded via email on January 18, 2018, and requested the Project records search results, accompaniment on a pedestrian survey, GIS shapefiles for the Project’s Area of Potential Effects (APE), and that a UAIC tribal monitor be present during construction for the Project. The Agency initially responded to UAIC on March 19, 2018 and correspondence is ongoing. As of April 2, 2018, no additional responses have been received by tribes or individuals contacted as a result of AB 52 outreach.
As disclosed in Section 3.5 of this document, the records search and survey did not identify historical resources within the Project area and the proposed Project would not change the significance of a historical resource as identified in Section 15064.5. In addition, there is no indication that the Project area has been used for burial purposes in the recent or distant past. However, given that portions of the Project area are within an area identified by Amador County as having high archaeological sensitivity, there is a potential for inadvertent discovery of
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 201
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
archaeological resources and/or human remains. In order to educate construction staff of human remains and burial site features, as well as archaeological resources, and to provide a procedure for stopping work and contacting the coroner that would reduce any potential for impact to a less than significant level, MM CUL-1, MM CUL-2, and MM CUL-3 will be implemented.
AB 52 Tribal consultations identified potential Tribal cultural resources and consultation was requested. There is the potential for past Tribal use within the Project area and nearby areas, indicating there is the potential for construction activities associated with the Project to unearth potentially significant Tribal cultural resources. In order to prevent the construction activities from causing a substantial adverse change to any undiscovered resources, MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-2 would be implemented.
As disclosed in Section 3.5 of this document, the paleontological potential of the Project area is high. Both the Mehrten and Valley Springs formations are sedimentary units with fossil plant localities in and around the County. Vertebrate fossils are also commonly found in the Mehrten Formation. According to the SVP (2010) guidelines, both rock units have high potential to yield significant paleontological resources. Given the high paleontological potential of rock units in the Project area, there is the potential for ground disturbing Project construction activities to unearth potentially significant paleontological resources. To reduce the potential for construction activities to cause a substantial adverse change to any undiscovered resources, MM CUL-1 and MM CUL-4 would be implemented. MM CUL-5 will be implemented in areas of ground disturbance greater than 0.5-meters deep where excavation will occur into ground that has not been previously disturbed.
Therefore, with the implementation of above mitigation, the proposed Project would not eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory and impacts are considered less than significant.
Cumulative Impacts (b)
b) Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? (“Cumulative considerable” means that the incremental effects of a Project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past Projects, the effects of other current Projects, and the effects of probable future Projects)?
Finding: Less than Significant
Although the proposed Project has the potential to impact the environment, those potential impacts, in addition to being fully mitigated, are primarily related to construction and are therefore, temporary. There are no long-term operational impacts from the proposed Project, and therefore no cumulatively considerable impacts when viewed in connection with the effects of past, current, or probable future projects. The impact from construction-related activities is less than significant with the incorporation of mitigation measures discussed above.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 202
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
The Agency was/is also involved in the following projects within the proposed Project vicinity (Amador Water Agency 2018):
• Camanche Tank #9 and Intertie Project (Capital Improvements, New Construction) (2018)
• Tanner Hydro (Capital Improvements, Infrastructure) (2016)
• Plymouth Roundabout Project (Rehabilitation) (2018)
• Pioneer Water Rehabilitation Project (Rehabilitation) (2017)
• Buckhorn Water Treatment Plant (Capital Improvements, Infrastructure) (2014)
• Sutter Creek Meter Replacement (2014)
• Camanche Area Regional Water Supply Project Phase II (CARWSP II) (2028)
No current or future projects are expected to occur in the immediate proposed Project area at the same time as the proposed Project. Any current or future projects in the surrounding area of the proposed Project, such as the CARWSP II, could add to traffic, air, and noise impacts; however, given the limited area and the timing of these projects, the cumulative nature of these impacts would be considered less than significant. In addition, any projects in the area would require noise and air quality mitigation that would facilitate a further reduction in potential cumulative impacts. Similarly, water quality impacts from the proposed Project and any projects occurring in the Project area would be considered cumulatively less than significant. This is because any current or future projects would employ erosion control BMPs and implement SWPPPS. Therefore, the proposed Project would not contribute to significant cumulative indirect growth impacts in the region and the proposed Project would not accommodate growth.
Effects on Human Beings (c)
c) Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Finding: Less than Significant
As discussed in the various sections throughout this IS/MND, the proposed Project construction and operation would not include uses, such as increased demand for utilities, increased recreational facilities, or increases in transportation which would result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. All potential impacts are considered either less than significant with mitigation, less than significant, or resulting in no impact. Mitigation measures and BMPs described in the sections above would be incorporated by RWQCB and would ensure all potential effects on human beings are less than significant. Additionally, the purpose of the proposed Project is to improve and increase the capacity of the current WWTP facilities for the
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 203
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Environmental Impacts Assessment September 20, 2018
Unit 6 resident of Camanche Village, including improving impacts to water quality. As such, the proposed Project would not cause any adverse effects to the environment. Therefore, the proposed Project would not have environmental effects with substantial adverse direct or indirect effects on human beings.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 204
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
List of Preparers September 20, 2018
LIST OF PREPARERS
As required by the CEQA Guidelines, this chapter identifies the preparers of this IS/MND.
4.1 DOCUMENT PREPARATION
Table 4.1-1 IS/MND Preparers and Reviewers
CEQA Section Author Technical Review / QA/QC Dave Price Introduction Emily C. Eppinger Earl Nelson John Moynier Emily C. Eppinger Project Description Dave Price Dave Price Emily C. Eppinger Aesthetics Zory Pope Earl Nelson
Agricultural and Forestry Emily Eppinger Meghan Oats Resources Earl Nelson
Air Quality and Greenhous Gas Kate Gray Elena Nuno Emissions Earl Nelson Meghan Oats Morgan Kennedy, Emily C. Eppinger Biological Resources Elan Carnahan Earl Nelson Ashley Hallock Meagan Kersten Cultural and Tribal Resources Lisa Bohach Garret Root Emily C. Eppinger Geology and Soils Zory Pope Earl Nelson
Hazardous and Hazardous Emily C. Eppinger Meghan Oats Materials Earl Nelson Kate Gray Hydrology and Water Quality Meghan Oats Earl Nelson Zory Pope Kim Clyma, Emily C. Eppinger Land Use and Planning Lisa McCandless Earl Nelson Emily C. Eppinger Mineral Resources Meghan Oats Earl Nelson Emily C. Eppinger Noise Elan Carnahan Earl Nelson Emily C. Eppinger Population and Housing Zory Pope Earl Nelson Emily Eppinger Public Services and Utilities Zory Pope Earl Nelson
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 205
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
List of Preparers September 20, 2018
CEQA Section Author Technical Review / QA/QC Emily C. Eppinger Recreation Lisa McCandless Earl Nelson Emily C. Eppinger Transportation and Traffic Elan Carnahan Earl Nelson Mandatory Findings of Emily C. Eppinger Earl Nelson Significance Acronym List/Distribution List Emily C. Eppinger Earl Nelson Literature Cited Emily C. Eppinger Earl Nelson Document PM and QA/QC Emily C. Eppinger Earl Nelson Formatting Emily C. Eppinger Ann Tolman Cover Graphic Arts Mike Maddux Emily C. Eppinger CD Labels Figures Lisa McCandless Emily C. Eppinger
4.2 PREPARER QUALIFICATIONS
The following includes the title and qualifications of each preparer and/or reviewer:
Table 4.2-1 Preparer’s Qualifications
Name Expertise and Education Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Dave Price, P.E. Project Manager Emily C. Eppinger Wildlife Biologist, CEQA Project Manager BS Wildlife Management Kimberly Clyma, JD Senior Environmental Scientist CEQA Project Manager JD, Law with a focus on Environmental Law; BA, Environmental Studies; Certificate in Geographic Information Systems Earl Nelson Senior Environmental Scientist Master’s degree in Planning and Development Studies with emphasis in Environmental Science; extensive experience in Environmental Impact Analyses, Floodplain Management and Restoration, Computer Assisted Cartography (GIS); Conservation and Analysis of Ecosystems; Regulatory Permitting; and Land Use and Zoning Regulations. Kate Gray Environmental Scientist MS, Environmental Science and Policy; BS, Environmental Studies with focus on Sustainable Development
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 206
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
List of Preparers September 20, 2018
Name Expertise and Education Elena Nuno Senior Air Quality Scientist MA Public Administration; BS Geological and Environmental Science Lisa McCandless Environmental Planner/GIS Analyst BA, Human Geography and Planning Certificate in Geographic Information Systems Garret Root Architectural Historian MA, Public History; BA, History Lisa Bohach Paleontological Resource Manager Senior Paleontologist PhD, Paleontology; BS, Geology/Zoology; Registered Professional Geologist Meagan Kersten Archaeologist MA, Anthropology; BA, Anthropology Ashley Hallock Archaeologist MA, Anthropology; BA, Anthropology Meghan Oats Biologist/Staff Scientist BS, Biology and Environmental Science Elan Carnahan Biologist BS, Environmental Science and Policy with a Minor in Biology Zory Pope Environmental Planner BS, Environmental Protection and Management Ann Tolman Project Manager Assistant AA, Administration of Justice
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 207
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
REFERENCES
ACRA. 2006. Amador County Recreation Agency Master Plan. https://goacra.org/master-plan. Accessed February 2, 2018.
ACTC. 2015. Amador County Transportation Commission. 2015 ACTC Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) Update. http://actc-amador.org/plans/. Accessed January 2018.
ACTC. 2017. Amador County Transportation Commission. 2017 Amador Countywide Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan. http://actc-amador.org/plans/. Accessed January 2018.
Ahearn, Dylan S., Richard W. Sheibley and Randy A. Dahlgren. 2005. Effects of River Regulation on Water Quality on the Lower Mokelumne River, California. River Research and Applications 21: 651-670. https://watershed.ucdavis.edu/pdf/crg/reports/pubs/ahearn_et_al2005a.pdf. Accessed September 2017.
Amador Air District. 2018. List of Current Rules. https://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/ama/cur.htm. Accessed February 2018.
Amador County 2014. Amador County Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. http://www.amadorgov.org/home/showdocument?id=23277. Accessed February 2018.
Amador County. 2016a. Amador County General Plan. http://www.amadorgov.org/departments/planning/general-plan-update-draft- environmental-impact-report-and-draft-general-plan. Accessed January 2018.
Amador County. 2016b. Amador County General Plan Environmental Impact Report. http://www.amadorgov.org/departments/planning/general-plan-update-draft- environmental-impact-report-and-draft-general-plan. Accessed January 2018.
Amador County. 2017. Amador County Code. Code Publishing Company. Seattle, Washington. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AmadorCounty/. Accessed January 2018.
Amador County. 2018a. Amador County GIS Viewer. http://www.amadorgov.org/departments/information-technology/gis/gis-viewer-and- parcel-search. Accessed February 2018.
Amador County. 2018b. Title 19 Zoning. Amador County Code. http://www.codepublishing.com/CA/AmadorCounty/#!/AmadorCounty19/AmadorCounty1 9.html. Accessed January 2018.
Amador Transit. 2018. Amador Transit System Map. http://amadortransit.com/. Accessed January 2018.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 208
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
Amador Water Agency. 2016. Amador Water Agency 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. https://amadorwater.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/AWA-2015-UWMP-Final.pdf. Accessed February 2018.
Amador Water Agency. 2018. Amador Water Agency Projects. https://amadorwater.org/project. Accessed April 2018.
Anderson, Scott Thomas. 2017. The Mother Lode is Cattle Country: The Way of the Rancher. Sierra Lodester. Electronic document, http://www.calaverasenterprise.com/sierra_lodestar/article_5ab44fd4-4724-11e7-b9c7- 572935fbed1a.html, accessed on November 15, 2017.
Animal Diversity Web (ADW). 2014. Western Pond Turtle, Pacific Pond Turtle (Emys marmorata). Regents of the University of Michigan. http://animaldiversity.org/accounts/Emys_marmorata/. Accessed March 2018.
Axelrod, D.J. 1980. Contributions to the Neogene paleobotany of central California. University of California Publications in Geological Sciences 121:1-212.
Bartow, J.A. 1992. Contact relations of the Ione and Valley Springs Formation in the east-central Great Valley, California. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey. Open-File Report 92-588:1-13.
Biewer, J., J. Sankey, H. Hutchison, and D. Garber. 2016. A fossil giant tortoise from the Mehrten Formation of Northern California. PaleoBios 33:1-13.
CAL FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Zones in SRA. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection. http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/amador/fhszs_map.3.pdf. Accessed February 2018.
Calflora. 2018. Information on California Plant for Education, Research and Conservation. [web application]. The Calflora Database. Berkeley, California. http://www.calfora.org. Accessed January 2018.
California Building Standards Commission. 2017. California Building Standards Code (eff. January 1, 2017). http://www.bsc.ca.gov/Codes.aspx. Accessed February 2018.
California Geological Survey. 2015. California Non-Fuel Minerals 2015. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/minerals/min_prod/Documents/FINAL_NON- FUEL_2015_7-26-17.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
CaliforniaHerps. 2018. A Guide to Amphibians and Reptiles in California. CaliforniaHerps.com. California. http://www.californiaherps.com/index.html. Accessed January 2018.
California Government Code (California GC). 2016. https://law.onecle.com/california/government/51104.html
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 209
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
California Public Resources Code (California PRC). 2018a. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public- resources-code/prc-sect-12220.html
California Public Resources Code (California PRC). 2018b. https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/public- resources-code/prc-sect-4526.html
California Regional Conservation Plans. 2017. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=68626&inlineCal OES. 2015. Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. http://www.caloes.ca.gov/LegalAffairsSite/Documents/Cal%20OES%20Yellow%20Book.pdf/. Accessed February 2018.
Cal/OSHA. 2017. California Occupational Safety and Health. https://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/index/T8index.asp. Accessed February 2018.
Cal/OSHA. 2018. California Occupational Safety and Health. http://www.dir.ca.gov/dosh/. Accessed January 2018.
CalRecycle. 2008. Facility/Site Summary Details; Western Amador Recycling Facility (WARF) (03- AA-0008). http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/03-AA-0008/. Accessed February 2018.
Caltrans. 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. California Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/. Accessed January 2018.
Caltrans. 2013a. Technical Noise Supplement to the Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. California Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TeNS_Sept_2013B.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
Caltrans. 2013b. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/env/noise/pub/TCVGM_Sep13_FINAL.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
Caltrans. 2017. California Department of Transportation. Encroachment Permits. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/developserv/permits/. Accessed January 31, 2018.
CARB. 2017. Area Designations Maps / State and National. California Air Resources Board. https://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed February 2018.
Casteel, R.W. and J.H. Hutchison. 1973. Orthodon (Actinopterygii, Cyprinidae) from the Pliocene and Pleistocene of California. Copeia 1973(3):358-361.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 210
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
CDFW. 2017a. California Endangered Species Act (CESA). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2017b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA/Purpose. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2017c. Species of Special Concern (SSC). California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California.
CDFW. 2017d. Threatened and Endangered Species. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2017e. Fully Protected Animals. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/wildlife/nongame/t_e_spp/fully_pro.html. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2017f. Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2017g. California Wildlife Habitat Relationships (CWHR) System: Life History and Range. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2017h. Conservation and Management of Wildlife and Habitat: Swainson’s Hawks. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/Birds/Swainson-Hawks. Accessed January 2018.
CDFW. 2018. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Occurrence Map for Three-Mile Buffer Surrounding Proposed Project Area. RareFind Version 3 Search. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/rarefind.asp. Accessed January 2018.
City of Ione. 2017a. Historic Ione. Electronic document, http://www.ione-ca.com/about- ione/historic-ione, accessed November 17, 2017.
City of Ione. 2017b. The Historic Ione Train Depot. Electronic document, http://www.ione- ca.com/things-to-do/train-depot, accessed November 17, 2017.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 211
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
CLI. 2017. California Legislative Information. Assembly Bill 939. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB939. Accessed February 2018.
CLI. 2018a. California Law: California Fish and Game Code (CDFG)- Birds. Official California Legislative Information. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=FG C&division=4.&title=&part=2.&chapter=&article=. Accessed January 2018.
