Upload
others
View
4
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CityWaFacImm Notic
PREPCity o495 Galt,
y of Gastewacilitiesmedia
ce of Pr
PARED FOof Galt PlaIndustria CA 9563
Galt ater Ts Masate Im
eparatio
OR: anning D
al Drive 32
Treatmster Pmprov
on and I
Departme
ment lan an
vemen
Initial St
ent
Plantnd Phnts Pr
tudy
t hase Iroject
May 22012
110010101.01
City of Galt Wa
and P
astewat
Phase I I
Notice
C
S
gary
ter Treat
mmedia
e of Prepar
PREP
City of Galt P495 In
Galt
COSandra Kiriu
TelephoneFax: (2skiriu@
PREAscent En455 Capit
Sacrame
COGary Ja
TelephoneFax: (9
.jakobs@asc
May
tment P
ate Imp
ration and
PARED FOR
Planning Depndustrial Drit, CA 95632
ONTACT: u, Principal
e: (209) 36609) [email protected]
PARED BYnvironmentaol Mall, Suitento, CA 95
ONTACT:
akobs, Prince: (916) 93016) 444-39centenviron
y 16, 2012
Plant Fa
roveme
d Initial Stu
R:
partment ive
2
Planner 6-7230 642 us
Y: al, Inc. te 205
5814
ipal 0-3182 927 nmental.com
2
cilities M
ents Proj
udy
m
Master P
ject
Plan
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 1
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
Date: May 16, 2012
To: Agencies and Interested Parties
From: City of Galt
Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project
The City of Galt (City) proposes to prepare and implement a Facilities Master Plan for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located at 10059 Twin Cities Road in Galt, California. In addition, the City proposes to construct the first phase of work identified in the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements. The City has prepared an Initial Study to analyze these actions and has identified potentially significant environmental effects. The City will therefore prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) for the project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.), and will serve as the state lead agency for CEQA compliance. Because construction of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan may be partially funded with a loan from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program, which is funded by federal Clean Water Act funds administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), it is subject to certain federal environmental regulations, as specified through an agreement between the SWRCB and U.S. EPA. Therefore, the EIR will comply with the requirements of the Environmental Review Process Guidelines for State Revolving Fund Applicants, which requires consideration of certain federal laws intended to protect federally designated endangered species, cultural resources, air quality, and other resources.
PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15082), the City has prepared this notice of preparation (NOP) to inform agencies and interested parties that an EIR will be prepared for the above‐referenced project. The purpose of an NOP is to provide sufficient information about the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR § 15082[b]).
The project location, description, and potential environmental effects are summarized below. A more detailed project description is included in the Initial Study.
PROJECT LOCATION
The proposed project would be located at the City’s existing WWTP, which is an incorporated island located on approximately 298‐acres surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County, about 4 miles north of the City center. The WWTP encompasses approximately 17 acres at 10059 Twin Cities Road, and is located 0.5 mile north of Twin Cities Road, adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad mainline tracks, and 2,200 feet west of State Route (SR) 99 (Exhibits 1 and 2). The remainder of the City’s 298‐acre property consists of irrigated agricultural land, a 5‐acre solar facility, and a private gun range that is used by the City’s police department and other approved law enforcement agencies in the property’s northwest corner. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 148‐0010‐046, 148‐0010‐053, and 148‐0010‐054. The property is surrounded by predominantly agricultural land in unincorporated Sacramento County.
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 1 Regional Location
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3
Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 2 Project Location
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Background The existing WWTP provides advanced wastewater treatment for the City of Galt. The WWTP was initially brought on‐line in 1983. It currently has a permitted treatment capacity of 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats an average of approximately 2.3 mgd. The WWTP has been improved from time to time, most recently in 2011. Effluent enters the plant and is treated to tertiary treatment levels via a combination of bar screens, grit removal, oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, filtration, and ultraviolet light disinfection. The treated effluent is discharged to Laguna Creek, via a remnant channel of Skunk Creek, which flows to the Cosumnes River and ultimately the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta. At appropriate times of the year when irrigation is needed, treated effluent is discharged to surrounding agricultural lands.
The proposed project is the Facilities Master Plan, a plan to continue improving the quality of treated wastewater and to expand the WWTP’s capacity consistent with the City’s 2030 General Plan. The focused EIR will evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the Facilities Master Plan at a program level, and will evaluate the first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements, at a more detailed, project level. Subsequent phases of the Facilities Master Plan will be reviewed to determine if they are within the scope of the program EIR, or if additional environmental analysis is needed prior to approval.
Facilities Master Plan The purpose of the Facilities Master Plan is to lay out how the City’s WWTP would be upgraded and expanded in the coming years to meet the City’s anticipated wastewater treatment demands through 2030. The specific project objectives are to:
Meet the City’s anticipated wastewater treatment demands through 2030, consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan;
Improve the WWTP’s ability to meet current and anticipated regulatory requirements; and
Improve the WWTP’s treatment reliability and operating efficiency.
