DOCSLIB.ORG

Sonora Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Project Administrative Draft CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Sonora Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Project Administrative Draft CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Sonora Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility Improvements Project Administrative Draft CEQA Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration November 2019 Prepared for: Tuolumne Utilities District Prepared by: Stantec Consulting Services Inc. SONORA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Table of Contents ABBREVIATIONS AND GLOSSARY ........................................................................................ V 1.0 INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................1.1 1.1 NEED FOR PROJECT ................................................................................................. 1.1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...........................................................................................2.1 2.1 HEADWORKS & SEPTAGE RECEIVING FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS ...................... 2.5 2.2 SECONDARY TREATMENT IMPROVEMENTS ..........................................................2.6 2.2.1 Upgrade the Process to Extended Aeration Activated Sludge Process ....... 2.6 2.3 DISINFECTION & FUTURE FILTRATION IMPROVEMENTS ......................................2.6 2.4 SLUDGE STABILIZATION AND DEWATERING IMPROVEMENTS ............................ 2.7 2.5 SRWWTF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ............................................................2.7 2.6 CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES AND ESTIMATED SCHEDULE ...................................2.7 2.7 CEQA PROCESS .........................................................................................................2.8 2.8 SCOPE OF THIS STUDY .............................................................................................2.8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM AND ANALYSIS .......................................... 3.1 3.1 AESTHETICS ...............................................................................................................3.2 3.1.1 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 3.2 3.1.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 3.2 3.1.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 3.3 3.1.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3.5 3.2 AGRICULTURAL AND FORESTRY RESOURCES ......................................................3.5 3.2.1 Regulatory Setting ....................................................................................... 3.5 3.2.2 Environmental Setting ................................................................................. 3.7 3.2.3 Impact Analysis ........................................................................................... 3.7 3.2.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................... 3.9 3.3 AIR QUALITY .............................................................................................................3.10 3.3.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.10 3.3.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.12 3.3.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.13 3.3.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.17 3.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ......................................................................................3.18 3.4.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.19 3.4.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.24 3.4.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.34 3.4.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.39 3.5 CULTURAL AND TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES ................................................ 3.41 3.5.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.41 3.5.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.45 3.5.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.50 3.5.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.54 3.6 ENERGY ....................................................................................................................3.58 3.6.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.58 km rpt_tud_srwwtf_improvements_ceqa_admin_draft_11052019.docx i SONORA REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT CEQA INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3.6.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.61 3.6.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.61 3.6.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.62 3.7 GEOLOGY AND SOILS .............................................................................................3.62 3.7.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.62 3.7.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.63 3.7.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.65 3.7.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.69 3.8 GREENHOUSE GASSES .......................................................................................... 3.70 3.8.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.70 3.8.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.72 3.8.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.72 3.8.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.74 3.9 HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ..............................................................3.74 3.9.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.74 3.9.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.76 3.9.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.77 3.9.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.80 3.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY ......................................................................3.83 3.10.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.83 3.10.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.84 3.10.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.85 3.10.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.89 3.11 LAND USE AND PLANNING ......................................................................................3.89 3.11.1 Regulatory Settings ................................................................................... 3.89 3.11.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.90 3.11.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.90 3.11.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.91 3.12 MINERAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 3.91 3.12.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.91 3.12.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.92 3.12.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.93 3.12.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.93 3.13 NOISE ........................................................................................................................ 3.94 3.13.1 Regulatory Setting ..................................................................................... 3.94 3.13.2 Environmental Setting ............................................................................... 3.95 3.13.3 Impact Analysis ......................................................................................... 3.96 3.13.4 Mitigation Measures .................................................................................. 3.99 3.14 POPULATION AND HOUSING ...............................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Tri-Dam Project