CLI. 2018b. California Law: California Fish and Game Code (CDFG) Native Plant Protection. Official California Legislative Information. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=FGC&division=2.& title=&part=&chapter=10.&article=. Accessed January 2018.CLI. 2018c. California Law: California Fish and Game Code (CDFG)- Oak Woodlands Conservation Act [1360-1372). Official California Legislative Information.
CLI 2018c. California Law: Government Code, Title 7. Planning and Land Use, Planning and Zoning, Chapter 3 Local Planning. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=GOV§ion Num=65560. Accessed March 2018.
CNPS. 1998. Policy on Mitigation Guidelines Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants. California Native Plant Society. California.
CNPS. 2018a. The California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) System. California Native Plant Society. California.
CNPS. 2018b. Inventory of rare and endangered plants for Carbondale, Irish Hill, Amador City, Goose Creek, Ione, Jackson, Clements, Wallace, and Valley Springs USGS 7.5-minute Quads. California Native Plant Society. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/result.html?adv=t&quad=3812141:3812048:3812047:3812131: 3812038:3812037:3812121:3812028:3812027. Accessed January 2018.
CNPS. 2018c. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. California Native Plant Society. http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/index.html. Accessed January 2018.
CNRA. 2016. California Natural Resources Agency. CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act. California Natural Resources Agency.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 212
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
DOC. 2000. A General Location Guide for Ultramafic Rocks in California – Areas More Likely to Contain Naturally Occurring Asbestos. California Department of Conservation. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ofr/ofr_2000-019.pdf. Accessed February 2018.
DOC. 2010. California Department of Conservation. Geologic Map of California. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/gmc/. Accessed January 29, 2018.
DOC. 2011. Reported Historic Asbestos Mines, Historic Asbestos Prospects, and Other Natural Occurrences of Asbestos in California. California Geologic Survey. ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/ms/59/MS59_Plate.pdf. Accessed February 2018.
DOC. 2014. California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. California Department of Conservation. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/Pages/Amador.aspx. Accessed February 2018.
DOC. 2015. California Department of Conservation. Regulatory Maps. http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorym aps. Accessed January 29, 2018.
DOC. 2017a. California Department of Conservation. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/lca. Accessed February 2018.
DOC. 2017b. California Department of Conservation. California Geologic Survey – PRC Division 2, Chapter 7.5. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/codes/prc/Pages/chap-7-5.aspx. Accessed January 2018.
DOC. 2017c. California Department of Conservation. California Geologic Survey – Seismic Hazards Zonation Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/shzp/Pages/shmpact.aspx. Accessed January 2018.
DTSC. 2018a. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/Index.cfm. Accessed February 2018.
DTSC. 2018b. Envirostor Database. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/map/?global_id=37750009. Accessed February 2018.
DWR. 2015. California Department of Water Resources. About Urban Water Management. http://www.water.ca.gov/urbanwatermanagement/. Accessed February 2018.
DWR. 2016. California Laws for Wells. California Department of Water Resources. https://www.water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/Wells. Accessed February 2018.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 213
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
Earthquake Hazards and Reduction Act. 1977. https://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/20130726-1623-20490-0284/public_law_108_360.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
Elsasser. 1978. Elsasser, A.B. 1978. Development of Regional Prehistoric Cultures. In California, R.F. Heizer, ed., pp. 37-57. Handbook of North American Indians. Vol. 8. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
FAA. 2018. Airport Data and Contact Information. Federal Aviation Administration. https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/airportdata_5010/. Accessed January 2018.
FEMA. 2018. FEMA’s national Flood Hazard Layer (Official). Federal Emergency Management Agency. http://fema.maps.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=cbe088e7c8704464aa 0fc34eb99e7f30&extent=-120.28136558809945,39.473146637120564,- 119.94902916231864,39.56054779465206. Accessed February 2018.
FHWA. 2006. Federal Highway Administration Highway Construction Noise Handbook. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/. Accessed January 2018.
FMMP. 2017. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/
FPPA. 1981. Farmland Protection Policy Act. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2017-title7- vol6/xml/CFR-2017-title7-vol6-part658.xml
FTA. 2006. Transit Noise and Vibration Assessment. U.S. Department of Transportation. Federal Transit Administration. https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pd f. Accessed January 2018.
Giusti, Gregory A. and Douglas D. McCreary. 2008. Determining Significance Within CEQA: A New UC Program To Assist Planners In Conserving Oak Woodlands. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR- 217. Albany, CA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station.
Harris, L.D. and P.B. Gallagher. 1989. New Initiatives for Wildlife Conservation- The Need for Movement Corridors. In Defense of Wildlife: Preserving Communities and Corridors, ed. G. Mackintosh. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, pp. 11-34.
Heizer, R.F. 1949. The Archaeology of Central California I: The Early Horizon. University of California Anthropological Records 12:1-84.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 214
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
Jepson eFlora. 2018. The Jepson Herbarium, University of California, Berkeley. Berkeley, California. http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/. Accessed January 2018.
Kroeber, Alfred. 1925 (1976 Reprint). Handbook of the Indians of California. Dover Publications, New York.
Kyle, Douglas E. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University, Palo Alto, California.
Levy, R. 1978. Eastern Miwok. In California, edited by R.F. Heizer, pp. 398-413. Handbook of North American Indians Vol. 8, W.C. Strurtevant, general editor. Smithsonian Institute, Washington, D.C.
Lillard, J.B., R.F. Heizer, and F. Fenenga. 1939. An Introduction to the Archeology of Central California. Department of Anthropology Bulletin 2. Sacramento Junior College, Sacramento.
Moratto, Michael J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, New York, NY.
Nelson, Diane. 2012. Common Ground: Ranchers, environmentalists and policymakers unite to protect water quality on California rangeland, UCDavis Magazine. Electronic document, http://ucdavismagazine.ucdavis.edu/issues/su12/common_ground.html, accessed on November 15, 2017.
NRCS. 2017. Soil Survey Geographic Database (SSURGO 2.2). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/survey/?cid=nrcs142p2_053627. Accessed February 2018.
Oakland Tribune. 1961. “Amador Stalls EBMUD on Water Rights,” September 13, 1961: 13. Oakland, California.
Oakland Tribune. 1973. “Lake Camanche Village is Helping Owner Projects,” June 24, 1973: 45. Oakland, California.
OPR. 2017. State of California General Plan Guidelines. Governor’s Office of Public Resources. http://opr.ca.gov/planning/general-plan/. Accessed January 2018.
Pavlik, B.M., Muick, P.C., Johnson, S., Popper, M. 1991. Oaks of California. Los Olivos, California. Cahuma Press and the California Oak Foundation.Ragir. 1972. Ragir, S.R. 1972. The Early Horizon in Central California Prehistory. Berkeley: Contributions of the University of California Archaeological Research Facility 15.
Sawyer, John O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd edition. California Department of Fish and Game. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). California Native Plant Society Press. Sacramento, CA.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 215
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
Schulz. 1970. Schulz, P.D. 1970. Solar Burial Orientation and Paleodemography in the Central California Windmiller Tradition. Davis: University of California, Center for Archaeological Research at Davis, Publications 2:185-198.
SMAQMD. 2016. Guide to Air Quality Assessment in Sacramento County. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. http://www.airquality.org/businesses/ceqa- land-use-planning/ceqa-guidance-tools. Accessed February 2018.
SVP. 2010. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Electronic document. https://vertpaleo.org/Membership/Member- Resources/SVP_Impact_Mitigation_Guidelines.aspx. Accessed January 2018.
SWRCB. 2017a. Laws and Regulations. California Environmental Protection Agency, State Water Resource Control Board. Sacramento, California. http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=WAT&division=7.& title=&part=&chapter=4.&article=4. Accessed February 2018.
SWRCB. 2017b. State Water Resources Control Board. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf. Accessed February 2018.
UBC. 1994. Uniform Building Code. Table 18-1-B. Uniform Building Code. http://digitalassets.lib.berkeley.edu/ubc/UBC_1994_v2.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
UCMP. 2018. University of California Museum of Paleontology. Online Collections Database. http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/science/collections.php. Accessed January 2018.
USCB. 2010. United States Census Bureau. https://www2.census.gov/geo/docs/maps- data/data/gazetteer/2010_place_list_06.txt. Accessed February 2018.
USCB. 2016. United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/2016/demo/popest/counties-total.html. Accessed January 2018.
USDA. 2016. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 2018.
USDA. 2017. Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. Accessed January 2018.
USEPA. 2016a. Clear Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC). A Water Quality Protection Tool for States and Tribes. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency - Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. USEPA. https://www.epa.gov/cwa-404/clean-water- act-section-401-certification. Accessed April 2018.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 216
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
USEPA. 2016b. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/sec404.cfm. Accessed April 2018.
USEPA. 2017. Summary of the Clean Water Act. United Stated Environmental Protection Agency. https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-clean-water-act. Accessed January 2018.
USEPA. 2018a. RCRA Envirofacts. United States Environmental Protection Agency. https://www3.epa.gov/enviro/facts/rcrainfo/search.html. Accessed February 2018.
USEPA. 2018b. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). https://www.epa.gov/npdes. Accessed February 2018.
USEPA. 2018c. Surf Your Watershed. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. https://cfpub.epa.gov/surf/huc.cfm?huc_code=18040005. Accessed February 2018.
USFS. 2017. Tour US, National Forest Scenic Byways. https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/tourism/TourUS.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
USFS. ND. Carson Pass Scenic Byway. United States Forest Service. https://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/htnf/recarea/?recid=77357. Accessed January 2018. USFWS. 2005. Federal Registrar 70, Number 162. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat (DCH) for the California Tiger Salamander, Central Population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Government Publishing Office. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-08-23/html/05-16234.htm. Accessed January 2018.
USFWS. 2017a. Endangered Species Act. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/endangered/laws-policies/index.html. Accessed January 2018.
USFWS. 2017b. Designated Critical Habitat (DCH) Data. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, California. https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Accounts/Amphibians- Reptiles/ca_tiger_salamander/. Accessed January 2018.
USFWS. 2017c. Endangered Species Accounts. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. California. https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es_species/Accounts/. Accessed January 2018.
USFWS. 2017d. Framework for Assessing Impacts to the Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle (Desmocerus californicus dimorphus). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; Sacramento, California. 28 pp. https://www.fws.gov/sacramento/documents/VELB_Framework.pdf. Accessed April 2018.
USFWS. 2018a. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. http://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/MIGTREA.HTML. Accessed January 2018.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 217
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
References September 20, 2018
USFWS. 2018b. Bald Eagle Protection Act of 1940. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://www.fws.gov/laws/lawsdigest/BALDEGL.HTML. Accessed January 2018.
USFWS. 2018c. https://www.fws.gov/endangered/landowners/safe-harbor-agreements.html
USFWS. 2018d. Environmental Conservation Online System (ECOS). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. https://ecosfws.gov/ecp/. Accessed January 2018.
USFWS. ND. Safe Harbor Agreement for East Bay Municipal Utility District Lands in San Joaquin, Amador, and Calaveras Counties. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, California.
USGS. 2007. Type Region of the Ione Formation (Eocene), Central California: Stratigraphy, Paleogeography, and Relation to Auriferous Gravels. U.S. Geologic Survey. https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2006/1378/of2006-1378.pdf. Accessed January 2018.
USGS. 2014. U.S. Quaternary faults and Folds Database. http://usgs.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=db287853794f4555b8e93e 42290e9716. Accessed January 2018.
USGS. 2017a. Science in Your Watershed. U.S. Geologic Survey.
USGS. 2017b. Liquefaction Susceptibility. United States Geological Survey. https://earthquake.usgs.gov/learn/topics/geologicmaps/liquefaction.php. Accessed October 2017.
Wagner, D. L., C.W. Jennings, T.L. Bedrossian, and E.J. Bortugno (compilers). 1981. Geologic Map of the Sacramento Quadrangle. California Geological Survey, Regional Geologic Map No. 1A, 1: 250,000 scale.
WCB. 2018. Oak Woodland Conservation Program. California Wildlife Conservation Board. https://wcb.ca.gov/Programs/Oaks. Accessed March 2018.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 218
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
MITIGATION, MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 219
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Prepared for: Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685
Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. 101 Providence Mine Road, Suite 202 Nevada City, CA 95959
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 221
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a Lead Agency to adopt a Mitigation Monitoring or Reporting Program whenever it approves a project for which measures have been required to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. The purpose of the monitoring or reporting program is to ensure compliance with the mitigation measures during project implementation. The Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration concluded that the implementation of the Project could result in potentially significant effects on the environment and mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed Project or are required as a condition of project approval. This Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program addresses those measures in terms of how and when they will be implemented. This document does not discuss those subjects for which the Initial Study concluded that the impacts from implementation of the project would be less than significant.
6.2 PROCEDURES FOR MONITORING AND REPORTING
As the Project proponent, the Amador Water Agency (Agency) will be responsible for mitigation measure implementation oversight and compliance documentation. Under the oversight of Agency staff, mitigation actions required prior to and during construction will be performed by the Agency’s consultants, construction contractors, and/or Agency Staff.
Monitoring and reporting procedures will conform to the following steps prior to and during project construction and operations:
Step 1 Action: This step will be executed by the Agency, if designated a consultant and/or contractor. All actions taken as part of this MMRP will be documented by the Agency and reported as described in Steps 2 and 3 below. The designee responsible for implementation of mitigation measures will:
• Review mitigation status reports and any other information generated during construction;
• Ensure that the mitigation measures in the MMRP are undertaken, either by Agency Staff, contractors, or Consultants; and
Step 2 Monitoring: This step will be executed by the Monitor. The Monitor will be designated by the Agency and may be a consultant to the Agency. The Monitor will investigate noncompliance allegations and identify how the Agency staff, or its designees should correct implementation of the measure. If a measure is under control of the contractor, the monitor will inform the contractor of the monitor’s determination and request improved implementation.
The Monitor will have the following responsibilities:
• Be knowledgeable in the mitigation that is to be monitored; and
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 223
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
• Verify implementation of mitigation by:
o Verifying in the field that required implementation has been properly executed during and after construction; and
o Contacting the contractor and requesting that the situation be remedied if mitigation is not being implemented or executed properly.