The Facilities Master Plan would attain these project objectives by adding structures and equipment to improve treatment and capacity, along with related piping and electrical systems. Some existing buildings would also be expanded. Many improvements would be located within the approximately 17‐acre disturbed footprint of the existing treatment processes and supporting infrastructure; however, construction activities could result in disturbance of up to 35 acres to the south and west of the existing treatment process area, as shown in Exhibit 3. This area represents the potential area of disturbance; actual disturbance would likely be much less. In addition, facilities at the effluent reservoir would likely be upgraded, including: the effluent flow meter, which is located immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the effluent reservoir, would need to be replaced with a larger unit; the existing pumps would be replaced; and an existing pipe and step aerator would be retired and/or removed. No improvements outside of the City’s 298‐acre property are anticipated.
Based on the City’s 2010 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, capacity of the WWTP would be increased to approximately 6.0 mgd to accommodate General Plan‐projected population growth. The flow projection will be reviewed and updated in the Facilities Master Plan. The General Plan projects that the City will grow from approximately 24,000 in 20101 to 51,291 in 20302.
The first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements, is described below.
1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County QuickFacts. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0628112.html>. 2 City of Galt. 2009 (April). 2030 Galt General Plan Policy Document Final. Galt, CA. <http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=913>.
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 5
Source: Data provided by Sacramento County and West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Phase I Immediate Improvements The purpose of the Phase I Immediate Improvements is to meet the effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate, and arsenic in the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for operating the WWTP, referred to as the NPDES Permit for purposes of this document, which was renewed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) in September 2010 (NPDES No. CA0081434, WDRs Order No. R5‐2010‐0099). The NPDES permit and a related Time Schedule Order (Order No. R5‐2010‐0100‐01) require that the new effluent limits be met no later than September 2015. The Phase I Immediate Improvements include the following components:
Additional Ammonia and Nitrate Removal Capacity––The WWTP’s oxidation ditches are capable of removing adequate ammonia and nitrogen at the current flow rate because the treatment process was designed for higher flows and therefore currently has extra volume within which ammonia and nitrate treatment can occur, even though this was not the intent of the original design. However, as flow increases, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain adequate treatment of ammonia and nitrate. Eventually, the existing system will not have enough treatment volume and/or aeration capacity to maintain ammonia and nitrate treatment. The City is considering a variety of options to increase aeration capacity and provide additional volume for ammonia and nitrate removal. Options being considered include increasing the horsepower of the existing aerators; adding aerators; constructing baffle walls within the existing basins; constructing an attached basin to provide an additional volume; or constructing a stand‐alone basin near the oxidation ditches with piping to the existing structures. Additionally, the City is considering an option of using an entirely different treatment process such as conventional activated sludge treatment in newly constructed basins.
Increased Arsenic Removal––The WWTP currently employs secondary sedimentation and tertiary filtration, which are capable of removing some arsenic, primarily in particulate form, for disposal with the biosolids. However, depending on the influent concentration and form of arsenic, the existing system may or may not remove sufficient arsenic to meet permit limits. The City is considering a variety of options for removing additional arsenic from the WWTP effluent, including adding polymer before the secondary settling and tertiary filtration; precipitating the arsenic using chemicals; capturing the arsenic at existing groundwater wellhead treatment systems; or limiting the use of groundwater wells with higher arsenic concentrations to control the maximum arsenic loads at the WWTP.
Control Building Laboratory––The existing WWTP laboratory is outdated and aging. An up‐to‐date laboratory would be constructed as an expansion to the existing Control Building.
POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The focused EIR will describe the direct and indirect potentially significant and significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. The EIR also will evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.
CEQA allows lead agencies to use an initial study to focus the scope of the EIR on only those environmental issues for which a proposed project could result in a substantial adverse effect. Based on the results of the initial study prepared for the proposed project (and attached to this NOP or available on the City’s website listed below), the City has determined that the EIR will focus on the following environmental issue areas:
Agricultural Resources: Conversion of Important Farmland to non‐agricultural use.
Air Quality: Increases in air pollutant emissions associated with project construction and operation (including stationary and mobile‐source emissions); and exposure of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors.
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 7
Biological Resources: Potential disturbance of special‐status terrestrial species; potential water quality and sedimentation effects on downstream fish resources; potential disturbance or permanent loss of shaded riverine aquatic habitat; potential impacts to habitat/instream flow relationships due to project‐related changes in hydrology; potential changes to instream temperature conditions; exposure of aquatic resources to chemicals in wastewater effluent; and potential effects on fish migration.