    AGENDA MATERIALS TRI-DAM PROJECT TRI-DAM POWER AUTHORITY \\IJ IJ\\ BOARD MEETING March 19, 2020 REGULAR BOARD MEETING AGENDA TRI-DAM PROJECT of THE OAKDALE IRRIGATION DISTRICT and THE SOUTH SAN JOAQUIN IRRIGATION DISTRICT MARCH 19, 2020 8:00A.M. CALL TO ORDER: Oakdale Irrigation District 1205 East F Street Oakdale, CA 95361 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: John Holbrook, Bob Holmes, Dave Kamper, Ralph Roos, Mike Weststeyn Gail Altieri, Brad DeBoer, Herman Doornenbal, Tom Orvis, Linda Santos PUBLIC COMMENT: The Joint Board of Directors encourages publi c participation at Board meetings. Matters affecting the operation of the Tri-Dam Project and under the jurisdiction of the Joint Districts and not posted on the Agenda may be addressed by the publi c, and limited to 5 minutes per person. California law prohibits the Board from taking action on any matter that is not on the posted Agenda unless the Board determines that it is a situation specified in Government Code Subsection 54954.2. CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS 1-2 l. Approve the regular board meeting minutes of February 20, 2020. 2. Approve February 2020 financial statements and statement of obligations. a. Investment p01tfolio and reserve fund status. ACTION CALENDAR ITEMS 3- 11 3. Discussion and possible action to approve annual fee for use of Federal Lands for operations of the Tri-Dam Project 4. Discussion and possible action to authorize the General Manager to sign the Professional Services Agreement with Gannett Fleming, Inc. for the preparation of the dam breach analysis and updated inundation mapping for Beardsley, Donnells, Tulloch and Goodwin Projects, including a budget adjustment for Account #59690.
    [Show full text]
  • Executive Summary
    Preliminary Mitigated Negative Declaration Date: January 9, 2019 Case No.: 2016-006868ENV Project Title: SFPUC Reliable Power Project Project Location: Portions of the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Rights of Way in Stanislaus, Mariposa, and Tuolumne Counties Zoning: Various Project Sponsor San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Antonia Sivyer (415) 554-2474 Lead Agency: San Francisco Planning Department Staff Contact: Timothy Johnston – (415) 575-9035 [email protected] PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) proposes to implement the Reliable Power Project (proposed project) for maintaining the reliability of the SFPUC’s electrical transmission system between the Holm and Kirkwood Powerhouses and the Warnerville Substation. The project includes implementation of a long-term vegetation management program that would address the North American Electric Reliability Corporation’s reliability standard (FAC-003) and other regulatory requirements that seek to minimize the risk of power outages and fires from vegetation contact with transmission lines on or near the right of way for electrical transmission lines1. In addition to implementation of the vegetation management program, the proposed project would include repairs and replacements for culverts associated with transmission line access roads and construction of a sand storage shed to stockpile sand for winter road treatments needed for access during winter months. Construction activities associated with the proposed project would occur within existing SFPUC facility and right of way boundaries in Stanislaus County, Mariposa County, and Tuolumne County, and would not require the acquisition of new property. Project implementation involving vegetation management would be ongoing. Construction activities and duration for culvert repair and/or replacement would vary along the transmission corridor, but would be short-term in nature, generally requiring a few of days to a couple of weeks to complete.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Draft
    Chapter 11 Geology and Soils This chapter describes the affected environment for geology and soils, as well as potential environmental consequences and associated mitigation measures, as they pertain to implementing the alternatives. This chapter presents information on the primary study area (area of project features, the Temperance Flat Reservoir Area, and Millerton Lake below RM 274). It also discusses the extended study area (San Joaquin River from Friant Dam to the Merced River, the San Joaquin River from the Merced River to the Delta, the Delta, and the CVP and SWP water service areas). Affected Environment This section describes the affected environment related to geology, geologic hazards, erosion and sedimentation, geomorphology, mineral resources, soils, and salts. Where appropriate, geology and soils characteristics are described in a regional context, including geologic provinces, physiographic regions, or other large-scale areas, with some area-specific geologic maps and descriptions of specific soil associations. Geology This section describes the geology of the primary and extended study areas. Primary Study Area A description of the surficial geologic units encountered in the primary study area is presented in Table 11-1. Geologic maps of the primary study area and the area of project features are presented in Figure 11-1 and Figure 11-2, respectively. Draft – August 2014 – 11-1 Upper San Joaquin River Basin Storage Investigation Environmental Impact Statement Table 11-1. Description of Surficial Geologic Units of the Primary Study Area Geologic Map of Millerton Lake Quadrangle, West-Central Sierra Nevada, California1 Formation Surficial Deposits General Features Abbreviation Plutonic rocks characterized by undeformed blocky hornblende prisms as long as 1 cm and by biotite books as Tonalite of Blue Canyon much as 5 mm across.