Step 3 Reporting: This step will be executed by the monitor. The monitor will have the following responsibilities:
• Recommendations may include updating the frequency of monitoring, changing the type of monitoring, and suggesting better ways to implement mitigation:
o Assist the Agency in reviewing contractor’s implementation of mitigation requirements, detailing corrective action and time of completion to resolve any issues that are raised; and
o Keep all completed reports on file at the Agency office to keep in their project files. 6.3 CEQA MITIGATION MEASURES
Table 6.3-1 below describes the mitigation measures included in the proposed Project. For each mitigation measure the required action, responsible party, implementation timing, and reporting requirements are described.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 224
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Table 6.3-1 Summary of Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Air Quality Mitigation Measure AIR-1: Dust Control and Construction Emissions Mitigation Plan The Agency shall require that the An Emissions and Dust Control During construction, regular Visible emissions and dust are The following conditions would be included in the General Notes and/or Grading Plan for the contractor prepare and Plan incorporated with the inspections shall be performed by kept to the lowest practicable proposed Project, under the descriptive heading “Dust and Equipment Exhaust Control” and would implement a Construction Project SWPPP shall be prepared an Agency representative and level during construction be implemented during construction activities: Emissions and Dust Control Plan. and approved by the Agency reports shall be kept on file by the periods. The goal is to minimize The Agency shall be responsible prior to construction and Agency. dust and emissions during • Visible emissions from stationary diesel-powered equipment are not allowed to exceed 20 for ensuring that all adequate dust implemented during all phases of construction and to the extent percent opacity for more than three minutes in any one-hour, as regulated under District control measures are grading and activities that have feasible, complaints from the Rule 202, Visible Emissions. implemented in a timely manner the potential to generate dust. public. • All material excavated, stockpiled, or graded would be sufficiently watered, treated, or during all phases of Project covered to prevent fugitive dust from leaving the property boundaries and causing a public development and construction by nuisance or a violation of an ambient air standard. Watering should occur at least twice the contractor. daily, with complete site coverage. • All areas with vehicle traffic would be watered or have dust palliative applied as necessary for regular stabilization of dust emissions. • All on-site vehicle traffic would be limited to a speed of 15 miles per hour within the project site. • All land clearing, grading, earth moving, or excavation activities on a project would be suspended as necessary to prevent excessive windblown dust when winds are expected to exceed 20 miles per hour. • All inactive portions of the development site would be covered, revegetated, or watered until a suitable cover is established. Alternatively, the applicant may apply County- approved non-toxic soil stabilizers (according to manufacturer’s specifications) to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas which remain inactive for 96 hours) in accordance with the local grading ordinance. • All material transported off-site would be securely covered to prevent public nuisance, and there must be a minimum of two feet of freeboard in the bed of the transport vehicle. • Paved roads adjacent to the Project would be swept at the end of each day or more frequently if necessary, to remove excessive or visibly raised accumulations of dirt and/or mud that may have resulted from activities in the Project area. • Ground cover on the site would be re-established through revegetation and watering in accordance with the local grading ordinance. • A publicly visible sign would be posted with the telephone number and person to contact at the Agency regarding dust complaints. This person would respond and take corrective action within 48 hours of a complaint or issue notification. The Amador Air District phone number would also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. • All unnecessary vehicle idling would be restricted to five minutes. • Encourage construction worker commuters to carpool or employ other means to reduce trip generation. Biological Resources Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Pre-Construction Environmental Awareness Training The Agency shall ensure that a Prior to the initiation of The training shall be conducted by Construction personnel are Prior to construction, a qualified biologist shall conduct one Environmental Awareness Training for qualified biologist conducts one construction. a qualified biologist, the trained in the key construction personnel. The Environmental Awareness Training shall be given to construction pre-construction Environmental environmental training reference characteristics for identifying personnel to brief them on how to recognize special status plant species, wildlife species, and Awareness Training session. pamphlets shall be kept on the and avoiding impacts to sensitive habitats that could occur in the proposed Project area (i.e., special status plant construction site, and a sign-in sheet special status species and identification, amphibian identification and habitat, wetland habitats, riparian habitats, relevant for all personnel in attendance shall sensitive habitats. BMPs, mitigation, and regulations). In addition, Environmental Awareness Training reference be included in the MMRP final Report.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 225
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success pamphlets shall be provided to keep onsite for use by the Agency or an environmentally-trained foreman for training new proposed Project personnel in the absence of the biologist. If special status species are encountered in the proposed Project work area, construction shall cease, and the Agency and qualified biologist shall be notified for guidance before any construction activities are resumed. Depending on the listing of the observed species and its persistence in the area, the Agency shall notify the USFWS and/or CDFW for guidance. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, Rare and/or The Agency shall ensure that a One mid-bloom period survey The survey and monitoring of special No “take”/ net loss of any Special Status Plant Species qualified biologist or botanists shall to be conducted (e.g., status plants, if identified, shall be endangered, threatened, rare, A. To avoid and/or minimize impacts to endangered, threatened, rare, and/or special status plant conducts a pre-construction May) for the identified special conducted by a qualified botanist and/or special status plant species within the proposed Project site, a qualified biologist or botanist shall conduct a pre- reconnaissance-level floristic field status plant species. Monitoring or biologist, and a brief Memo shall species. construction survey. The reconnaissance-level floristic field survey shall be timed to cover the survey. and reporting, if appropriate, be documented and kept on file appropriate bloom period for the special status plant species that have a moderate to high shall be completed during and with the Agency. The memo shall potential to occur in the proposed Project area. Specifically, for the proposed Project, the after construction. include a summary of survey results, bloom period survey is recommended to be conducted during the mid-bloom period (e.g., affected populations or relocated May). If special status plants are determined to have no presence within the proposed Project populations, mitigation, and site, then no further mitigation is required. monitoring, as needed. B. If special status plants are determined present within the proposed Project site during pre- construction field surveys, Project activities shall be reduced and minimized to avoid impact by: • Mapping the population and placing flagging and/or exclusion fencing to protect special status plants within the proposed Project site during construction. Specifically, the area in which the hoary navarretia was detected during reconnaissance level biological surveys conducted in May 2017 shall be reassessed. Install environmentally sensitive fencing and appropriate signage at an appropriate buffer distance, starting from the edge of the special status plant and/ or plant population. Signage should indicate the area is environmentally sensitive and not to be disturbed. If any federal or State listed threatened or endangered plant species are detected in the proposed Project area that may be impacted, a 25-foot area surrounding the species shall be established. Within such exclusion zones, no construction work shall be conducted until consultation with CDFW or USFS personnel has been made and their recommendation for protection is incorporated, as needed; and • Adjust Project activities away from special status plants to the extent feasible. The proposed Project disturbance area will be confined to the existing right-of-way and previously disturbed areas; therefore, minimizing any potential impact to special status plant species if observed during pre-construction surveys; and • Supervision, guidance, and verification of the implementation of these measures shall be achieved by the Agency or a qualified biological monitor. If construction actions are determined to occur within exclusion zones, the Agency shall incorporate a maintenance and monitoring program. This program shall reference the guidelines set forth by CNPS in their Policy on Mitigation Guidelines Regarding Impacts to Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants (CNPS 1998). Additional reporting requirements would be further defined after development of restoration and reclamation plan for rare plants, and as defined by the appropriate agency. C. If special status plants are determined present in the proposed Project site during pre- construction field surveys and direct/ unavoidable impacts to special status plant species shall result from Project activities, then consultation with appropriate agencies (i.e., CDFW and/or USFWS) will be required to develop acceptable mitigation (e.g., agency recommended mitigation may include translocation of individual plants, rectification of impact by seed collecting and stockpiling for replanting/replacement, mitigation fees, and/or permitting).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 226
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Elderberry Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure for Valley The Agency shall ensure that the Prior to the initiation of The training shall be conducted by Construction personnel are Elderberry Longhorn Beetle above avoidance and construction. a qualified biologist, the trained in the key If suitable host plants (elderberry [Sambucus spp.] with stems greater than one inch) for the valley minimization measures (i.e., environmental training reference characteristics for identifying elderberry longhorn beetle are within the proposed Project area or within 165 feet (50 meters) feet of exclusionary fencing and worker pamphlets shall be kept on the and avoiding impacts to VELB the proposed Project area, the following avoidance and minimization measures shall be environmental awareness training) construction site, and a sign-in sheet and its habitat, and no impacts implemented, as recommended by the USFWS (USFWS 2017d). are implemented. for all personnel in attendance shall to VELB and/or its habitat will be included in the MMRP final occur. A. Areas that shall be avoided, including areas where activities that may damage or kill an Report. elderberry shrub (e.g., trenching, paving, etc.) shall be delineated with exclusionary fencing. These areas may need an avoidance area of at least six meters (20 feet) from the drip-line, depending on the type of activity. These areas to be avoided during construction activities will be fenced and/or flagged as close to construction limits as feasible. B. A qualified biologist will provide an environmental awareness training for all construction personnel on the identification of VELB, its host plant and habitat, status of the VELB, the need to avoid damaging the elderberry shrubs, and the possible penalties for non- compliance. C. As much as feasible, all Project activities that could occur within 50 meters (165 feet) of an elderberry shrub, will be conducted outside of the flight season of the VELB (March - July). Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Compliance with Safe Harbor Agreement Between USFWS and EBMUD The Agency shall comply with all Prior to construction, all proposed A summary of the proposed Project Proposed Project activities Within the Proposed Project Area conditions of the SHA agreement Project activities to take place activities that occur within the SHA within the SHA boundary are in The property owned by EBMUD that is included within the proposed Project area is enrolled within a between USFWS and EBMUD, within the SHA boundary must be boundary shall be written and compliance with the SHA, and SHA between the USFWS and EBMUD. Specifically, the purpose of this SHA is to 1) promote the including amended conditions covered within the covered submitted to EBMUD and USFWS 30 no impacts to California red- enhancement and management of habitat for California red-legged frog, California tiger should they be required by USFWS. activities as defined within the days following the completion of the legged frog, California tiger salamander, and valley elderberry longhorn beetle on EBMUD watershed lands in San Joaquin, SHA. proposed Project. This summary is salamander, and valley Amador, and Calaveras counties; and 2) to provide certain regulatory assurances to EBMUD (USFWS intended to show compliance with elderberry longhorn beetle ND). Currently, EBMUD and USFWS are the only two parties within the agreement. the SHA. occur. The Agency proposed Project activities within the SHA boundary must be included under the covered activities as defined within the SHA. If proposed Project activities on EBMUD property are not included within the existing SHA, a modification in the form of an amendment to the covered activities and participating parties shall be made to the existing agreement. If required, the amendment shall be achieved through (EBMUD) submitting an application for amendment in the form of written notice to the other party (USFWS). A written concurrence from the other party (USFWS) is then required for the amendment to become effective. As stated in the SHA, the notice shall include a statement of the proposed modification, its purpose, and its expected results. The parties shall respond to proposed modifications within 60 days of receipt of such notice, and proposed modifications shall become effective upon the other parties’ written concurrence. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander, Western The Agency shall ensure that a Prior to and during construction. The above and minimization No direct or indirect impacts to Pond Turtle, and Western Spadefoot During Construction CDFW and/or USFWS-approved measures shall be implemented by CTS, western pond turtle, A. If construction activities (i.e. grading, trenching, ground disturbance, etc.). that have the biologist will delineate areas that a CDFW and/or USFWS-approved and/or western spadefoot. potential to impact the habitat of California tiger salamander, western pond turtle, or western require avoidance and where biologist and a brief Memo will be spadefoot, occur within the project area, The Agency shall ensure that exclusion fencing shall exclusion fencing shall be installed developed to document the be installed when working within 100 feet of a perennial stream and within 300 feet of potential as well as monitor any qualifying measures implemented, which will breeding ponds. construction activities, when be kept on file with the Agency. B. If initial ground disturbing activities should take place during the dry season, generally from April necessary. 15 to the first qualifying rain event (i.e., frontal precipitation event of more than 0.25 inch within 24 hours), on or after October 15. During this season frogs, turtles, and salamanders are typically located closest to breeding ponds, none of which are crossed by the proposed Project. C. If initial ground disturbing activities take place outside of the dry season, a qualified biological monitor shall be on site to monitor for CTS, western pond turtle, and/or western spadefoot in the area during all initial ground disturbing activities.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 227
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success • If CTS, western pond turtle, and/or western spadefoot are documented anytime during proposed Project construction, Project activities will cease in the immediate vicinity until the CTS, western pond turtle, and/or western spadefoot moves to a new location (out of harm’s way) without interference. • Staging areas, including fueling and maintenance areas, shall be kept at least 100 feet away from perennial streams and 300 feet from potential breeding ponds. The Agency shall prepare a Spill Prevention and Clean-Up Plan; and • The proposed Project shall administer appropriate BMPs to protect water quality and control erosion. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Development and Implementation of a Mitigation Plan for the California The Agency, in coordination with The Mitigation and Monitoring The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan All measures within the Tiger Salamander USFWS and CDFW, shall develop Plan will be developed prior to shall include a monitoring and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan To mitigate for impacts to potential suitable CTS habitat, the Agency shall develop and implement a and implement a Mitigation and the initiation of construction and reporting protocol, which will are implemented and the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan in coordination with the USFWS and CDFW for the proposed Project. Monitoring Plan for CTS. will be implemented during and include documentation to ponds are created and/or The purpose of the Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is to mitigate for potential impacts to CTS and following construction. demonstrate compliance with the maintained for the benefit of includes an outline of management activities at the existing WWTP as well as the construction Plan. Such monitoring documents CTS. specifications and maintenance of proposed ponds on the Gansberg Ranch property. For example, shall be kept on file with the existing and newly constructed ponds may be maintained and/or constructed for the benefit of CTS Agency. to facilitate long-term protection of the species and their habitat. In addition, the Mitigation Plan will outline a monitoring and reporting protocol to implement following the completion of Project construction. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance and Impacts to Nesting Raptors and The Agency shall ensure that a One nesting survey shall be The survey shall be conducted by a No raptor and/or other Other Migratory Birds qualified biologist will complete conducted by a qualified qualified biologist and a brief Memo migratory bird nests shall be The Agency will implement one of the following measures, depending on the specific construction nesting raptor and other migratory biologist within one week of shall be documented and kept on disturbed due to the proposed timeframe, to avoid disturbing nesting raptors and other migratory birds: bird surveys. initiating the proposed Project, file with Agency. Project. should the proposed Project 1. If construction activities are scheduled to occur during the nesting season (i.e., approximately occur between February 15 and February 15 through August 31), a qualified wildlife biologist shall conduct a pre-construction August 31. nesting survey within the proposed Project area and within an approximate 100-foot buffer of the proposed Project area. If no active nests are detected, then no additional mitigation is required. 2. If surveys indicate that raptor or other migratory bird nests are found in any areas that would be directly affected by construction activities, a no-disturbance buffer shall be established around the site to avoid disturbance or destruction of the nest site until after the breeding season, or after a wildlife biologist determines that the young have fledged (i.e., typically late June to mid- July). The extent of these buffers shall be determined by a qualified biologist in consultation with the appropriate regulating agency (e.g., CDFW and/or USFWS) and shall depend on the special status wildlife species present, the level of noise or construction disturbance, line of sight between the nest and the disturbance, ambient levels of noise, topographical or artificial barriers, and other disturbances. 3. If construction activities begin outside the breeding season (i.e., approximately September 1 through February 14), then construction may proceed until it is determined that an active migratory bird nest would be subject to abandonment because of construction activities. Optimally, all necessary vegetation removal shall be conducted before the breeding season so that nesting birds would not be present in the construction area during construction activities. If any bird nests are in the proposed Project area under pre-existing construction conditions, then it is assumed that they are habituated (or will habituate) to the construction activities. Under this scenario, the pre-construction survey described previously should still be conducted on or after February 15 to identify any active nests in the vicinity. A qualified biologist should monitor active sites periodically until after the breeding season or after the young have fledged (typically late June to mid-July). If active nests are identified on or immediately adjacent to the proposed Project area, then all non-essential construction activities (e.g., equipment storage, meetings, etc.) should be avoided in the immediate vicinity of the nest site, but the remainder of construction activities may proceed.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 228
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance and Impacts to Riparian Habitat and/or A qualified biologist or the Agency Prior to construction, exclusion The Agency shall flag and monitor Disturbance to CTS, western Sensitive Natural Communities and Habitat shall conduct sensitive fencing, and buffer distances, exclusion areas within the proposed pond turtle, and western spade This MM is to protect riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and/or any other critical habitat. area/habitat delineation of shall be established, including Project area. foot and their associated In relation to the proposed Project this MM pertains to California tiger salamander, western pond environmentally sensitive areas staging or ground-disturbing upland and aquatic habitat; turtle, and western spadefoot and their associated upland and aquatic habitat; riparian habitat and flag where the proposed activities within the proposed riparian habitat, water adjacent to proposed Project water features (e.g., Jackson Creek, Rabbit Creek, Grapevine Gulch, Project contractor will install Project area, including staging features/wetlands, and all etc.), and wetlands (e.g., stock ponds); and all other sensitive natural communities. To avoid and exclusion fencing. and access areas. other sensitive natural minimize disturbance and impacts to these habitats and sensitive natural communities the following communities shall be minimized shall be implemented: and avoided to extent feasible. • If riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and/or any other critical habitat are present within the proposed Project area, then they shall be identified and flagged by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities. Specifically, when working within 100 feet of a water feature (e.g., stream, creek, wetland, pond, etc.). • All ground and vegetation disturbance shall be minimized during proposed Project implementation. Activities shall be confined to the defined proposed Project work areas, including access routes and staging areas. Active work shall not occur in areas designated as exclusionary by the qualified biologist. • If riparian habitat, sensitive natural communities, and/or any other critical habitat are present within the proposed Project area, then there shall be a proposed Project manager or representative on-site at all times during active work in these areas; including but not limited to within the floodplain, adjacent to and/or within water features (e.g., streams, creeks, ponds, etc.), and/or in sensitive biological communities. All on-site personnel shall be instructed on the importance of avoiding and minimizing disturbance in these areas if present within the proposed Project area. • If proposed Project work needs to occur within the buffered exclusion area and/or within an environmentally sensitive area, then the proposed Project qualified biologist and the appropriate agencies shall coordinate to define potential work constraints and specifications prior to the initiation of any proposed Project work activities, as needed. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Wetlands The Agency is responsible for Permits shall be obtained prior to The Agency shall ensure that all No net loss of wetlands from The Agency plans to avoid and minimize potential impacts to wetlands and jurisdictional WOTUS to applying for all permits and construction. permits be obtained prior to the proposed Project. the extent feasible. If wetland avoidance is not feasible, the Agency shall apply for a CWA Section approvals needed for temporary construction and the appropriate 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) through the USACE, and CWA Section 401 WQC through the RWQCB and/or permanent impacts to any fees paid to comply with the USACE for the permanent and/or temporary impacts (e.g., dredge or fill) of the wetlands and jurisdictional wetlands or WOTUS within the current compensatory mitigation WOTUS. Temporary impacts to wetlands and WOTUS shall be addressed with onsite restoration for proposed Project area schedule, as needed. The Agency impacts from proposed Project activities. shall comply with Project permit stipulations. The Agency may prepare a brief letter report on the compliance with this mitigation measure for the USACE and the Agency’s files.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 229
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Oak Trees and Oak Woodlands The Agency. Prior to and during construction. For trees to be retained during To avoid or minimize impacts to The County adopts oak and oak woodland State regulations to protect and minimize impacts to proposed Project activities, a protected trees, specifically individual oaks, heritage oaks (i.e., old growth), and oak woodlands. Heritage oaks include all old qualified biologist or the Agency oaks, heritage oaks, and oak growth oak species (Quercus spp.) that measure 24 inches DBH or greater. To minimize impacts to shall monitor on-site disturbance woodlands. oaks and oak woodlands in the proposed Project area, the following mitigation is required: minimization procedures if work is occurring within the tree dripline/ • The proposed Project design will be done to avoid and minimize impacts to the number of protection zone. For all trees oaks, heritage oaks, and oak woodlands areas to the maximum extent feasible. The removed during proposed Project location of all oak trees to be retained shall be shown on all site plans (e.g., site grading, activities, a qualified arborist or the drainage, and utility plans, etc.). Agency shall assess tree individuals • Following completion of project plans, a tree survey report shall be conducted by the and prepare a tree survey report. Agency or a qualified arborist prior to removal of any trees within the Proposed Project Surveys shall be completed prior to alignment. In accordance with the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act (California construction commencement Public Resources Code Section 21083.4), the arborist survey shall identify all oak trees of five and/or tree removal. inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH), with the exception of black oak (Quercus kelloggii). • If oak trees, as identified in the California Oak Woodlands Conservation Act, are proposed for removal within the Proposed Project alignment, the Agency’s contractor shall mitigate for the loss of native oak trees by contributing funds to the Oak Woodlands Conservation Fund of the Agency’s choice to purchase oak woodland conservation easements. • For existing oak trees within the proposed Project construction corridor, prune branches under the supervision of qualified arborist or the Agency. • Prior to ground disturbing activities, place a four-foot-tall fence (i.e., brightly colored orange biodegradable fencing) at least two feet outside of the drip line of mature trees (five inches DBH, or ten inches for aggregate multi-trunk trees); that are to be saved in the Project area and which are located within 50 feet of any grading, in-road construction, underground utilities, or other development activity.