Cultural Resources: Temporary and/or permanent disturbance of known and unknown archaeological resources.
Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions (including stationary and mobile‐source emissions) during project construction and operation.
Hydrology and Water Quality: Changes in channel flow patterns and associated effects on flooding hazards; hydrologic effects associated with hydrological changes in project reaches and downstream water bodies (i.e., the lower Mokelumne River and Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta estuary); potential effects on increased effluent discharge rates and projected future effluent quality; and changes in recycled water activities on groundwater resources.
These issue areas will be discussed further in the EIR, and feasible and practicable mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce any identified potentially significant and significant impacts.
ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIR
In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15126.6), the EIR will describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that are capable of meeting most of the projects’ objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The EIR will also identify any alternatives that were considered but rejected by the lead agency as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons why. The EIR will also provide an analysis of the No‐Project Alternative.
DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW
The NOP and Initial Study are available for public review at the following locations:
City of Galt, City Clerk Marion O. Lawrence Public Library 380 Civic Drive 1000 Caroline Avenue Galt, CA 95632 Galt, CA 95632 Monday ‐ Thursday Tuesday ‐ Saturday
The NOP and Initial Study are also available for public review online at: http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/index.aspx?page=783.
PROVIDING COMMENTS
Interested individuals, groups, and agencies may provide the City with written comments on topics to be addressed in the EIR for the project. Because of time limits mandated by State law, comments should be provided no later than 5:00 PM on June 18, 2012. Please send all comments to:
Sandra Kiriu, Principal Planner City of Galt Planning Department
495 Industrial Drive Galt, CA 95632
Telephone: (209) 366‐7230 Fax: (209) 744‐1642 Email: [email protected]
Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Agencies that will need to use the EIR when considering permits or other approvals for the proposed project should provide the name of a contact person. Comments provided by email should include “WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP Scoping Comment” in the subject line, and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the email.
All comments on environmental issues received during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the draft EIR, which is anticipated to be available for public review in summer 2012.
PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING
A public scoping meeting will be held by the City to inform interested parties about the proposed project, and to provide agencies and the public with an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The meeting time and location are as follows:
Monday June 4, 2012 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM
Anthony Pescetti Community Room Galt Police Department 455 industrial Drive Galt, CA 95632
The meeting space is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals needing special assistive devices will be accommodated to the City’s best ability. For more information, please contact Sandra Kiriu (at the contact information above) at least 48 hours before the meeting.
CW
S
A
11111
22222222
33333333333333333333
4
5
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
Section
ACRONYMS A
1 INTRO 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4
2 PROJE 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7
3 INITIA 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19
4 REFER
5 LIST O
aster Plan and Ph
AND ABBREV
ODUCTION ...RegulatroyPurpose ofSummary oDocument
ECT DESCRIPTProject LocProject PuExisting FaProject ChOperation Project CoPotential P
AL STUDY ENVAestheticsAgricultureAir QualityBiological Cultural ReGeology anGreenhousHazards anHydrologyStormwateLand Use aMineral ReNoise .......PopulationPublic ServRecreationTransportaUtilities anMandatory
RENCES ........
OF PREPARER
ase I Immediate Im
T
IATIONS .......
....................y Guidance ...f this Documeof Findings ...t Organization
TION ............cation ...........rpose and Obacilities ..........aracteristics .and Maintennstruction ....Permits and A
VIRONMENTs ....................e and Forest y ....................Resources ....esources .......nd Soils ........se Gas Emissind Hazardous and Water Qer Quality .....and Planning esources ............................n and Housingvices .............n ...................ation/Traffic .nd Service Sysy Findings of
....................
RS .................
mprovements NOP
TABLE O
....................
....................
.....................ent .....................................n ...................
....................
.....................bjectives .................................................nance .................................Approvals Req
AL CHECKLIST.....................Resources ........................................................................................ions ..............s Materials ....Quality ...............................................................................................g ..................................................................................stems ............Significance .
....................
....................
P/IS
OF CONT
....................
............................................................................................................
........................................................................................................................................................quired ...........
T ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................
....................
TENTS
....................
........................................................................................................
.......................................................................................................................................................................
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
....................
....................
....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
....................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
....................