    [Show full text]
  • Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Central Valley Project and the State Water Project
    Chronology of Major Litigation Involving the Topic: Litigation Central Valley Project and the State Water Project CHRONOLOGY OF MAJOR LITIGATION INVOLVING THE CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT AND THE STATE WATER PROJECT I. Central Valley Project 1950 United States v. Gerlach Live Stock Co., 339 U.S. 725 (1950) Riparians on San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued for damages for impairment of their rights to periodic inundation of their “uncontrolled grasslands.” Under reclamation law, the United States had to recognize prior vested rights and compensate for their impairment. 1958 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. McCracken, 357 U.S. 275 (1958) Congress did not intend that Section 8 of the Reclamation Act, which generally makes state water law applicable to reclamation projects, would make the 160-acre limitation in Section 5 inapplicable to the CVP. If needed for a project, Reclamation could acquire water rights by the payment of compensation, either through condemnation, or if already taken, through actions by the owners in the courts. 1960 Ivanhoe Irrig. Dist. v. All Parties, 53 Cal.2d 692 (1960) State law conferred legal capacity upon irrigation districts to enter into contracts with federal government for CVP water. Districts could execute the contracts even though they contained the 160-acre limitation under federal law. 1963 Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609 (1963) Parties claiming water rights along the San Joaquin River downstream of Friant Dam sued the United States and Bureau of Reclamation officials, seeking to enjoin storage or diversion of water at the dam. The Court held that the courts had no jurisdiction over the United States because it had not consented to suit and the McCarran Amendment did not apply.
    [Show full text]
  • Cvp Overview
    Central Valley Project Overview Eric A. Stene Bureau of Reclamation Table Of Contents The Central Valley Project ......................................................2 About the Author .............................................................15 Bibliography ................................................................16 Archival and Manuscript Collections .......................................16 Government Documents .................................................16 Books ................................................................17 Articles...............................................................17 Interviews.............................................................17 Dissertations...........................................................17 Other ................................................................17 Index ......................................................................18 1 The Central Valley Project Throughout his political life, Thomas Jefferson contended the United States was an agriculturally based society. Agriculture may be king, but compared to the queen, Mother Nature, it is a weak monarch. Nature consistently proves to mankind who really controls the realm. The Central Valley of California is a magnificent example of this. The Sacramento River watershed receives two-thirds to three-quarters of northern California's precipitation though it only has one-third to one-quarter of the land. The San Joaquin River watershed occupies two- thirds to three-quarter of northern California's land,
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix a Water Project Facilities and Operations January 2017
    Appendix A Water Project Facilities and Operations January 2017 Water Project Facilities and Operations Final TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A.1 WATER PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS ...................................................... A-1 A.1.1 Temporary, Operable, and Non-physical Barriers ...................................... A-1 A.1.2 Clifton Court Forebay Gates ....................................................................... A-3 A.1.3 SWP and CVP Exports ................................................................................ A-3 A.1.4 OMR Flow................................................................................................... A-4 A.1.5 Vernalis Inflow:Export Ratio ...................................................................... A-4 A.1.6 San Joaquin River Inflow ............................................................................ A-4 A.2 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... A-5 LIST OF TABLES Table A.1-1. Number of Days During the Fall When the DCC Has Been Closed ............... A-2 A-i Water Project Facilities and Operations Final A.1 WATER PROJECT FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS The State Water Project (SWP) and Central Valley Project (CVP) include upstream reservoirs (Shasta and Keswick dams on the Sacramento River, Oroville Dam on the Feather River, Folsom and Nimbus dams on the American River, New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River), several water conveyance canals, water export and fish salvage facilities located
    [Show full text]
  • Applicant-Prepared Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Don Pedro Project Ferc No