Cultural and Tribal Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training The Agency, representatives, and An on-call qualified A monitoring report shall be The prevention of any unknown A. Cultural Resources On-Call Monitoring contractor. archaeologist shall be obtained completed by the qualified or known cultural resources prior to construction. Pre- archaeologist for any on-call from being Due to the higher potential for cultural resources within the Project area, there is a high sensitivity for construction cultural resource services completed. This report shall disturbed/destroyed by Project subsurface cultural resources deposits within the Project area, the Agency shall retain an on-call awareness training shall take include a brief summary of the pre- construction without proper qualified archaeologist (who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications place prior to construction and construction cultural resource documentation and Standards for Archaeology) to conduct a pre-construction construction worker awareness training. on-going during construction awareness training, any on-call recordation. The qualified archaeologist shall also be available on-call throughout construction to consult on any prior to new staff beginning work evaluation or consultation on inadvertent cultural or Tribal cultural resources found during construction. on the site. inadvertent finds, and monitoring. The qualified archaeologist shall prepare a monitoring report documenting the pre-construction The Agency shall keep all monitoring worker awareness training as well as any on-call services. This report shall include a brief summary of reports on file and submit final the pre-construction cultural resource awareness training, a description of any inadvertent monitoring reports to the NCIC. discoveries and monitoring (if needed), and measures taken to avoid resources. The Agency shall keep all monitoring reports on file and submit final monitoring reports to the NCIC. B. Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resource Awareness Training The Agency shall ensure that the qualified archaeologist shall conduct the pre-construction cultural resource awareness training. The training shall be for all construction personnel involved in any ground disturbing construction activity for the entire duration of the Project. Construction personnel shall be informed of the possibility of encountering subsurface prehistoric or historical cultural resources and/or human remains within the Project area and the protocol to be followed if a cultural or Tribal cultural resource or human remains are encountered as detailed in MM CUL-2 and CUL-3. Sensitive cultural resources the construction personnel should be made aware of include:
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 230
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Archaeological and/or Tribal Materials – may include, but are not limited to, flaked stone tools (projectile point, biface, scraper, etc.) and debitage (flakes) made of chert, obsidian, etc., groundstone milling tools and fragments (mortar, pestle, handstone, millingstone, etc.), faunal bones, fire-affected rock, dark middens, house pit depressions and human interments. Tribal Cultural Resources – A site feature, place, cultural landscape, sacred place, or object, which is of cultural value to a tribe – and is either: on or eligible for the CRHR or a local historic register, – or the CEQA lead agency, at its discretion, chooses to treat the resource as a tribal cultural resource – See: PRC 21074 (a)(1)(A)-(B). Historic-era Resources – may include, but are not limited to, small cemeteries or burial plots, bones, cut (square) nails, containers or miscellaneous hardware, glass fragments, cans with soldered seams or tops, ceramic or stoneware objects or fragments, milled or split lumber, earthworks, feature or structure remains and trash dumps. Paleontological Resources – are any remains, trace, or imprint of a plant or animal that has been preserved in the Earth’s crust since some past geologic time and may include fossil materials such as bones, leaf impressions and other carbonized remains and shells of invertebrates such as snails and clams. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources The Agency, representatives, and During all ground-disturbing If any find is determined to be The evaluation and recording In the event of discovery of cultural or Tribal cultural resources during construction activities the contractor. activities. significant, representatives of the of any newly identified cultural following steps outlining the proper handling, evaluation, and treatment of cultural or Tribal cultural Agency shall document or Tribal cultural resources and resources shall be undertaken to ensure protection of potentially significant historically, consultation with the qualified treatment by avoidance, archaeologically, or Tribally significant resources. archaeologist (and Tribal protection, or documentation representative if a Tribal cultural of any discovered resources Proper Handling: resource) and determination of that qualify as historically, If subsurface cultural or Tribal cultural resources are inadvertently uncovered during Project ground recommended protection and/or archaeologically, or Tribally disturbing activities, the Agency’s contractor shall adhere to the following procedures and methods: avoidance measures or other significant. • Immediately stop all work; appropriate mitigation. The Agency • Immediately contact the Agency Project Manager or representative; shall prepare a memorandum incorporating notes and records • Do not harass, damage, touch, or remove any cultural or tribal cultural resources materials from the contractor and qualified once resource is identified; archaeologist to document steps • Leave all spoils in their current location unless directed by Agency representatives; taken to comply with the avoidance • Record the location and keep notes of all calls and events providing them to the Agency measures or other appropriate representative daily, or as requested; mitigation. The memorandum shall be saved as a file copy by the • Secure the discovery location with flagging, plywood, or other appropriate material around Agency and submitted to the NCIC. the exposed site or a person watching the site as directed by the Agency representative, until cleared by the Agency representative and qualified archaeologist; • Treat the find as confidential. Do not publicly disclose the location. Only authorized personnel, or individuals with the permission of the Agency representative (or the land owner) shall be allowed on the site; • Upon approval of Agency, work may resume within no less than 150 feet of the discovery; and • Upon clearance of Agency, work may resume in the location where cultural resources were discovered after evaluation and clearance by the Agency qualified archaeologist. Upon notification by the contractor, the Agency shall adhere to the following procedures and methods: • Record the location and keep notes of all calls and events; • Consult with the on-call qualified archeologist who shall facilitate evaluation and treatment procedures; • Maintain communications with the archaeologist, documenting and recording evaluation, protection, treatment, and avoidance steps taken;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 231
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success • Relocate work no less than 150 feet from the discovery or as otherwise directed by the archaeologist; and • Treat the find as confidential. Do not publicly disclose the location. Only authorized personnel, or individuals with the permission of the Agency (or the land owner) shall be allowed on the archaeological site. Upon notification by the Agency, the retained qualified archaeologist shall adhere to professional standards regarding the evaluation and treatment of the discovered cultural or Tribal cultural resources and shall implement the following avoidance, evaluation, and/or treatment procedures and methods: • Examine the site to confirm that no additional cultural or Tribal cultural resources are in the disturbed area where the resource was found; • Recommend the appropriate discovery securing measures such as flagging, plywood, other material, or monitor around the exposed site until the evaluation is complete; • Coordinate with Agency to determine if design modifications are feasible to avoid the resource. If the resource can be avoided appropriate security measures such as flagging or other exclusion fencing shall be placed around the resource until construction activities within 250 feet of the resource are complete; and • If the resource cannot be avoided, the Lead Agency will have a qualified archaeologist complete an evaluation of eligibility to the CRHR. • If evaluation results in the determination that a resource is historically, archaeologically, or Tribally significant, mitigation as recommended by the archaeologist/Tribal representative and agreed upon by the Agency would be implemented and the resource would be recorded for documentation in accordance with Agency, Tribal, and industry standards. If the resource is not found significant, construction may resume. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains The Agency, representatives, and During all-ground disturbing The find shall be immediately The proper recording, Section 7050 of the California Health and Safety Code states that it is a misdemeanor to knowingly contractor. activities. reported to the County Coroner. The evaluation, and treatment of disturb a human burial site. If human remains are encountered (or are suspected) during any recording and evaluation of any any newly identified human project-related activity, the Agency, Agency’s representatives, and Agency’s contractor shall newly identified human remains shall remains. complete the following steps: be conducted by qualified professional archaeologist in • Immediately stop all work; conjunction with the County • Immediately contact the Agency Project Manager or representative; Coroner and a report detailing the • Contact a qualified archaeologist (someone who meets the Secretary of the Interior's recording, location, evaluation, and Professional Qualifications Standards for Archaeology) who shall then notify the County treatment of human remains, shall Coroner immediately pursuant to PRC Section 7050.5. The County Coroner may assess the be kept on file at the Agency and human remains. If the human remains are of Native American origin, the Coroner must notify submitted to the NCIC. the NAHC within 24 hours of such identification. The NAHC shall identify the most likely descendant (MLD); • Once given the permission by the Agency (and the land owner), the MLD shall be allowed onsite. The MLD shall complete their inspection and make their recommendation to the Agency for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in PRC Section 5097.98. MLD recommendations must be made within 48 hours of the NAHC notification to the MLD; • Relocate work under direction of the Agency within no less than 150 feet of the discovery or as otherwise directed by the Agency qualified archaeologist; • Consult with the onsite qualified archaeological monitor to confirm that no additional human remains are in the area; • No additional work shall take place within the immediate vicinity of the find until the Agency’s qualified archaeologist gives approval to resume work in that area;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 232
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success • Once work resumes in a location where human remains have been discovered and cleared, the onsite monitor shall observe further ground-disturbing construction activities closely for evidence of additional human remains; • Do not touch, damage, remove any human remains, associated materials, or associated spoils; • Record the location of the discovered remains and keep notes of all calls, site visits and events; and • Treat the find as confidential and do not publicly disclose the location. The Agency shall provide security to the area as needed. Only authorized personnel, or individuals with the permission of the Agency (and the land owner) shall be allowed onsite. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources The Agency, representatives, and During all ground-disturbing If any find is determined to be The proper recording, If any paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall contractor. activities. significant, representatives of the evaluation, and treatment of be halted immediately in the subject area and the Agency shall be immediately notified. A qualified Agency and a qualified any newly identified paleontologist (meeting the qualifications of the Society of Vertebrate Paleontology guidelines) shall paleontologist would meet to paleontological resource. be retained to evaluate the find. If any find is determined to be significant, representatives of the determine the appropriate Agency and a qualified paleontologist would meet to determine the avoidance measures, such as avoidance measures or other surface collection or excavation. All significant paleontological resources recovered shall be subject appropriate mitigation. All to scientific analysis, professional museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified significant paleontological resources paleontologist according to current professional standards such as the Society of Vertebrate recovered shall be subject to Paleontology guidelines on assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological scientific analysis, professional resources (SVP 2010). museum curation, and a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist according to SVP (2010) standards. A report shall be kept on file by the Agency. Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Paleontological Resources Construction Monitoring The Agency, representatives, During all ground-disturbing The qualified paleontologist will be The proper recording, The Agency shall retain a qualified paleontologist to review the final project footprint and determine contractor, and qualified activities greater than 0.5 m onsite during select ground evaluation, and treatment of which components should be monitored during construction. The monitoring program could include paleontologist. deep in ground that has not disturbance activities. The any newly identified new pipelines, storage reservoirs, and auxiliary treatment facilities where excavation greater than 0.5 previously been deeply paleontologist will inspect the paleontological resource meters deep will occur into ground that has not previously been deeply disturbed. disturbed. excavation walls and the spoil for according to SVP (2010) paleontological resources. All standards. The qualified paleontologist will be onsite during select ground disturbance activities. The significant paleontological resources paleontologist will inspect the excavation walls and the spoils for paleontological resources. If any recovered shall be subject to paleontological resources (i.e., fossils) are found during Project construction, construction shall be scientific analysis, professional temporarily halted in the subject area while the paleontologist evaluates the fossils. If any find is museum curation, and a report determined to be significant, representatives of the Agency and the paleontologist would meet to prepared by the qualified determine appropriate mitigation, such as salvage of exposed material or excavation. All significant paleontologist according to SVP paleontological resources recovered shall be subject to scientific analysis, professional museum (2010) standards. A report shall be curation, and a report prepared by the qualified paleontologist according to current professional kept on file by the Agency. standards such as the SVP’s guidelines on assessment and mitigation of adverse impacts to paleontological resources (SVP 2010).