....................
i
Page
........... III
......... 1‐1 .......... 1‐1 .......... 1‐1 .......... 1‐2 .......... 1‐3
......... 2‐1 .......... 2‐1 .......... 2‐1 .......... 2‐4 .......... 2‐4 .......... 2‐9 .......... 2‐9 ........ 2‐10
......... 3‐1 .......... 3‐4 .......... 3‐6 ........ 3‐10 ........ 3‐14 ........ 3‐18 ........ 3‐20 ........ 3‐24 ........ 3‐26 ........ 3‐30 ........ 3‐37 ........ 3‐39 ........ 3‐40 ........ 3‐41 ........ 3‐47 ........ 3‐49 ........ 3‐51 ........ 3‐52 ........ 3‐56 ........ 3‐59
......... 4‐1
......... 5‐1
Table of Contents Ascent Environmental
City of Galt ii WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Exhibits
Exhibit 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2
Exhibit 2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 3
Exhibit 3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout .............................. 5
Exhibit 2‐1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................................... 2‐2
Exhibit 2‐2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2‐3
Exhibit 2‐3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout .......................... 2‐5
Exhibit 2‐4 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Modification of Existing Pump Stations and Outfall ............ 2‐6
Exhibit 3‐1 Potential Disturbance of Farmland .............................................................................................. 3‐8
Exhibit 3‐2 Floodplain Map ........................................................................................................................... 3‐33
Tables
Table 2‐1 City of Galt WWTP Design Parameters......................................................................................... 2‐7
Table 3‐1 Non‐Transportation Noise Standards Median (L50)/Maximum (Lmax) ....................................... 3‐42
Table 3‐2 Typical Reference Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment .................................. 3‐44
Table 3‐3 Representative Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment .......... 3‐45
Table 3‐4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations ............................................................................... 3‐53
Table 3‐5 Average Daily Traffic Counts in the Project Vicinity ................................................................... 3‐53
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS iii
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AB Assembly Bill
ADWF average dry weather flow
AQAP air quality plan
ARB California Air Resources Board
Basin Sacramento Valley Air Basin
BOD biochemical oxygen demand
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
Cal‐OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
cfs cubic feet per second
CBC California Building Code
CCR California Code of Regulations
CCSD Cosumnes Community Services District
CDC California Department of Conservation
Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CHP California Highway Patrol
City City of Galt
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CWA Clean Water Act
CWRS California Waste Recovery Systems
dB decibels
diesel PM diesel particulate matter exhaust
DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIR environmental impact report
ESA Endangered Species Act
ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration
FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Galt iv WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
FTA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration
GHGs greenhouse gases
HCP habitat conservation plan
in/sec inches per second
Lmax maximum sound level
Lxx percentile‐exceeded sound level
mgd million gallons per day
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOP notice of preparation
NOx oxides of nitrogen
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
Pb lead
PM10 inhalable particulate matter
PM2.5 fine particulate matter
PRC Public Resources Code
proposed project City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
ROG reactive organic gases
SB Senate Bill
SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District
SO2 sulfur dioxide
SR State Route
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TSS total suspended solids
Ascent Environmental Acronyms and Abbreviations
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS v
UBC Uniform Building Code
UPR Union Pacific Railroad
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
VdB vibration decibels
WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant
Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent Environmental
City of Galt vi WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
This page intentionally blank.
CW
1
TQCWp
AedSa
Ae
1
T
TIap
As
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
R1.1
This Initial StuQuality Act (CCode of ReguWastewater Tproject) locate
An Initial Studenvironment document (anState CEQA Ga lead agency
After completeffect on the
P1.2
The purposes
Provide thNegative
Assist in t
Focus
Identi
Expla
Facilitate 15063[c])
The notice of nterested indaddressed in tprovided no la
Agencies thatshould provid
aster Plan and Ph
REGULAT
udy has been CEQA) (Public lations [CCR] Treatment Plaed in Galt, Ca
dy is prepared(State CEQA Gn environmenuidelines (14 , that a proje
ting the Initiaenvironment
PURPOS
of this Initial
he lead agencDeclaration;
he preparatio
sing the EIR o
ifying the effe
ining the reas
environment
preparation (dividuals, grouthe EIR for thater than 5:00
will need to e the name o
ase I Immediate Im
1
TROY G
prepared by Resources Co§ 15000 et seant Facilities Malifornia.
d by a lead agGuidelines 14ntal impact reCCR § 15064ct may have
l Study, the C and, thus, w
SE OF TH
Study are to
cy with inform
on of an EIR, i
n the effects
ects determin
sons for dete
tal assessmen
(NOP) and Iniups, and agene project. Be0 PM on June
Telepho
use the EIR wof a contact p
mprovements NOP
1 INT
UIDANC
the City of Gaode [PRC] § 2eq.) to evaluaMaster Plan a
gency to dete4 CCR § 15063eport (EIR) or 4[a][1]), if thea significant e
City has deterill prepare an
HIS DOC
:
mation to use
if one is requ
determined t
ned not to be
rmining that
nt early in the
itial Study arencies may procause of timee 18, 2012. Pl
Sandra KiriCity of Galt P
495 InGal
one: (209) 36Email: sk
when consideperson. Comm
P/IS
TRODUC
CE
alt (City) in ac1000 et seq.)ate the potenand Phase I Im
rmine if a pro3[a]) and thusa negative dere is substanteffect on the
mined that thn EIR.