    APPLICANT-PREPARED ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ASSESSMENT DON PEDRO PROJECT FERC NO. 2299 Prepared for: Turlock Irrigation District – Turlock, California Modesto Irrigation District – Modesto, California Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. September 2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS Section No. Description Page No. PREFACE ................................................................................................................................. XIII 1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Essential Fish Habitat Regulatory Framework .................................................... 1-1 1.2 EFH Action Area ................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Public Review and Consultation during Relicensing........................................... 1-2 1.3.1 Notice of Intent and Pre-Application Document ..................................... 1-2 1.3.2 Scoping and Study Plan Development ..................................................... 1-4 1.3.3 Pre-Filing Consultation Workshop Process ............................................. 1-5 1.3.4 Initial and Updated Study Reports ........................................................... 1-6 1.3.5 Draft License Application ........................................................................ 1-6 1.3.6 Post-Filing Consultation and Alternatives Analysis ................................ 1-7 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • United States Department of the Interior
    MP Region Public Affairs, 916-978-5100, http://www.usbr.gov/mp, May 2017 Mid-Pacific Region, New Melones Unit History acre-feet of water; today, New Melones Lake has a capacity of 2.4 million acre-feet. Located in the lower Sierra Nevada foothills The two irrigation districts that built the in Calaveras and Tuolumne County near original Melones Dam own and operate the Sonora, Calif., New Melones Dam and downstream Goodwin Diversion Dam, Reservoir are managed by the Bureau of which diverts Stanislaus River water into the Reclamation’s Mid-Pacific Region, Central district’s canal, and Tulloch Dam, Reservoir California Area Office. and Powerplant, located immediately downstream from New Melones Dam. Congress authorized the construction of Tulloch Reservoir provides Afterbay storage New Melones Dam in 1944 to prevent flood for reregulating power releases from New damage caused by rain and snowmelt to the Melones Powerplant under a contract lands and communities downstream on the between Reclamation and the two districts. Stanislaus River. Congress modified the The powerplant has a generating capacity of authorization in the 1962 Flood Control Act 322,596,000 kWh. to include irrigation, power, wildlife and fishery enhancement, recreation and water quality as other reasons for construction of the dam. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers began construction of the dam in 1966, but public concerns over damage to cultural resources and the environment delayed completion until 1978. After the spillway and powerhouse were completed in 1979, the Corps transferred New Melones to New Melones Dam on the Stanislaus River Reclamation for integrated operation as the New Melones Unit of the East Side Recreation Division, Central Valley Project.
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Assessment
    Environmental Assessment Oakdale Irrigation District and South San Joaquin Irrigation District Reservoir Water Transfer California Great Basin - Interior Region 10 CGB-EA-2021-48 U.S. Department of the Interior Interior Region 10 – California Great Basin Central California Area Office August 2021 Mission Statements The Department of the Interior (DOI) conserves and manages the Nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage for the benefit and enjoyment of the American people, provides scientific and other information about natural resources and natural hazards to address societal challenges and create opportunities for the American people, and honors the Nation’s trust responsibilities or special commitments to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and affiliated island communities to help them prosper. The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop, and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the American public. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Need ............................................................................................................................ 1-2 Chapter 2 Alternatives ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Legislation to Benefit Fish and Wildlife in California's Central Valley
    Congressional Legislation to Benefit Fish and Wildlife in California's Central Valley by Joe Krovoza Representative George Miller (D - Contra Costa, CA), Chair of the House of Representatives' Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs,1 and SenatorBill Bradley (D - N.J.), Chair of the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, have introducedbills in congress thatpromise to ensure the restoration and protection offish and wildlife in California'sCentral Valley. The history of Central Valley water development, the resulting habitat losses, and relevant state and federal laws will be discussed before reviewing the proposed legislation. Introduction California's Central Valley is the vast basin defined by the Sierra Nevada on the east and the Coast Ranges on the west. The valley stretches nearly 500 miles from the town of Shasta to the city of Bakersfield. Its average width is 100 miles. Countless tributaries and numerous rivers flow from these mountains to the floor of the valley. There they meet the Sacramento River flowing from the north and the San Joaquin River flowing from the south; their confluence is the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Estuary (Delta) and the San Francisco Bay (Bay), through which they flow to the Pacific Ocean. I. Water for the West With passage of the Reclamation Act of 1902, the federal government sanctioned irrigation as one of the prime methods of "reclaiming" the arid and semi-arid western United States. The Act's purposes were to populate the West, develop the region's economy and promote the family farm. A. The Central Valley Project In California, the federal government began the Central Valley Project (CVP) to implement the goals of the Reclamation Act.