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 233
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures The Agency shall ensure the The SWPPP shall be prepared The Agency shall monitor Minimize on- and off-site prior to construction and The construction contractor shall be required to comply with a site-specific Erosion Control and SWPPP is prepared by a Qualified implementation of this mitigation erosion and prevent implemented during the duration Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to reduce the risk of substantial soil erosion or loss of SWPPP Developer and measure and a copy of the SWPPP introduction of significant of construction, and the site topsoil in accordance with requirements of the latest amendment of the National Pollutant implemented consistent with all shall remain on file at the Project site amounts of sediment into any applicable requirements. should be stabilized post- as well as the Agency offices. stream or drainage. Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ. The construction. Construction General Permit requires the development of a SWPPP by a certified Qualified SWPPP Developer. The Erosion Control and SWPPP shall identify appropriate BMPs to prevent erosion or soil loss from the proposed Project site. These measures shall include the implementation of construction staging in a manner that minimizes the amount of area disturbed at any one time; secondary containment for storage of fuel and oil; and the management of stockpiles and disturbed areas by means of earth berms, diversion ditches, straw wattles, straw bales, silt fences, gravel filters, mulching, revegetation, and temporary covers as appropriate. The SWPPP shall also meet post- construction performance standards to ensure the post construction site is stabilized appropriately. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Develop or use current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan The Agency’s Contractor shall The SPCCP shall be implemented Evaluation and monitoring of SPCCP Minimize the potential for, and The Agency’s contractor shall develop and implement a Spill Prevention Control and develop and implement a SPCCP prior to and during all phases of shall be conducted by the Agency. effects from, spills of hazardous, Countermeasure Plan (SPCCP) within the Project SWPPP in accordance with Federal and State to minimize the potential for, and construction. toxic, or petroleum substances requirements to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum effects from, spills of hazardous, during construction activities in substances during construction activities for all contractors. The SPCCP shall include the following toxic, or petroleum substances accordance with the measures: during construction activities for all requirements of this measure as contractors. well as State and federal laws. • Storage of hazardous materials, chemicals, fuels, and oils shall not take place within 100 feet of Camanche Reservoirs or its tributaries and liquid hazardous materials shall be covered and stored within secondary containment where containment is 110 percent of liquid material volume; • Materials shall be stored in appropriate containers and contents labeled; • Material volume shall be restricted to the volume that can be addressed by available spill kits and supplies. • Used containers shall be disposed of at an appropriate landfill or other legal disposal or recycling facility; • Bulk storage tanks shall have secondary containment systems. Secondary containment shall be at least 110 percent of storage tank capacity or more if the area is uncovered to account for storm events; • Spill cleanup shall occur immediately, and notification shall be given to the Agency, CDFW, USFWS, RWQCB, or the USACE, as appropriate; • Workers shall be trained to properly handle hazardous materials, cleanup spills, and report spills. Construction workers shall be trained to identify indicators of contaminated soils such as soil discoloration, odors, differences in soil properties, and buried debris. Construction workers shall be trained to be aware of proper handling techniques and appropriate responses and actions to be taken if hazardous materials are accidentally released, with special emphasis on those hazardous materials with the greatest potential to occur at the Project area; • Soils contaminated with fuels or chemicals shall be disposed of in a suitable location to prevent discharge to surface waters and in accordance with the rules and regulations of the U.S. DOT, the USEPA, the RWQCB, and other agencies including but not limited to California Environmental Protection Agency;
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 234
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success • Excess or unused quantities of hazardous materials shall be removed upon Project completion. Although hazardous waste generation is not anticipated, any such wastes produced during construction shall be properly containerized, labeled, and transported to an approved hazardous waste disposal facility; and • All nonhazardous waste materials including construction refuse, garbage, and sanitary waste, shall be disposed of by removal from the work area to an approved disposal facility. All nonhazardous waste containers shall be covered when not in use and/or at the end of each shift or before a rain or other precipitation (snow) event. • Vehicles shall be monitored for fluid leaks and shall be maintained regularly to reduce the chance of leakage. • Vehicles refueling shall only occur on flat level ground where there is little chance of a spilled substance reaching a stream or waterway over an impermeable surface. A spill kit shall be available as appropriate for the activity. • Refueling and vehicle maintenance shall be performed at least 100 feet from receiving waters. • All fueling materials shall be properly labele. • Oil, antifreeze, solvents, and other materials related to equipment maintenance shall be disposed of or recycled appropriately offsite. If these materials have to be stored before disposal/recycling, they shall be stored in covered areas in containers with 110 percent capacity with berms and lined with impermeable material to contain any spills. The impermeable material should be maintained free of holes, etc. that would permit leaks to contact the ground surface or otherwise leave the containment area. The Agency shall review and approve the SPCCP before onset of construction activities. The Agency shall routinely inspect the construction area to verify that the measures specified in the SPCCP are properly implemented and maintained. The Agency shall notify its contractors immediately if there is a noncompliance issue and shall require compliance. The Federal reportable spill quantity for petroleum products, as defined in the USEPA’s CFR (40 CFR 110) is any oil spill that (1) violates applicable water quality standards, (2) causes a film or sheen upon or discoloration of the water surface or adjoining shoreline, or (3) causes a sludge or emulsion to be deposited beneath the surface of the water or adjoining shorelines. If a spill is reportable, the Agency’s contractor shall take action to contact the appropriate safety and clean-up crews and ensure the SPCCP is followed. A written description of reportable releases must be submitted to the RWQCB by the contractor. The submittal must include a description of the release, including the type of material and an estimate of the amount spilled, the date of the release, an explanation of why the spill occurred, and a description of the steps taken to prevent and control future releases. The releases would be documented on a spill report form. In the unlikely event of a reportable spill, the following parties shall be notified: 1. Call 911: • For spills that involve injury requiring medical treatment; • For spills that involve fire or hazards; • For spills that are potentially life threatening; and • For spills that occur after work hours. 2. Call the County Department of Environmental Health at: (530 )993-6716 • For chemical spill situations which do not require 911 assistance; • For spills that cannot be cleaned up by personnel on site. 3. Call Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board at: (530) 542-5400 • Immediately for a major spill; • Within 24 hours of a minor spill.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 235
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: Fire Suppression and Control The Agency’s contractor shall Control measures shall be Evaluation of the fire suppression Preparedness for and The Agency‘s contractor shall ensure fire control measures are in place to reduce the risk of fires ensure fire control measures implemented during all phases of and control measures shall be minimization of the start and during the proposed Project. The fire prevention and control measures shall include requirements for including but not limited to fire construction. conducted by the Agency. The spread of wildfire during onsite extinguishers; roles and responsibilities of the Agency and the contractor including what to do suppression and management Agency inspector or other Agency construction activities for all in the event of a fire; and fire suppression equipment and critical fire prevention and suppression measures are in place and on site personnel shall verify that fire contractors. items. and readily accessible during suppression and control construction in the event of a fire. equipment/items are available on site during construction. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Wetlands See Biological Resources Mitigation Measure GEO-1: Sediment and Erosion Control Measures See Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Develop or Use Current Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure Plan See Hazards and Hazardous Materials Noise Mitigation Measure NOISE-1: Noise Reduction Measures The Agency’s contractor shall During all phases of construction. The Agency shall document all after Minimize noise complaints. The Agency shall incorporate the following BMPs to minimize noise impacts during construction adhere to the construction hour work that generates noise activities: schedule and noise mitigation louder than background. measures. • Construction shall be limited to outside the County’s noise-sensitive hours and occur between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. • All construction equipment shall be equipped with sound-control devices no less effective than those provided on the original equipment. Equipment shall have a muffled exhaust. • Appropriate additional noise-reducing measures shall be implemented, including but not limited to: o Changing the location of stationary construction equipment when practical; o Shutting off idling equipment; and o Notifying residences within 50-100 feet 48 hours in advance of starting construction in an area not previously affected by recent construction activities. If construction activities are required outside of the daytime working hours described above, the Agency shall notify residents 48 hours in advance. If after-hour construction is required due to an emergency, the Agency will notify nearby residents immediately. Transportation and Traffic Mitigation Measure TRANS-1: Traffic Management Plan, Public Notification, and Emergency Access The Agency’s contractor shall Prior to and during all phases of The Agency shall monitor all road Safe, efficient travel in the Prior to construction, the Agency’s contractor shall develop, submit, receive approval from the prepare the traffic control plan. construction. closures. Project vicinity with minimal County, and comply with a traffic control plan. Elements of the plan will likely include, but are not The Agency’s contractor shall be traffic delays, emergency necessarily limited to the following measures: responsible for restoring the road access, and minimal to no to pre-construction conditions. This public complaints. • Minimum Interference with Traffic: All work or use shall be planned and executed in a manner mitigation measure will be that will cause least reasonable interference with the safe and convenient travel of the general referenced in the proposed public at the place where the work or use is authorized; and at no time shall a public highway Project specifications bid for the be closed during peak hours, or the use thereof denied the general public, without the written proposed Project. permission of the road commissioner. Limit lane closures to the greatest extent possible. Lanes would be made accessible by covering trenches with steel plates outside of allowed working hours or when work is not in progress. To the maximum extent feasible, maintain access to private driveways located within construction zones.
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 236
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Mitigation, Monitoring and Reporting Program September 20, 2018
Mitigation Measure Responsible Party Timing Monitoring and Reporting Program Standards for Success • Warning Signs, Lights, and Safety: Provide, erect and/or maintain such lights, barriers, warning signs, patrols, watchmen and other safeguards as are necessary to protect the traveling public. Install traffic control devices as specified in Caltrans’ Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones where needed to maintain safe driving conditions. • Clean Up Right-of-Way: During construction, the paved roadway surfaces shall be kept free of dirt or gravel as much as practical. Any potential hazard, such as mud or gravel will be removed immediately. Upon completion of the work, all materials shall be removed, and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before the work started. Restoration and Repair: Upon completion of the work, guidelines for the repair or restoration of the right-of-way will be followed as provided by the County Code, or as directed by the road commissioner. Mitigation Measure TRANS-2: Restore Road to Pre-Existing Conditions The Agency’s contractor shall The Agency’s contractor shall The Agency shall monitor Restoration of roads to pre- Roads that are damaged by construction will be restored to pre-construction conditions by the document road conditions pre- document road conditions pre- implementation of the mitigation construction conditions. Agency’s contractor. This may include repaving, graveling and/or grading disturbed areas. The construction to provide a basis for construction to provide a basis measure before and after Agency’s contractor shall document road conditions pre-construction to provide a basis for restoration. This mitigation for restoration. Post-construction, construction is complete. restoration. measure will be referenced in the the Agency’s contractor will specifications bid for the restore roads to existing proposed Project. conditions. Mandatory Findings of Significance Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance to Wetlands Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to Endangered, Threatened, Rare and/or Special Status Plant Species Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Elderberry Avoidance, Minimization, and/or Mitigation Measure for Valley Elderberry Longhorn Beetle Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Compliance with Safe Harbor Agreement Between USFWS and EBMUD Within the Proposed Project Area Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Avoid and Minimize Impacts to the California Tiger Salamander, Western Pond Turtle, and Western Spadefoot During Construction Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Development and Implementation of a Mitigation Plan for the California Tiger Salamander Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Avoid and Minimize Disturbance and Impacts to Riparian Habitat and/or Sensitive Natural Communities and Habitat See Biological Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Construction Worker Cultural Resources Awareness Training Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural or Tribal Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery of Human Remains Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Unanticipated Discovery of Paleontological Resources Mitigation Measure CUL-5: Paleontological Resources Construction Monitoring See Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx 237
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix A CalEEMod Air Quality Model September 20, 2018
CALEEMOD AIR QUALITY MODEL
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx A.1
Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Impact Analysis Methodology and Assumptions Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project
February 27, 2018
Prepared for:
Amador Water Agency
Prepared by:
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Table of Contents
1.0 MODEL PARAMETER AND ASSUMPTIONS ...... 1.1 1.1 MODEL SELECTION ...... 1.1 1.1.1 Schedule ...... 1.1 1.1.2 Ground Disturbance ...... 1.2 1.1.3 Construction Equipment ...... 1.2
2.0 RESULTS ...... 2.1
LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Construction Work Days ...... 1.1 Table 2 Off-Road Construction Equipment ...... 1.2 Table 3 On-Road Construction Vehicles ...... 1.3 Table 4 Estimated Annual Emissions (Tons) ...... 2.1 Table 5 Estimated Daily Emissions - Summer (Pounds) ...... 2.1 Table 6 Estimated Daily Emissions - Winter (Pounds) ...... 2.2
LIST OF APPENDICES
CALEEMOD RESULTS ...... A.1
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Model Parameter and Assumptions February 9, 2018
1.0 MODEL PARAMETER AND ASSUMPTIONS
1.1 MODEL SELECTION
Air pollutant emissions can be estimated by using emission factors and a level of activity. Emission factors are the emission rate of a pollutant given the activity over time, for example, grams of NOX per horsepower-hour. The California Air Resources Board (ARB) has published emission factors for on-road mobile vehicles/trucks in the EMFAC mobile source emissions model and emission factors for off-road equipment and vehicles in the OFFROAD emissions model. An air emissions model (or calculator) combines the emission factors and the various levels of activity and outputs the emissions for the various pieces of equipment.
The California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) is a statewide land use emissions computer model designed to provide a uniform platform for government agencies, land use planners, and environmental professionals to quantify potential criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with both construction and operations from a variety of land use projects. The model quantifies direct emissions from construction and operation activities (including vehicle use), as well as indirect emissions, such as GHG emissions from energy use, solid waste disposal, vegetation planting and/or removal, and water use. Further, the model identifies mitigation measures to reduce criteria pollutant and GHG emissions along with calculating the benefits achieved from measures chosen by the user.
The model was developed for the California Air Pollution Officers Association (CAPCOA) in collaboration with the California Air Districts. Default data (e.g., emission factors, trip lengths, meteorology, source inventory, etc.) have been provided by the various California Air Districts to account for local requirements and conditions.
Construction emissions, emissions from soil disturbance, and emissions from vehicle travel on paved and unpaved roads were estimated using CalEEMod version 2016.3.1.
1.2 SCHEDULE
The project was estimated to start construction by the second quarter of 2019 and may occur over a two-year construction period, although construction activities would not be active during the entire duration. In order to provide a conservative estimate for daily emissions, it was assumed that the storage expansion would be constructed simultaneously with the pipeline and that it would occur in 2019. Construction emissions decrease in later years as regulations requiring cleaner equipment continue to take effect. Table 1 provides the estimated construction work days.
Table 1 Construction Work Days
Activity # of Work Days Storage Construction 121 Pipeline 106 Paving 20
en aq&ghg_methodology.docx 1.1
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Model Parameter and Assumptions February 9, 2018
1.3 GROUND DISTURBANCE
The area of ground disturbance would be limited to the area necessary for the storage basin (13 acres) plus access roads (2 acres), the pipeline construction (1.15 acres), and necessary appurtenances. The total area of disturbance was estimated at 16.15 acres, however to provide for a conservative estimate up to 17 acres was assumed to be disturbed.
1.4 CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT
Construction emissions can vary substantially from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of operation, and prevailing weather conditions. Construction emissions result from on-site and off-site activities. On- site emissions principally consist of exhaust emissions from the activity levels of heavy-duty construction equipment, motor vehicle operation, and fugitive dust (mainly PM10) from disturbed soil. Off-site emissions are caused by motor vehicle exhaust from delivery vehicles, worker traffic, and road dust (PM10 and PM2.5).
The off-road construction equipment list is shown in Table 2. The activity for construction equipment is based on the horsepower and load factors of the equipment. In general, the horsepower is the power of an engine—the greater the horsepower, the greater the power. The load factor is the average power of a given piece of equipment while in operation compared with its maximum rated horsepower. A load factor of 1.0 indicates that a piece of equipment continually operates at its maximum operating capacity.
Table 2 Off-Road Construction Equipment
Activity Hours of Quantity of Type of Equipment Horsepower Load Factor Operation per Equipment Day
Dumpers/Tenders 1 16 0.38 8
Excavators 1 247 0.4 8
Storage Basin
Graders 1 97 0.37 8
Off-highway Trucks 1 402 0.38 8
Excavators 1 158 0.38 8
Pipeline Graders 1 187 0.41 8
Off-Highway Trucks 1 402 0.38 8
en aq&ghg_methodology.docx 1.2
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Model Parameter and Assumptions February 9, 2018
Other Construction 1 172 0.38 8 Equipment
Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 97 0.37 8
Pavers 1 130 0.42 8
Paving Equipment 1 132 0.36 8
Paving
Plate Compactors 1 8 0.43 8
Rollers 1 80 0.38 8
A maximum of 33 construction workers per day is assumed for the duration of construction. Soil excavated to construct the storage basin will be balanced onsite, however to provide a conservative estimate it was assumed that up to 10 percent of the total soil excavated may need to be hauled off for a total of 24,200 cubic yards. It was assumed that 9,600 cubic yards of asphalt/concrete would be required to repave the roadway where the pipeline would be located. A summary of the on-road construction-related trips is provided in Table 3 below.
Table 3 On-Road Construction Vehicles
Activity Number of Vehicle Category of Trip Length Type of Equipment Trips Vehicle (miles)
Employee commute 33 per day Passenger Vehicles Light-duty Gas 16.8
Material Delivery/Soil Heavy-duty diesel 1,710 total Heavy-duty Trucks 20 Export trucks
Note: CalEEMod default trips lengths were used for employee commute and material/equipment delivery.
en aq&ghg_methodology.docx 1.3
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Model Parameter and Assumptions February 9, 2018
1.5 THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
The Amador Air District does not have a recommended threshold of significance for determining a project’s significance, however the Air District’s Rule 419 has established 100 tons per year of a nonattainment pollutant or precursor as the allowable emissions for stationary sources subject to an Authority to Construct permit. This is similar to the adjacent Calaveras County Air Pollution Control District’s threshold for stationary sources. Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD), which is also adjacent to the Amador Air District has established detailed significance thresholds for construction and operation. SMAQMD has established 85 pounds per day of NOX and 80 pounds per day (14.6 tons per year) of PM10, and 82 pounds per day (15 tons per year) of PM2.5 as its construction emissions thresholds. The El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District has established 82 pounds per day of ROG and NOX as its thresholds of significance for ozone precursors. Placer County Air Pollution
Control District has established 82 pounds per day of ROG, NOX, and PM10 as its thresholds of significance for construction emissions.