CUMENT
e as the basis
ired, by:
to be significa
significant, a
potentially si
e design of a p
e being madeovide the Citye limits mandease send all
u, Principal PPlanning Depndustrial Drivlt, CA 9563266‐7230 Fax:[email protected]
ring permits oments provide
CTION
ccordance wi) and the Stattial environmmmediate Im
oject may havs to determineclaration) totial evidence,environment
he proposed
for deciding w
ant,
and
gnificant effe
project. (State
e available fory with writtenated by State comments to
Planner artment ve
: (209) 744‐16ca.us
or other appred by email sh
th the Califorte CEQA Guidmental effectsprovements P
ve a significanne the appropo prepare. In a, in light of tht, the agency
project may
whether to p
ects would no
e CEQA Guide
r public reviewn comments oe law, commeo:
642
rovals for thehould include
rnia Environmdelines (14 Cas of the City oProject (prop
nt effect on thpriate environaccordance we whole recoshall prepare
have a signifi
repare an EIR
ot be significa
elines 14 CCR
w and commeon topics to bents should b
e proposed pre “WWTP Fac
1-1
mental lifornia of Galt posed
he nmental with the ord before e an EIR.
cant
R or
ant.
R §
ent. be e
roject ilities
In
1
Mn
Aa2D
T
Th
Aa
1
Bdt
P
Tri
ntroduction
1-2
Master Plan aname and phy
Additionally, tagencies and 2012 from 4:0Drive Galt, CA
The NOP and
The NOP and http://www.c
All commentsaddressed in t
S1.3
Based on the document, it wthan‐significa
Aesth
Geolo
Hazar
Land
Miner
Noise
Potentially sig
Agricu
Air Qu
Biolog
These issue arrecommendenclude analys
and Phase I Imysical address
the City is holto hear input00 PM – 7:00 A 95632.
Initial Study a
City of Gal380 Civic DGalt, CA 95Monday ‐ T
Initial Study aci.galt.ca.us/in
s on environmthe draft EIR,
SUMMAR
environmentwas determinnt impacts to
hetics
ogy and Soils
rds and Hazar
Use and Plan
ral Resources
e
gnificant impa
ultural Resou
uality
gical Resourc
reas will be dd to reduce asis of the pro
mmediate Imps of the comm
lding a scopint regarding thPM at the An
are available
t, City Clerk Drive 5632 Thursday
are also availandex.aspx?pa
mental issues which is anti
RY OF F
tal resources ned that implo the followin
rdous Materia
ning
s
acts were ide
rces
es
iscussed furthany identifiedposed project
provements Pmenter in the
ng meeting tohe scope of thnthony Pescet
for public rev
able for publiage=783.
received duriicipated to be
INDINGS
evaluated anementation og environmen
als
ntified for the
her in the EIR potentially st’s potential c
WWTP Facilities M
Project NOP S body of the e
o present projhe EIR. The sctti Communit
view at the fo
Marion O1000 CarGalt, CA Tuesday
ic review onli
ing the publice available fo
S
d the supporof the proposntal issue are
e following e
R, and feasibleignificant andcumulative an
Master Plan and P
Scoping Commemail.
ject informatoping meetinty Room, Galt
ollowing locat
O. Lawrence Proline Avenue95632 ‐ Saturday
ine at:
c comment per public revie
rting environmsed project weas:
Population a
Public Servic
Recreation
Transportati
Utilities and
nvironmenta
Cultural Res
Greenhouse
Hydrology a
e and practicad significant ind growth‐in
Phase I Immediate
ment” in the s
tion to the pung will be heldt Police Depa
tions:
Public Librarye
eriod will be ew in summer
mental analysould result in
and Housing
ces
ion/Traffic
Service Syste
l issue areas:
ources
e Gas Emissio
nd Water Qu
able mitigatiompacts. Addiducing effect
Ascent E
e Improvements Pr
subject line, a
ublic and appld on Mondayrtment, 455 i
y
considered ar 2012.
sis provided in no impacts o
ems
ns
uality
on measures itionally, the ts.
Environmental
City of Galt roject NOP/IS
and the
icable y June 4, industrial
nd
n this or less‐
will be EIR will
A
CW
1
T
Cc
Cdt
Cie
C
C
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
D1.4
This documen
Chapter 1, “Incomment, des
Chapter 2, “Pdescription ofthe proposed
Chapter 3, “Inmpacts that menvironmenta
Chapter 4, “R
Chapter 5, “Li
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
DOCUME
nt is organized
ntroduction,”scribes the or
roject Descrif the proposeproject is als
nitial Study Emay result froal issue.
eferences,” l
ist of Prepare
ase I Immediate Im
ENT ORG
d as follows:
” describes thrganization of
ption,” descred project. A lso included.
nvironmentaom construct
ists the refer
ers,” identifie
mprovements Proj
GANIZAT
he purpose off this docume
ribes the projist of potenti
al Checklist,”ion and opera
ences used in
es the prepare
ject NOP/IS
TION
f this documeent, and summ
ect purpose aal permits an
provides an eation of the p
n preparation
ers of this doc
ent, provides dmarizes the d
and objectivend agency app
environmentaproposed proj
n of this docum
cument.
details regarddocument’s fi
es, and providprovals that m
al setting andject. This cha
ment.
ding public rendings.
des a detailedmay be requir
d evaluates a apter is organ
Introduction
1-3
eview and
d red for
range of ized by
Introduction Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 1-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS
This page intentionally blank.