    [Show full text]
  • California Voters OK'd Billions for Water Projects. Where Are the New
    7/21/2021 New CA dams, water reservoirs move slowly as drought worsens | The Sacramento Bee California voters OK’d billions for water projects. Where are the new dams, reservoirs? BY DALE KASLER AND RYAN SABALOW JULY 21, 2021 12:00 AM, UPDATED 2 MINUTES AGO Listen to this article now 17:57 Powered by Trinity Audio MAXWELL It doesn’t look like much now, a dry and dusty valley surrounded by the modest mountains of California’s Coast Range. This story is a subscriber exclusive https://www.sacbee.com/news/california/water-and-drought/article252514453.html 1/21 7/21/2021 New CA dams, water reservoirs move slowly as drought worsens | The Sacramento Bee These barren, brown hills an hour northwest of Sacramento will be the future home of Sites Reservoir, one of the few major water projects to be built in California since the 1970s. California taxpayers are helping pay for Sites, which would hold more water than Folsom Lake, through a $7.1 billion bond they approved during the 2014 election. With the state facing a potentially catastrophic drought, leaders of the Sites Project Authority say the reservoir would dramatically improve California’s water supplies. “If Sites were open today, we’d have nearly 1 million acre feet of water for farms, the environment, cities,” said the authority’s executive director Jerry Brown (no relation to the former governor). But here’s the thing: Sites isn’t ready to open today, tomorrow or anytime soon. Mired in red tape and struggling with rising costs, even after the project was downsized, the reservoir isn’t scheduled to begin construction until 2024 and wouldn’t begin filling until 2030.
    [Show full text]
  • 2. Physical Resources
    2. Physical Resources 2.1 Overview 2.1.1 Introduction Physical resources including climate, topography, air resources, noise, geologic resources (excluding caves), caves, and hydrologic resources form the basis for the combination of resources found in New Melones Lake Area. This section describes these resources and gives an overview of the issues associated with them that Reclamation may address in the RMP/EIS, as well as strategies that Reclamation currently uses to manage those resources. This section is organized into the following subsections: • Climate: Climatic variables include precipitation and temperature. Precipitation influences management actions by affecting lake levels, and in turn, access to certain resources. Temperature is one of the main influences on season of use. • Topography: Topography includes all features that contribute to diverse surface assemblage. Topographic features including steepness and aspect affect access to resources and influence such factors as location of vegetative communities and fire management. • Air Resources: The air resources section focuses primarily on factors that influence air quality. Although management of the New Melones Lake Area has little effect on air quality in the overall region, localized effects may occur at particular times of the year, or in particular locations at the lake. • Noise: Noise includes all sources of sound generated at or near the lake area which affect humans or visitors. Noise may be from natural sources, such as wind, or it may be generated by human sources, such as boats or cars. • Geologic Resources (excluding caves): Geologic resources include subsurface features, soils, and rock formations. The geologic resources section describes these features and relates them to current management.
    [Show full text]