Both Placer County APCD and SMAQMD have established 1,100 MTCO2e as their De Minimis level of greenhouse gas emissions. Projects that emit less than 1,00 MTCO2e would be presumed to have a less than significant impact.
Based on the above information, the following thresholds have been determined to be applicable for this specific project:
• ROG – 82 pound per day
• NOX – 82 pounds per day
• PM10 – 80 pounds per day (14.6 tons per year)
• PM2.5 – 82 pounds per day (15 tons per year)
• Greenhouse Gases – 1,100 MTCO2e
en aq&ghg_methodology.docx 1.4
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Results February 9, 2018
2.0 RESULTS
The estimated criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions are shown in Table 4 (annual), Table 5 (Daily – Summer) and Table 6 (Daily – Winter).
Table 4 Estimated Annual Emissions (Tons)
Category ROG NOX Fugitive Exhaust Total PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Total PM2.5 CO2e PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 (Metric Tons) 2019 0.29 2.18 1.14 0.13 1.27 0.61 0.12 0.73 436.14 Threshold of N/A N/A - - 14.6 - - 15 1,100 Signficance Significant N/A N/A - - No - - No No Impact?
Table 5 Estimated Daily Emissions - Summer (Pounds)
Category ROG NOX Fugitive Exhaust Total PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Total PM2.5 CO2e PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 (Metric Tons) 2019 5.18 52.77 18.92 2.25 21.17 10.13 2.07 12.21 8,364.13 Threshold of N/A 82 - - 80 - - 82 N/A Significance Significant N/A - - No - - No No Impact?
en aq&ghg_methodology.docx 2.1
AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Results February 9, 2018
Table 6 Estimated Daily Emissions - Winter (Pounds)
Category ROG NOX Fugitive Exhaust Total PM10 Fugitive Exhaust Total PM2.5 CO2e PM10 PM10 PM2.5 PM2.5 (Metric Tons) 2019 5.18 37.75 18.92 2.25 21.17 10.13 2.07 12.21 8,297.58 SMAQMD N/A 85 - - 80 - - 82 N/A Threshold Significant N/A - - No - - No No Impact?
en aq&ghg_methodology.docx 2.2
CALEEMOD RESULTS
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 1 Date: 2/7/2018 12:22 PM
Amador Water Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project - Amador County, Annual
Amador Water Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Amador County, Annual
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
User Defined Industrial 17.00 User Defined Unit 17.00 0.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
Climate Zone 2 Operational Year 2021
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - 15 acres for storage (13 storage + 2 for access roads) 1 5 acre pipeline Construction Phase - anticipated construction period Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Grading - total of 17 acres Trips and VMT - estimated Off-road Equipment - estimated equip Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 106.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 121.00
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 10/28/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 11/25/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 11/18/2019
tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/3/2019 10/29/2019
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 53.00 2.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 15.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 24,200.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 8,333.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 17.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 247.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Dozers Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Storage area
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Storage area
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2021 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 1,042.00 500.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 3,025.00 1,210.00 2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year tons/yr MT/yr 2019 0.2969 3.0485 2.0025 4.8000e- 1.1424 0.1300 1.2725 0.6124 0.1199 0.7323 0.0000 433.3809 433.3809 0.1106 0.0000 436.1456 003
Maximum 0.2969 3.0485 2.0025 4.8000e- 1.1424 0.1300 1.2725 0.6124 0.1199 0.7323 0.0000 433.3809 433.3809 0.1106 0.0000 436.1456 003
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2019 0.2969 2.1796 2.0025 4.8000e- 1.1424 0.1300 1.2725 0.6124 0.1199 0.7323 0.0000 433.3805 433.3805 0.1106 0.0000 436.1452 003
Maximum 0.2969 2.1796 2.0025 4.8000e- 1.1424 0.1300 1.2725 0.6124 0.1199 0.7323 0.0000 433.3805 433.3805 0.1106 0.0000 436.1452 003
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 28.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
Highest 3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 Storage area Site Preparation 6/3/2019 11/18/2019 5 121
2 Pipeline Grading 6/3/2019 10/28/2019 5 106
3 Paving Paving 10/29/2019 11/25/2019 5 20
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0 Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0 Acres of Paving: 0 Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Pipeline Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Storage area Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Pipeline Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Pipeline Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Storage area Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Pipeline Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Pipeline Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Pipeline Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Pipeline Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Storage area Graders 1 8.00 97 0.37
Storage area Excavators 1 8.00 247 0.40
Pipeline Scrapers 0 8.00 367 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Vehicle Class Class Pipeline 6 15.00 0.00 500.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Storage area 7 18.00 0.00 1,210.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
3.2 Storage area - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.1023 0.0000 1.1023 0.6019 0.0000 0.6019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1065 1.0119 0.5536 1.5400e- 0.0495 0.0495 0.0457 0.0457 0.0000 137.9133 137.9133 0.0429 0.0000 138.9866 003
Total 0.1065 1.0119 0.5536 1.5400e- 1.1023 0.0495 1.1519 0.6019 0.0457 0.6475 0.0000 137.9133 137.9133 0.0429 0.0000 138.9866 003
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 7.7400e- 0.2617 0.0804 5.1000e- 0.0100 1.8700e- 0.0119 2.7400e- 1.7900e- 4.5300e- 0.0000 48.6754 48.6754 1.1500e- 0.0000 48.7042 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0142 0.0112 0.0979 1.2000e- 0.0134 1.1000e- 0.0135 3.5600e- 1.0000e- 3.6600e- 0.0000 11.1611 11.1611 7.8000e- 0.0000 11.1805 004 004 003 004 003 004
Total 0.0219 0.2729 0.1783 6.3000e- 0.0234 1.9800e- 0.0254 6.3000e- 1.8900e- 8.1900e- 0.0000 59.8365 59.8365 1.9300e- 0.0000 59.8847 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.1023 0.0000 1.1023 0.6019 0.0000 0.6019 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1065 0.5488 0.5536 1.5400e- 0.0495 0.0495 0.0457 0.0457 0.0000 137.9131 137.9131 0.0429 0.0000 138.9865 003
Total 0.1065 0.5488 0.5536 1.5400e- 1.1023 0.0495 1.1519 0.6019 0.0457 0.6475 0.0000 137.9131 137.9131 0.0429 0.0000 138.9865 003
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 7.7400e- 0.2617 0.0804 5.1000e- 0.0100 1.8700e- 0.0119 2.7400e- 1.7900e- 4.5300e- 0.0000 48.6754 48.6754 1.1500e- 0.0000 48.7042 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0142 0.0112 0.0979 1.2000e- 0.0134 1.1000e- 0.0135 3.5600e- 1.0000e- 3.6600e- 0.0000 11.1611 11.1611 7.8000e- 0.0000 11.1805 004 004 003 004 003 004
Total 0.0219 0.2729 0.1783 6.3000e- 0.0234 1.9800e- 0.0254 6.3000e- 1.8900e- 8.1900e- 0.0000 59.8365 59.8365 1.9300e- 0.0000 59.8847 004 003 003 003 003 003
3.3 Pipeline - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5300e- 0.0000 1.5300e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004
Off-Road 0.1460 1.5676 1.0815 2.1900e- 0.0734 0.0734 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 195.7942 195.7942 0.0613 0.0000 197.3276 003
Total 0.1460 1.5676 1.0815 2.1900e- 1.5300e- 0.0734 0.0750 1.9000e- 0.0676 0.0678 0.0000 195.7942 195.7942 0.0613 0.0000 197.3276 003 003 004 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 3.2000e- 0.1082 0.0332 2.1000e- 4.1400e- 7.7000e- 4.9200e- 1.1300e- 7.4000e- 1.8700e- 0.0000 20.1138 20.1138 4.8000e- 0.0000 20.1257 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0104 8.1600e- 0.0715 9.0000e- 9.7700e- 8.0000e- 9.8500e- 2.6000e- 7.0000e- 2.6700e- 0.0000 8.1479 8.1479 5.7000e- 0.0000 8.1621 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004
Total 0.0136 0.1163 0.1047 3.0000e- 0.0139 8.5000e- 0.0148 3.7300e- 8.1000e- 4.5400e- 0.0000 28.2617 28.2617 1.0500e- 0.0000 28.2878 004 004 003 004 003 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Fugitive Dust 1.5300e- 0.0000 1.5300e- 1.9000e- 0.0000 1.9000e- 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 003 003 004 004
Off-Road 0.1460 1.1619 1.0815 2.1900e- 0.0734 0.0734 0.0676 0.0676 0.0000 195.7940 195.7940 0.0613 0.0000 197.3273 003
Total 0.1460 1.1619 1.0815 2.1900e- 1.5300e- 0.0734 0.0750 1.9000e- 0.0676 0.0678 0.0000 195.7940 195.7940 0.0613 0.0000 197.3273 003 003 004
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.2000e- 0.1082 0.0332 2.1000e- 4.1400e- 7.7000e- 4.9200e- 1.1300e- 7.4000e- 1.8700e- 0.0000 20.1138 20.1138 4.8000e- 0.0000 20.1257 003 004 003 004 003 003 004 003 004
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0104 8.1600e- 0.0715 9.0000e- 9.7700e- 8.0000e- 9.8500e- 2.6000e- 7.0000e- 2.6700e- 0.0000 8.1479 8.1479 5.7000e- 0.0000 8.1621 003 005 003 005 003 003 005 003 004
Total 0.0136 0.1163 0.1047 3.0000e- 0.0139 8.5000e- 0.0148 3.7300e- 8.1000e- 4.5400e- 0.0000 28.2617 28.2617 1.0500e- 0.0000 28.2878 004 004 003 004 003 003 3.4 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Off-Road 7.6700e- 0.0787 0.0754 1.2000e- 4.2200e- 4.2200e- 3.8900e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 10.5504 10.5504 3.2700e- 0.0000 10.6322 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.6700e- 0.0787 0.0754 1.2000e- 4.2200e- 4.2200e- 3.8900e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 10.5504 10.5504 3.2700e- 0.0000 10.6322 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.3000e- 1.0300e- 8.9900e- 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.0249 1.0249 7.0000e- 0.0000 1.0267 003 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 1.3000e- 1.0300e- 8.9900e- 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.0249 1.0249 7.0000e- 0.0000 1.0267 003 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 7.6700e- 0.0787 0.0754 1.2000e- 4.2200e- 4.2200e- 3.8900e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 10.5504 10.5504 3.2700e- 0.0000 10.6322 003 004 003 003 003 003 003
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 7.6700e- 0.0787 0.0754 1.2000e- 4.2200e- 4.2200e- 3.8900e- 3.8900e- 0.0000 10.5504 10.5504 3.2700e- 0.0000 10.6322 003 004 003 003 003 003 003 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category tons/yr MT/yr Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 1.3000e- 1.0300e- 8.9900e- 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.0249 1.0249 7.0000e- 0.0000 1.0267 003 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005
Total 1.3000e- 1.0300e- 8.9900e- 1.0000e- 1.2300e- 1.0000e- 1.2400e- 3.3000e- 1.0000e- 3.4000e- 0.0000 1.0249 1.0249 7.0000e- 0.0000 1.0267 003 003 003 005 003 005 003 004 005 004 005 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 1 Date: 2/7/2018 12:13 PM
Amador Water Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project - Amador County, Summer
Amador Water Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Amador County, Summer
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
User Defined Industrial 17.00 User Defined Unit 17.00 0.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
Climate Zone 2 Operational Year 2021
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - 15 acres for storage (13 storage + 2 for access roads) 1 5 acre pipeline Construction Phase - anticipated construction period Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Grading - total of 17 acres Trips and VMT - estimated Off-road Equipment - estimated equip Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 106.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 121.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 10/28/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 11/25/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 11/18/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/3/2019 10/29/2019
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 53.00 2.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 15.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 24,200.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 8,333.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 17.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 247.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Dozers Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Storage area
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Storage area
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2021 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 1,042.00 500.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 3,025.00 1,210.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2016.3.1 Page 1 of 1 Date: 2/7/2018 12:20 PM
Amador Water Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project - Amador County, Winter
Amador Water Agency Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project Amador County, Winter
1.0 Project Characteristics
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
User Defined Industrial 17.00 User Defined Unit 17.00 0.00 0
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization Rural Wind Speed (m/s) 2.2 Precipitation Freq (Days) 63
Climate Zone 2 Operational Year 2021
Utility Company Pacific Gas & Electric Company
CO2 Intensity 641.35 CH4 Intensity 0.029 N2O Intensity 0.006 (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr) (lb/MWhr)
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
Project Characteristics - Land Use - 15 acres for storage (13 storage + 2 for access roads) 1 5 acre pipeline Construction Phase - anticipated construction period Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Off-road Equipment - estimated equipment Grading - total of 17 acres Trips and VMT - estimated Off-road Equipment - estimated equip Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value tblConstructionPhase NumDays 30.00 106.00 tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 121.00 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 10/28/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 11/25/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseEndDate 6/2/2019 11/18/2019 tblConstructionPhase PhaseStartDate 6/3/2019 10/29/2019
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 53.00 2.00
tblGrading AcresOfGrading 0.00 15.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 24,200.00
tblGrading MaterialImported 0.00 8,333.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.00 17.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 187.00 97.00 tblOffRoadEquipment HorsePower 158.00 247.00 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.41 0.37 tblOffRoadEquipment LoadFactor 0.38 0.40 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes Graders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Rubber Tired Dozers Excavators tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Other Construction Equipment tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Plate Compactors tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Dumpers/Tenders tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentType Off-Highway Trucks tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 1.00 0.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 3.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 1.00 tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 2.00 0.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment OffRoadEquipmentUnitAmount 0.00 1.00
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Paving
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Storage area
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Storage area
tblOffRoadEquipment PhaseName Pipeline tblProjectCharacteristics OperationalYear 2018 2021 tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 1,042.00 500.00
tblTripsAndVMT HaulingTripNumber 3,025.00 1,210.00 2.0 Emissions Summary
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission) Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year lb/day lb/day 2019 5.1841 53.0585 34.4806 0.0829 18.9229 2.2536 21.1765 10.1323 2.0779 12.2101 0.0000 8,244.691 8,244.6914 2.1155 0.0000 8,297.578 4 6
Maximum 5.1841 53.0585 34.4806 0.0829 18.9229 2.2536 21.1765 10.1323 2.0779 12.2101 0.0000 8,244.691 8,244.6914 2.1155 0.0000 8,297.578 4 6
Mitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Year lb/day lb/day 2019 5.1841 37.7484 34.4806 0.0829 18.9229 2.2536 21.1765 10.1323 2.0779 12.2101 0.0000 8,244.691 8,244.6914 2.1155 0.0000 8,297.578 4 5
Maximum 5.1841 37.7484 34.4806 0.0829 18.9229 2.2536 21.1765 10.1323 2.0779 12.2101 0.0000 8,244.691 8,244.6914 2.1155 0.0000 8,297.578 4 5
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Percent 0.00 28.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Reduction
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days Num Days Phase Description Number Week
1 Storage area Site Preparation 6/3/2019 11/18/2019 5 121
2 Pipeline Grading 6/3/2019 10/28/2019 5 106
3 Paving Paving 10/29/2019 11/25/2019 5 20 Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 0
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 0
Acres of Paving: 0
Residential Indoor: 0; Residential Outdoor: 0; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Pipeline Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Storage area Dumpers/Tenders 1 8.00 16 0.38
Pipeline Other Construction Equipment 1 8.00 172 0.42
Pipeline Excavators 1 8.00 158 0.38
Paving Plate Compactors 1 8.00 8 0.43