CW
TtCpIra
2
TacmSaoala
TCMMp
2
Ttp
TaRwSSS
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
The proposedto continue imCity’s 2030 Geprogram levelmprovementreviewed to dapproval.
P2.1
The proposedapproximatelycenter. The Wmile north of State Route (Sagricultural laother approveare 148‐0010‐and in uninco
The WWTP diCosumnes RivMokelumne RMay through purposes, as n
P2.2
The purpose othe coming yeproject object
Meet the anticipate
Improve t
Improve t
The purpose oand arsenic inRequirementswhich was renSeptember 20Schedule OrdSeptember 20
aster Plan and Ph
d project is thmproving the eneral Plan. Tl, and will evats, at a more ddetermine if t
PROJECT
d project wouy 298‐acres s
WWTP encomTwin Cities RSR) 99 (Exhibind, a 5‐acre sed law enforc‐046, 148‐001orporated Sac
scharges to aver watershedRiver, and ultiOctober, WWneeded.
PROJECT
of the Facilitieears to meet ttives are to:
City’s anticiped in the City’
the WWTP’s a
the WWTP’s t
of the Phase In the City’s Nas (WDRs) for onewed by the010 (NPDES Ner (Order No.015.
ase I Immediate Im
2
e City of Galt quality of treThe EIR will evaluate the firsdetailed, projhey are withi
T LOCAT
ld be locatedurrounded bypasses approoad, adjacentits 2‐1 and 2‐solar facility, cement agenc10‐053, and 1cramento Cou
a remnant chad. Skunk Creemately the Sa
WTP also relea
T PURPO
es Master Plathe City’s ant
pated wastew’s adopted Ge
ability to mee
treatment rel
I Immediate Iational Pollutoperating thee Central ValleNo. CA008143. R5‐2010‐010
mprovements NOP
PROJEC
(City) Wasteeated wastewvaluate the enst phase of thject level. Subn the scope o
TION
at the City’s y unincorporaximately 17 at to the Union2). The remaiand a privatecies in the pro148‐0010‐054unty.
annel of Skunek is a tributaacramento‐Saases treated e
OSE AND
an is to defineticipated wast
water treatmeeneral Plan;
et current and
iability and o
mprovementant Dischargee WWTP, refeey Regional W34, WDRs Ord00‐01) requir
P/IS
CT DESC
water Treatmwater and to environmentahe Facilities Mbsequent phaof the program
existing WWated Sacrameacres at 1005n Pacific Railrinder of the Ce gun range thoperty’s north4. The proper
nk Creek, a wary to Laguna an Joaquin Rieffluent on Ci
D OBJEC
e how the Citytewater treat
ent demands t
d anticipated
operating effic
ts is to meet te Elimination erred to as thWater Qualityder No. R5‐20e that the ne
CRIPTIO
ment Plant (Wexpand the Wl effects of th
Master Plan, thases of the Fam EIR, or if ad
WTP, which is aento County,9 Twin Cities road mainlineCity’s 298‐acrhat is used byhwest cornerty is surround
ater of the UnCreek, whichiver Delta. Duity‐owned ag
CTIVES
y’s WWTP witment deman
through 2030
regulatory re
ciency.
the effluent lSystem (NPDe NPDES Permy Control Boar10‐0099). Thew effluent lim
ON
WWTP) FacilitiWWTP’s capache Facilities Mhe Phase I Imcilities Mastedditional ana
an incorporatabout 4 milesRoad, and is e tracks, and re property coy the City’s por. The Assessoded by predo
nited States w flows to the uring the irriggricultural lan
ll be upgradends through 2
0, consistent w
equirements;
imitations forDES) permit amit for purpord (Central Vae NPDES permmits be met n
ies Master Placity consistenMaster Plan atmmediate er Plan will belysis is neede
ted island locs north of thelocated abou2,200 feet weonsists of irrigolice departmor’s Parcel Nuominantly agr
within the LowCosumnes Riation season,d for irrigatio
ed and expand2030. The spe
with the grow
and
r ammonia, nnd Waste Disoses of this doalley RWQCBmit and a relano later than
2-1
an, a plan t with the t a
e ed prior to
ated on e City ut 0.5 est of gated ment and umbers icultural
wer iver, the , typically on
ded in ecific
wth
nitrate, scharge ocument, ) in ated Time
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 2-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS
Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location
Ascent Environmental Project Description
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS 2-3
Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 2-2 Project Location
P
2
2
Tacsst(plaaopayeT
2
2
Tma
2
Itie
IribEFaea
Nw
Project Description
2-4
E2.3
The existing Waverage dry wcompose the secondary clasystem; a filtetreatment andExhibit 2‐3). Aponds, land aaboratory buan average heoperation inclproduced as pagricultural fieyears, howeveeffluent, whicThe on‐site re
P2.4
2.4.1 D
Table 2‐1 presmaximum treand anticipate
2.4.2 F
n 2009, the Cthe year 2030mprovementexpansion of t
n general, earelated pipingnvolve increabe up to 35 acExhibit 2‐3. ThFurthermore, anticipated toeffluent reserand step aera
No increase inwould be repl
n
EXISTING
WWTP is a terweather flow existing WWTrifiers and a ser feed and utd storage lagoAppurtenant pplication areilding, and a eight of approludes the usepart of the Welds that are er, the City coch maximizedeservoir and p
PROJECT
DESIGN PA
sents the desatment capaced future effl
FACILITIES
City adopted a0. The Generats necessary tthe WWTP to
ch process arg and electricaasing the overcres to the sohis representsall proposed
o occur at thervoir, improvitor (Exhibit 2
n the acreagelaced with co
G FACIL
rtiary treatme(ADWF). The TP: headworksecondary slutility water puoons; biosolidfacilities incluea, a chemicasolar power goximately 10 fe of agriculturWTP operatiolocated immeontracted to h the reclamatponds are use
T CHARA
ARAMETER
ign parametecity based onuent limits.
MASTER P
an updated Gal Plan identifo obtain thato meet the Cit
rea of the WWal systems. Sorall footprint outh and wests the maximu expansion we effluent flowng pumping s2‐4).
e of irrigated anstructed fac
ITIES
ent facility wicurrent averaks with screenudge pump stump station;ds dewateringude a flow eqal building, a lgenerating arfeet and a maral fields (landon have histoediately adjachaul‐off biosotion area prioed to store tre
ACTERIS
RS
ers for the pro the permitte
PLAN
General Plan ties a need fot capacity. Thty’s anticipate
WTP would beome existing of the WWTPt (plus potentum area of diswould be withw meter, locatstations near
agricultural lacilities. There
WWTP Facilities M
th a permitteage day flow ning and grit tation; a tertiaan electrical, g facilities; twqualization baocal tertiary rray. The existaximum heighd application orically been dcent to the prolids to free uor to authorizeated effluen
STICS
oposed projeed ADWF, and
hat sets out ar increased We Facilities Med wastewate
e expanded bbuildings mayP; the maximutial modificatsturbance, anin the City’s 2ted immediatthe reservoir
ands is anticipis no plan to
Master Plan and P
ed capacity ofrate is 2.3 mgremoval facilary filtration control, and wo water wellasin, an efflueplant drainagting buildingsht of approxiarea) and a sdisposed of vroject site (Exup agriculturazation for yeant when neces
ect, which ared the current
a long‐term vWWTP capacitMaster Plan woer treatment
by adding struy also be expum area of ditions to existind actual dist298‐acre proptely adjacent r, and retiring
pated. In fact,purchase or
Phase I Immediate
f 3.0 million ggd. The followlities; two oxisystem; an uoperations bls; and additioent storage rege pump statis within the Wmately 20 feestorage reservia land applicxhibit 2‐2).Foal fields for irrr round dischssary.
e the current a2010 NPDES
vision for the ty, but does nould describedemands thr
uctures and epanded. This eisturbance fong storage pourbance wouperty, includito the northeg and/or remo
, some areas lease additio
Ascent E
e Improvements Pr
gallons per dawing facilitiesidation ditcheltraviolet disibuilding; sludgonal infrastrueservoir and tion, an officeWWTP footpret. The WWTvoir. Biosolidscation on Cityr the past sevrigation with harge to Lagu
and future (2permit efflue
City’s growthnot describe te the proposerough 2030.
equipment, alexpansion wor the expansionds), as showuld likely be mng improvemern boundaryoving an exist
currently farnal agricultur
Environmental
City of Galt roject NOP/IS
ay (mgd) s es; two nfection ge ucture three e and int have P’s s y‐owned veral WWTP na Creek.
030) ent limits
h through the ed
ong with ould ion would wn in much less. ments y of the ting pipe
med ral lands.