Storage area Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Pipeline Off-Highway Trucks 1 8.00 402 0.38
Paving Pavers 1 8.00 130 0.42
Paving Rollers 1 8.00 80 0.38
Pipeline Rubber Tired Dozers 0 8.00 247 0.40
Pipeline Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Pipeline Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Storage area Graders 1 8.00 97 0.37
Storage area Excavators 1 8.00 247 0.40
Pipeline Scrapers 0 8.00 367 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Trip Vendor Trip Hauling Trip Worker Vehicle Vendor Hauling Count Number Number Number Length Length Length Class Vehicle Vehicle Class Class Pipeline 6 15.00 0.00 500.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 4 10.00 0.00 0.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Storage area 7 18.00 0.00 1,210.00 16.80 6.60 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT 3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction 3.2 Storage area - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 18.2203 0.0000 18.2203 9.9483 0.0000 9.9483 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.7602 16.7263 9.1495 0.0255 0.8189 0.8189 0.7548 0.7548 2,512.782 2,512.7825 0.7823 2,532.339 5 5
Total 1.7602 16.7263 9.1495 0.0255 18.2203 0.8189 19.0392 9.9483 0.7548 10.7031 2,512.782 2,512.7825 0.7823 2,532.339 5 5
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1298 4.3434 1.3516 8.4400e- 0.1714 0.0313 0.2026 0.0467 0.0299 0.0766 881.9656 881.9656 0.0217 882.5090 003
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.2610 0.1981 1.6016 2.0000e- 0.2299 1.7600e- 0.2317 0.0610 1.6200e- 0.0626 197.3074 197.3074 0.0139 197.6560 003 003 003
Total 0.3908 4.5415 2.9532 0.0104 0.4013 0.0330 0.4343 0.1076 0.0315 0.1392 1,079.273 1,079.2730 0.0357 1,080.164 0 9
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 18.2203 0.0000 18.2203 9.9483 0.0000 9.9483 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.7602 9.0712 9.1495 0.0255 0.8189 0.8189 0.7548 0.7548 0.0000 2,512.782 2,512.7825 0.7823 2,532.339 5 5
Total 1.7602 9.0712 9.1495 0.0255 18.2203 0.8189 19.0392 9.9483 0.7548 10.7031 0.0000 2,512.782 2,512.7825 0.7823 2,532.339 5 5 Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.1298 4.3434 1.3516 8.4400e- 0.1714 0.0313 0.2026 0.0467 0.0299 0.0766 881.9656 881.9656 0.0217 882.5090 003
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.2610 0.1981 1.6016 2.0000e- 0.2299 1.7600e- 0.2317 0.0610 1.6200e- 0.0626 197.3074 197.3074 0.0139 197.6560 003 003 003
Total 0.3908 4.5415 2.9532 0.0104 0.4013 0.0330 0.4343 0.1076 0.0315 0.1392 1,079.273 1,079.2730 0.0357 1,080.164 0 9
3.3 Pipeline - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.0289 0.0000 0.0289 3.5100e- 0.0000 3.5100e- 0.0000 0.0000 003 003
Off-Road 2.7543 29.5768 20.4056 0.0413 1.3854 1.3854 1.2760 1.2760 4,072.191 4,072.1916 1.2757 4,104.083 6 0
Total 2.7543 29.5768 20.4056 0.0413 0.0289 1.3854 1.4143 3.5100e- 1.2760 1.2795 4,072.191 4,072.1916 1.2757 4,104.083 003 6 0
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0612 2.0488 0.6375 3.9800e- 0.0808 0.0148 0.0956 0.0220 0.0141 0.0361 416.0215 416.0215 0.0103 416.2778 003
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.2175 0.1651 1.3347 1.6600e- 0.1916 1.4700e- 0.1931 0.0508 1.3500e- 0.0522 164.4229 164.4229 0.0116 164.7133 003 003 003
Total 0.2787 2.2139 1.9722 5.6400e- 0.2724 0.0162 0.2886 0.0728 0.0155 0.0883 580.4444 580.4444 0.0219 580.9911 003 Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Fugitive Dust 0.0289 0.0000 0.0289 3.5100e- 0.0000 3.5100e- 0.0000 0.0000 003 003
Off-Road 2.7543 21.9218 20.4056 0.0413 1.3854 1.3854 1.2760 1.2760 0.0000 4,072.191 4,072.1916 1.2757 4,104.083 6 0
Total 2.7543 21.9218 20.4056 0.0413 0.0289 1.3854 1.4143 3.5100e- 1.2760 1.2795 0.0000 4,072.191 4,072.1916 1.2757 4,104.083 003 6 0
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0612 2.0488 0.6375 3.9800e- 0.0808 0.0148 0.0956 0.0220 0.0141 0.0361 416.0215 416.0215 0.0103 416.2778 003
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.2175 0.1651 1.3347 1.6600e- 0.1916 1.4700e- 0.1931 0.0508 1.3500e- 0.0522 164.4229 164.4229 0.0116 164.7133 003 003 003
Total 0.2787 2.2139 1.9722 5.6400e- 0.2724 0.0162 0.2886 0.0728 0.0155 0.0883 580.4444 580.4444 0.0219 580.9911 003
3.4 Paving - 2019 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.7673 7.8733 7.5429 0.0119 0.4221 0.4221 0.3891 0.3891 1,162.980 1,162.9806 0.3606 1,171.996 6 3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.7673 7.8733 7.5429 0.0119 0.4221 0.4221 0.3891 0.3891 1,162.980 1,162.9806 0.3606 1,171.996 6 3 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1450 0.1101 0.8898 1.1100e- 0.1277 9.8000e- 0.1287 0.0339 9.0000e- 0.0348 109.6152 109.6152 7.7500e- 109.8089 003 004 004 003
Total 0.1450 0.1101 0.8898 1.1100e- 0.1277 9.8000e- 0.1287 0.0339 9.0000e- 0.0348 109.6152 109.6152 7.7500e- 109.8089 003 004 004 003
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Off-Road 0.7673 7.8733 7.5429 0.0119 0.4221 0.4221 0.3891 0.3891 0.0000 1,162.980 1,162.9806 0.3606 1,171.996 6 3
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.7673 7.8733 7.5429 0.0119 0.4221 0.4221 0.3891 0.3891 0.0000 1,162.980 1,162.9806 0.3606 1,171.996 6 3
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive Exhaust PM10 Fugitive Exhaust PM2.5 Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e PM10 PM10 Total PM2.5 PM2.5 Total
Category lb/day lb/day Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.1450 0.1101 0.8898 1.1100e- 0.1277 9.8000e- 0.1287 0.0339 9.0000e- 0.0348 109.6152 109.6152 7.7500e- 109.8089 003 004 004 003
Total 0.1450 0.1101 0.8898 1.1100e- 0.1277 9.8000e- 0.1287 0.0339 9.0000e- 0.0348 109.6152 109.6152 7.7500e- 109.8089 003 004 004 003 LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
BIOLOGICAL FIELD SURVEY RESULTS
Plant and wildlife species observed during the reconnaissance-level survey conducted May 2017 for the Lake Camanche Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Improvement Project, Amador County, California.
Scientific Name Common Name Plants
Acmispon americanus Spanish lotus
Aegilops triuncialis goatgrass
Aesculus californica California buckeye
Agoseris heterophylla annual agoseris
Agroseris californica California dandelion
Agrostis exarata spike bentgrass
Agrostis scabra rough bentgrass
Agrostis stolonifera creeping bentgrass
Aira caryophyllea silver hairgrass
Allium hyalinum glassy onion
Allium sp. onion species
Alopecurus pratensis meadow foxtail
Alopecurus saccatus Pacific foxtail
Ambrosia acanthicarpa annual burweed
Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck
Amsinckia menziesii fiddleneck
Anaphalis margaritacea pearly everlasting
Anenostoma fasciculatum chamise
Anthriscus caucalis bur chevril
Asclepia vestita woolly milkweed
Avena barbata slender oat
Avena fatua wild oat
Baccharis pilularis coyote brush
Brachypodium distachyon false brome
Brassica nigra black mustard
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.1
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Brassica rapa common mustard
Briza minor little quaking grass
Brodiaea californica California brodiaea
Brodiaea sp. brodiaea species
Bromus catharticus rescue grass
Bromus diandrus ripgut brome
Bromus hordeaceus soft chess
Bromus madritensis foxtail chess
Bromus tectorum cheatgrass
Calochortus luteus yellow Mariposa lily
Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle
Carex feta sheathed sedge
Carex sp. sedge species
Castilleja attenuata valley tassels
Castilleja densiflora dense flower owl's clover
Castilleja tenius hairy owl's clover
Centairium tenuiflorum slender centaury
Cerastium glomeratum mouseear chickweed
Cichorium intybus chicory
Cirsium vulgare bull thistle
Claytonia parviflora Miner's lettuce
Claytonia perfoliata Miner's lettuce
Convolvulus arvensis field bindweed
Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass
Cynosurus echinatus annual dogtail grass
Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge
Daucus pusillus wild carrot
Delphinium sp. larkspur species
Deschampsia sp. hairgrass species
Digitaria sanguinalis hairy crabgrass
Dittrichia graveolons stinkwort
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.2
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Downingi ornatissima horned downingia
Dysphania ambrosioides Mexican tea
Egeria densa Brazilian waterweed
Elymus caput-medusae Medusa head
Elymus elymoides squirrel tail grass
Elymus ponticus tall wheat grass
Elymus sp. wheatgrass species
Epilobium sp. willowherb species
Erigeron sumatrensis tropical horseweed
Erodium botrys broad leaf filaree
Erodium cicutarium red stemmed filaree
Eucalyptus sp. gum tree species
Euclayptus pulverulenta silverleaf mountain gum
Euphorbia virgata leafy spurge
Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
Ficus carica common fig
Gatridium phleoides nit grass
Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium
Holcus lanatus velvet grass
Hordeum brachyantherum meadow barley
Hordeum marinum seaside barley
Hypochaeris radicata hairy catsear
Juncus sp. rush species
Lupinus bicolor annual lupine
Lupinus nanus sky lupine
Luzula comosa common wood rush
Lysimachia arvensis scarlet pimpernel
Medicago polymorpha bur clover
Mentha pulegium pennyroyal
Microseris sp. silverpuff species
Mimulus guttatus seep monkey flower
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.3
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
Scientific Name Common Name
Montia fontana water chickweed
Navarretia divaricata mountain navarretia
Navarretia eriocephala hoary navarretia
Navarretia intertexta needle leaved navarretia
Navarretia pubescens purple navarretia
Parentucellia viscosa yellow glandweed
Paspalum dilatatum Dallis grass
Phalaris aquatica Harding grass
Pinus sabiniana foothill pine
Plagiobothrys sp. popcorn flower species
Plantago lanceolata English plantain
Polypogon monspeliensis annual beard grass
Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood
Quercus chrysolepis canyon live oak
Quercus douglasii blue oak
Quercus lobata valley oak
Raphanus sativus cultivated radish
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
Rumex crispus curly leaved dock
Rumex pulcher fiddle dock
Salix lasiandra Pacific willow
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Salix sp. willow species
Sambucus nigra elderberry
Scirpus sp. bulrush sp.
Silybum marianum milk thistle
Sisymbrium irio London rocket Sonchus asper sowthistle Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Trifolium dubium shamrock clover Trifolium glomeratum clustered clover
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.4
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Trifolium hirtum rose clover Trifolium variegatum white tipped clover Triphysaria eriantha butter 'n' eggs Triphysaria versicolor yellow owl's clover Triteleia hyacinthina wild hyacinth Triticum aestivum common wheat Typha sp. cattail species Verbana hastata blue vervain Verbana sp. vervain species Verbascum thapsus common mullein Vicia villosa hairy vetch Vitis californica California wild grape Sonchus asper sowthistle Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak Trifolium dubium shamrock clover Trifolium glomeratum clustered clover Trifolium hirtum rose clover Reptiles and Amphibians Actinemys marmorata western pond turtle Anaxyrus boreas halophilus California toad Pituophis catenifer catenifer Pacific gopher snake Pseudacris sierra Sierran treefrog Rana catesbeiana American bullfrog Sceloporus occidentalis occidentalis northwestern fence lizard Thamnophis sirtalis fitchi valley gartersnake Birds Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird Anas platyrhynchos mallard Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay Ardea alba great egret
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.5
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Ardea herodias great blue heron Branta canadensis Canada goose Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk Buteo lineatus red-shouldered hawk Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Cathartes aura turkey vulture Charadrius vociferus killdeer Corvus corax common raven Haemorhous mexicanus house finch Hirundo rustica barn swallow Melanerpes formicivorus acorn woodpecker Meleagris gallopavo wild turkey Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Pandion haliaetus osprey Pelecanus erythrorhynchos American white pelican Phasianus colchicus ring-necked pheasant Piranga ludoviciana western tanager Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sialia mexicana western bluebird Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch Spinus tristis American goldfinch Sterna forsteri Forester's tern Streptopelia decaocto Eurasian collared dove Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Sturnus vulgaris European starling Turdus migratorius American robin Tyrannus verticalis western kingbird Tyto alba barn owl Zenaida macroura mourning dove Zonotrichia leucophrys white-crowned sparrow
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.6
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix B Biological Field Survey Results September 20, 2018
Scientific Name Common Name Mammals Canis latrans coyote lynx rufous bobcat Odocoileus hemionus mule deer Procyon lotor raccoon Sciurus griseus western gray squirrel Spermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx B.7
LAKE CAMANCHE UNIT 6 WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
Appendix C Native American Correspondence September 20, 2018
NATIVE AMERICAN CORRESPONDENCE
ta l:\1840\active\184030524\report\environmental\ceqa\admin_draft\rpt_awa_camanche_ismnd_20180920.docx C.1
Mlwor United Auburn lndian CommuniÇ Mnlou of the Aubum Rancheria
Gene Whitehouse John L. Williams Danny Rey Calvin Moman Chairman Vice Chairman Secretary r'lt'rJ n{¡i1¡!il.i Council Member ft¡ç¿ r,tlr ìl:':
tì'; í'i T ì iì 7.'J 1r Lir '1"' Y
.rurrl¿_l.rì November 23,2015 1 r r(- ('1:ì' i-'f''),;"ìfi'.r t-' r\ ¿r; SU'i"iË¡a Amador County Water Agency Representative 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685
RE: AB 52 Notification Request, California Environmental Quality Act Public Resoruces Code section 21080.3, subd. (b) Request for Formal Notification of Proposed Projects within the United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria's Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation
Dear Amador County Water Agency Representative:
In accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), The United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC) of the Auburn Rancheria, which is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area within your agency's geographic area ofjurisdiction, requests formal notice of and information on proposed projects for which your agency will serve as a lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.
Enclosed with this letter is a copy of a map that depicts the ancestral territory that the UAIC is traditionally and culturally affiliated with. UAIC's traditionally and culturally affrliated geographic area is supported by, and has been developed through, multiple lines of evidence including oral tradition, history, ethnography, geography, linguistic, kinship, biology, archaeolog¡ anthropology, folklore, other relevant information and expert opinion, and Congressional action through the Auburn Indian Restoration Act of 1994 (H.R. 4225l1ß'r).
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), and until further notice, we hereby designate the following person as the tribe's lead contact person for purposes of receiving notices ofproposed projects from your agency:
Lead Contact: Gene Whitehouse, Chairman 10720Indian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603 916-883-2320
Tribal Offce 10720 lndian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 883-2390 FAX (530) 883-2380 Copies to: Jason Camp Tribal Historic Preservation Offi cer 10720Indian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603 (s30) 883-2320 j camp @aubumrancheri a. com
Marcos Guerrero Cultural Resources Manager 10720Indian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603 (530) 883-2364 mguerrero @auburnrancheri a. com
We request that all notices be sent via certifred U.S. Mail with return receipt and that your notices specify a lead contact person for your agency. Following receipt and review of the information your agency provides, within the 30-day period outlined in Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (d), the UAIC may request consultation, as defined by Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 to discuss issues including the type of environmental review to be conducted, project alternatives, significant effects of the project and mitigation measures for any project impacts (direct, indirect and cumulative) a specific project may cause to tribal cultural resources.
For your information, UAIC's policy is to be present during project cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys, to identifu tribal cultural resources. UAIC's policy is also to be provided all existing cultural resource assessments, including the request for and results of any records search that may have been conducted prior to the initial survey or consultation meeting. Finally, UAIC's general policy is preservation in place and avoidance of tribal cultural resources, and any subsurface testing or data recovery must not occur without first consulting with UAIC and receiving UAIC's written consent.
We recommend that your agency retain this correspondence in your permanent files. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Marcos Guerrero, Cultural Resources Manager, at (530) 883-2364 or by ernail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Gene Whitehouse, Chairman
CC: Jason Camp, THPO Marcos Guerrero, CRM Cynthia Gome4 NAHC
Tribal Office 10720 lndian Hill Road Aubum, CA 95603 (530) 883-2390 FAX (530) 883-2380 UAIC Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation (for the purposes of Califomia AB 52)
ThiB area includes all of Amador, El Dorado, Nêvada, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter and Yuba counties as well as portions of Butte, Plumas, San Joaquin, Sierra, Solano, and Yolo counties.
cornmencing any archaêolog¡cal activitþ3 in or arourìd sensitive areas.
Nc¡te: ìÂ/hile we mek€ êvery ellort to ièrnify Tribal Cultwal Resources that €xist within the UAIC Geographic Area of Traditional and CulturalAlllliation, it is highly øobable thål ther6 ar€ addilioflå|, older s¡t€s lhat we have not yet identified due to r€stricted access or ciher rsesons or (hat egricrl[wâl or oonstruction activities have clietr¡bLrt€d burials and oultural meteriels beyond the previously known bounderies of thes€ sit€s. Even il thès€ matêrials are ir a di¡turòed condition, they still retain cultural value to uAlC and should be respecned and protected, B€câus€ of this, thorough survey with a qualified Nat¡ve American Monitor to corf¡rm site bounderies md searcfr ior unknorn sites is crilirxl This survey should be conducl€d afrêr consultation with the Tribe end prior to the final detemination of ttle typ€ of enyiroffnental document to be used. u,*,offiu"' April7,2016
Amador County Water Agency ;+gH**gnloofuo** 12800 Ridge Road Sutter Creek, CA 95685
RE: California Environmental Qualit¡¡Act Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b) RequestforFormal Notification of Proposed Projects within the Buena Vista Rancheria's Geographic Area of Traditional and Cultural Affiliation
As of the date of this letter, in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), Buena Vista Rancheria, which is traditionally and culturally affiliated with a geographic area within your agency's geographic area of jurisdiction, requests formal notice of and information on pr:oposed projects for which your agency will serve as a
lead agency under the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Public Resources Code section 21000 et.seq. ,
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3,1, subd. (b), and until further notice, we hereby designate the following person,as the tribe's lead contact person for purposes of receiving notices of þroposed pr:ojects from your agency:
Name: Roselynn Lwenya, Ph.D, Title: Environmental Resources Director/Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Address: 1418 20th Street STE 200, Sacramento CA 95811
Phone Number: 91 6-491-001 1 Fax Number: 91 6-491 -001 2 Email Add ress : roselvn n@buenavistatri be-çgm
We request that all notices be sent via certified U.S. Mail with return receipt. Following receipt and review of the infôrmation your agency provides, within the 30-day period proscribed by Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (d), the Buena Vista Rancheria may request consultation, as defined by Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1, subd. (b), pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080.3.2 to mitigate any project impacts a specific project may cause to tribal cultural resources.
lf you have an¡¡ uestions or need additional information, please contact our lead contact person listed above.
Chaifl¡/omi¡n Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk lndians :: l.
CC: Native American Heritage Commission
I 4l B 20th Sireet, Sle. 200 Socromento, CA 958I I Tel. 916.4ç).001 I -le Fox 916.49 L0012 www. buenovistolribe. com 'frË4fl ,E¡'jdr,.i.+f ã'{'rÉTo.f 't;i'4'ffi ' Þ:- r$rA tl
f:*¡ ¡*&#, ;g{:}êã:r .Ë?å4 å1 .t- 't ß\ [r, 'iÌ m t¡ f¡ ü,ç I I -;$ 1418 20lh Street, Suile 200 RECËI\iED
Soaomento, [A 958 ì I Ah4ADOR WATER AGE}IOY fi{ 'i At neci' ;i t..ol:ni.V Watr:;- hgency )i-;J 2',¿016 'ri ': .!2800 2 ?,tj.í") iì i c;¡3r.: F. oa C RIDGE ROAD i;'ì Sr-i ttcr Ci'cei<, C,å. 95685 SUTTER CREEK, CA 95685 "d il' ,t; i{- ;,¡¡i¡¡¡,,i¡,¡¡¡f i¡i¡j,i¡ii,¡¡¡¡i;,,i¡¡¡íi,,iiii¡¡¡¡¡iiiiji,jii,¡ Brandt Cook
From: Damon Wyckoff Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 10:47 AM To: Brandt Cook Cc: Cris Thompson; Erik Christeson; Gene Mancebo Subject: Re: Randy Yonemura
Brandt I did not receive a letter-he asked that I include him in an 52 for all future projects when we met in person last week
Sent from my iPhone
On Sep 20, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Brandt Cook
Cris or Damon,
Could you send me a copy of the Randy Yonemura AB52 request letter we received. It may have already been sent to me, but I can’t find it.
Sincerely,
Brandt Cook Amador Water Agency www.amadorwater.org (209) 223-3018 Direct: (209) 257-5206, Fax: (209) 257-5295 12800 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685
1 ,4 trubin Agency
128Ûtl Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685-9630 . lvvwv.ðrnËdorwater.org . OFFICE: (2t]9) 223-3fll-8 FAX: (2û9¡ 2s7-s28L
December 11, 2017
Mike DeSpain, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk lndians 1418 20th Street, Suite 200 Sacramento, CA 95811
Dear Mr. DeSpain,
The Amador Water Agency (Agency) has initiated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Project. The Unit 6 WWTP serves the community of Lake Camanche Village, and is located approximately 3.6 miles west of Buena Vista, California in Amador County. The Project's Area of Potential Effects (APE) can be found on the lone 7.5' United States Geographical Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle within Sections 26,35, and an Unsectioned area, at Township 5N, Range 9E.
The Agency has identified a number of possible long-term improvements to the Unit 6 system and plans to upgrade the WWTP to address identified deficiencies to the extent that it can successfully serve the existing and previously approved parcels within Unit 6. These proposed improvements would include:
. General improvements to the existing WWTP infrastructure and facilities; . lmprovement and expansion of the treatment system from a capacity of 49,000 to 63,400 gallons per day; . Expansion of the effluent storage capacity from 19.5 to 81.5 acre-feet; . Expansion of the effluent disposal area from 12 to 26.5 acres; o Potential construction of new reservoirs either on two 4O-acre parcels adjacent to the existing facility or on the Gansberg Ranch property; and . All necessary improvements to the collection and disposal pipeline system. ln accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), we are responding to your request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe via a letter we received on September 12, 2016. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential of this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of this tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the project. lf tribal Cultural Resources may be A Public Agency
L2t00 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685-9630 . rry'¡av.amadorwater.org . OFFICE: (2tgl 223-301-S FAX: (209) 2s7-s281. significantly impacted, then consultation will also help determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts. ln accordancewith Section 21080.3.1(d)of the PRC, you have 30 daysfrom the receiptof this letter to either request or decline consultation for this project in writing. Please send your written response before January 18, 2018 to Gene Mancebo or by e-mail to [email protected]. ln your response, please reference the project name. lf we do not receive a response within 30 days, we will proceed. Thank you, and we look fonrard to your response.
Sincerely,
Mancebo ral Manager
Enclosed: Figure 1
cc: files A Pubir'c Agency
L?8û0 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CÀ 95685-9630 . rr'n¡i,w.amadorwater.org . OFFICE: (2091 223-301-8 FAX: (209) 2s7-s281
December 11,2017
Randy Yonemura, lone Band of Miwok lndians P.O. Box 699 Plymouth, CA 95669
Dear Mr. Yonemura
The Amador Water Agency (Agency) has initiated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Project. The Unit 6 WWTP serves the community of Lake Camanche Village, and is located approximately 3.6 miles west of Buena Vista, California in Amador County. The Project's Area of Potential Effects (APE) can be found on the lone 7.5' United States Geographical Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle within Sections 26, 35, and an Unsectioned area, at Township 5N, Range 9E.
The Agency has identified a number of possible long-term improvements to the Unit 6 system and plans to upgrade the WWTP to address identified deficiencies to the extent that it can successfully serve the existing and previously approved parcels within Unit 6. These proposed improvements would include:
. General improvements to the existing WWTP infrastructure and facilities; . lmprovement and expansion of the treatment system from a capacity of 49,000 to 63,400 gallons per day; . Expansion of the effluent storage capacity from 19.5 to 81 .5 acre-feet; . Expansion of the effluent disposal area from 12to 26.5 acres; o Potential construction of new reservoirs either on two 4O-acre parcels adjacent to the existing facility or on the Gansberg Ranch property; and . All necessary improvements to the collection and disposal pipeline system. ln accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), we are responding to your request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe via a letter we received on September 12,2016. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential of this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of this tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the project. lf tribal Cultural Resources may be A trublic Agency
1280f1 Ridge Road, Sutter . . (209ì Creek, CA 956û5-963f1 '¡¡¡¡¡i'.amadorwatÊr.org ûFFICE: 223-30L8 FAX: (2091 2s7-s?81- significantly impacted, then consultation w¡ll also help determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts. ln accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation for this project in writing. Please send your written response before January 18, 2018 to Gene Mancebo or by e-mail to [email protected]. ln your response, please reference the project name. lf we do not receive a response within 30 days, we will proceed. Thank you, and we look foruvard to your response.
Sincerely, lllA,Ð Ge e Mancebo Genbral Manager
Enclosed: Figure 1
cc: files ,4 Pubia 4gency
1280t} Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685-9630 . r¡¡r¡'q¡.¡.arnadorwater.org . OFFICE: (2Ug) 223-3f]1t FAX: (2t191 257-s281.
December 11,2017
Gene Whitehouse, Chairman United Auburn lndian Community 10720lndian Hill Road Auburn, CA 95603
Dear Chairperson Whitehouse:
The Amador Water Agency (Agency) has initiated environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) Project. The Unit 6 WWTP serves the community of Lake Camanche Village, and is located approximately 3.6 miles west of Buena Vista, California in Amador County. The Project's Area of Potential Effects (APE) can be found on the lone 7.5' United States Geographical Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangle within Sections 26, 35, and an Unsectioned area, at Township 5N, Range 9E.
The Agency has identified a number of possible long-term improvements to the Unit 6 system and plans to upgrade the WWTP to address identified deficiencies to the extent that it can successfully serve the existing and previously approved parcels within Unit 6. These proposed improvements would include:
. General improvements to the existing WWTP infrastructure and facilities; . lmprovement and expansion of the treatment system from a capacity of 49,000 to 63,400 gallons per day; . Expansion of the effluent storage capacity from 19.5 to 81.5 acre-feet; . Expansion of the effluent disposal area from 12to 26.5 acres; o Potential construction of new reservoirs either on two 4O-acre parcels adjacent to the existing facility or on the Gansberg Ranch property; and . All necessary improvements to the collection and disposal pipeline system. ln accordance with Assembly Bill 52 (AB 52) and Section 21080.3.1(d) of the California Public Resources Code (PRC), we are responding to your request to be notified of projects in our jurisdiction that will be reviewed under CEQA. Your name was provided to us as the point of contact for your tribe via a letter we received on September 12, 2016. We are hereby notifying you of an opportunity to consult with us regarding the potential of this project to impact Tribal Cultural Resources, as defined in Section 21074 of the PRC. The purposes of this tribal consultation under AB 52 are to determine, as part of the CEQA review process, whether or not Tribal Cultural Resources are present within the project area, and if so, whether or not those resources will be significantly impacted by the project. lf tribal Cultural Resources may be A Public Agenty
L2800 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, CA 95685-963û . rvr,*,w.arnadorwãter.ûrg . ôFFICE: (2tgl 223-3f]1t FAX: (209! 257-5281 significantly impacted, then consultation will also help determine the most appropriate way to avoid or mitigate those impacts. ln accordance with Section 21080.3.1(d) of the PRC, you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to either request or decline consultation for this project in writing. Please send your written response before January 18, 2018 to Gene Mancebo or by e-mail to [email protected]. ln your response, please reference the project name. lf we do not receive a response within 30 days, we will proceed. Thank you, and we look fonruard to your response.
Sincerely, llú,* Mancebo I Manager
Enclosed: Figure 1
cc: files From: Eppinger, Emily To: Hallock, Ashley; Kersten, Meagan Cc: Bezy, Bernadette; Price, Dave (Nevada City) Subject: FW: AB 52 Consultation for the Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant Date: Friday, January 19, 2018 8:24:45 AM
Hi Ashley,
Please see below. Please let me know the next step.
Thanks!
Emily C. Eppinger Wildlife Biologist
Office: 530.470.0515 Cell: 916.606.0406
From: Gene Mancebo [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 6:32 AM To: Price, Dave (Nevada City)
Dave: FYI and action. Gene
From: Cherilyn Neider [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:17 PM To: Gene Mancebo
Dear Gene Mancebo,
Thank you for your letter received on 12/20/2017 (Unit 6 Wastewater Treatment Plant). I am contacting you in order to request: Consultation for this project; All existing cultural resource assessments, as well as requests for and results of, any records searches that may have been conducted; GIS SHP files for the proposed project’s APE; A UAIC Tribal Monitor for this project.
There are Tribal Cultural Resources, which are also historic resources, within the vicinity of the project area. Please be advised that UAIC’s strong preference is to preserve Tribal Cultural Resources in place and avoid them when possible. In order to protect these resources, following recommendations should be incorporated into any mitigation measures that are developed for the project:
· UAIC tribal representatives should be allowed to observe and participate in all cultural resource surveys, including initial pedestrian surveys for the project.
· If tribal cultural resources are identified within the project area, tribal monitors must be present for all ground disturbing activities.
· Subsurface testing and data recovery must not occur without first consulting with UAIC and receiving UAIC's written consent.
Additional information about the nature and location of the Tribal Cultural Resources can be obtained via a Records Search Request of the UAIC Tribal Historical Resources Information System (THRIS). If you are interested in this record search, please let us know and we will provide a copy of the program description and fee schedule.
Thank you for involving UAIC in the planning process at an early stage. We ask that you make this correspondence a part of the project record and we look forward to working with you to ensure that tribal cultural resources are protected. Marcos Guerrero, UAIC Cultural Resources Manager, will be UAIC's point of contact for this consultation. Please contact Mr. Guerrero by phone at (530) 883- 2364 or email at [email protected] to begin the consultation process.
Sincerely,
Cherilyn Neider Administrative Assistant Tribal Historic Preservation United Auburn Indian Community 530.883.2394
Cherilyn Neider Administrative Assistant Tribal Historic Preservation United Auburn Indian Community 530.883.2394
Nothing in this e-mail is intended to constitute an electronic signature for purposes of the Electronic Signatures in Global and National Commerce Act (E-Sign Act), 15, U.S.C. §§ 7001 to 7006 or the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act of any state or the federal government unless a specific statement to the contrary is included in this e- mail.
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are for the sole use of the addressee(s) and may be privileged, confidential and protected from disclosure. If you have received this message in error or are not the intended recipient, then we (1) advise you that any disclosure, copying, distribution, saving or use of this information is strictly prohibited, and (2) request that you delete this e- mail and any attachments and notify us by reply e-mail or telephone 209-223-3018. Thank You, Amador Water Agency 12800 Ridge Road, Sutter Creek, California 95685 www.amadorwater.org From: Kraushaar, Leven To: [email protected] Cc: Hallock, Ashley Subject: THPO Records Search Request, Amador Water Agency Lake Camanche Village Wastewater System Date: Tuesday, April 03, 2018 3:34:24 PM
Dear Ms. McAdams,
On behalf of the Amador Water Agency, Stantec would like to request a UAIC THPO Records Search. The search is for the Lake Camanche Village Wastewater System Treatment and Disposal Alternatives Project. Since the project involves ground disturbance, we are requesting the B THPO Records Search ($700.00).
Below is link to an FTP file transfer account along with a login name and password. The FTP folders contain an APE map, record search results, and project shapefiles to facilitate the THPO record search. If you need any additional information, feel free to contact me using this email address or the phone number below at any time.
When the search is completed, please send results and billing information to Ashley Hallock at [email protected].
Login Information Browser link: https://tmpsftp.stantec.com FTP Client Hostname: tmpsftp.stantec.com Port: 22 (can be used within an FTP client to view and transfer files and folders; e.g., FileZilla) Login name: s0417152554 Password: 4059110 Disk Quota: 2GB Expiry Date: 4/17/2018
Thank you, Leven
Leven Kraushaar, MA Archaeologist Stantec 555 Capital Mall, Suite 650 Sacramento, CA 95814-4583 Phone: (707) 318-8233 [email protected]