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 2-5
Source: Data provided by Sacramento County and West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 2-3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 2-6 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS
Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 2-4 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Modification of Existing Pump Stations and Outfall
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 2-7
Table 2-1 City of Galt WWTP Design Parameters
Parameter Current
(2010 NPDES Permit Effluent Limits) General Plan Buildout
(2030)
Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) 3.0 mgd To be determined (approximately 6.0 mgd)
Influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (average)
To be determined To be determined
Influent total suspended solids (TSS) (average)
To be determined To be determined
Monthly Average Effluent Limits (Selected Parameters) a
BOD 10 mg/L 10 mg/L
TSS 10 mg/L 10 mg/L
Ammonia 1.7 mg/L(effective September 2015)
1.7 mg/L
Arsenic 10 mg/L(effective September 2015)
10 mg/L
Copper 3.1 µg/L(effective September 2015)
3.1 µg/L
Lead 0.6 µg/L 0.6 µg/L
Nitrate plus Nitrite (total) (as N) 10 mg/L 10 mg/L
Total coliform organisms 2.2 most probable number per 100 mL (as a 7‐day median)
2.2 most probable number per 100 mL (as a 7‐day median)
Annual Average Effluent Limits
Aluminum (total recoverable) 200 µg/L 200 µg/L
Iron (total recoverable) 300 µg/L 300 µg/L
Manganese (total recoverable) 50 µg/L 50 µg/L
Annual Mass Load
Mercury (total) 0.05 lbs/year(interim limitation) b
b
Notes: a Additional limitations are defined in Order No. R5-2010-0099, Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plan and
Reclamation Facility, Sacramento County (NPDES No. CA0081434); Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). b The interim limitation for mercury is in effect until the Central Valley RWQCB establishes final effluent limitations after adoption of a
Methylmercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Cosumnes River. Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012
The Facilities Master Plan is anticipated to include the following phasing:
Phase 1: Phase I Immediate Improvements
Phase 2: Expansion to 4.5 mgd ADWF capacity
Phase 3: Expansion to General Plan buildout capacity
The first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements, is described in more detail below.
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 2-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS
2.4.3 PHASE I IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS
The existing WWTP is capable of ammonia removal (nitrification) and nitrate removal (denitrification) while operating below its original design capacity of 3.0 mgd. However, as the City’s population increases, flows to the WWTP will increase and the WWTP will no longer be able to reliably meet the ammonia and nitrogen limits imposed by the 2010 NPDES permit because the original design did not incorporate such requirements. In addition, the 2010 NPDES permit introduces a limit on arsenic that the WWTP has historically not been able to meet consistently.
ADDITIONAL AMMONIA AND NITRATE REMOVAL CAPACITY
The existing WWTP oxidation ditches are capable of removing adequate ammonia (to meet the permitted effluent limit for ammonia [1.7 mg/L]) at the current flow rate of approximately 2.3 mgd because the treatment process was designed for higher flows and therefore currently has extra volume within which ammonia and nitrate treatment can occur, even though this was not the intent of the original design. However, as flow increases, additional aeration capacity will be needed to remove sufficient ammonia to meet the 1.7 mg/L limit. A variety of measures are being considered to increase aeration capacity, including increasing the horsepower of the existing aerators and/or adding aerators.
Nitrogen removal also routinely occurs at the current flow rate of approximately 2.3 mgd due to the presence of low oxygen zones within the oxidation ditches. As aeration capacity is increased to improve ammonia removal, the ability to maintain low oxygen zones in the existing ditches is reduced, effectively reducing the ability to remove nitrogen. Therefore, modifications to the oxidation ditches will be needed. Such modifications may include construction of baffle walls within the existing basins to create zones isolated from the aerators which would enhance nitrate removal; construction of an attached basin providing an additional low oxygen volume; or construction of a stand‐alone basin near the oxidation ditches with piping to the existing structures. The most substantial potential modification would be construction of a new (third) oxidation ditch adjacent to the existing ditches, which would also require construction of a new (third) secondary clarifier. Additionally, the City is considering an option of using an entirely different treatment process such as conventional activated sludge treatment in newly constructed basins.
INCREASED ARSENIC REMOVAL
Arsenic entering the wastewater collection system originates in groundwater that serves as the City of Galt’s water supply. Some arsenic is separated from the water delivered to the City at individual wells through wellhead treatment systems. Backwash water from the treatment systems containing the separated arsenic is discharged to the wastewater collection system. In addition, a portion of the treated potable water, which contains lower concentration of arsenic due to the wellhead treatment systems, reaches the wastewater collection system via domestic and industrial drains. Upon reaching the WWTP, some of the arsenic is dissolved and some is in particulate form.
The WWTP currently employs secondary sedimentation and tertiary filtration, which are capable of removing some arsenic (primarily in particulate form) for disposal with the biosolids. However, depending on the influent concentration and form of arsenic, the existing system may or may not remove sufficient arsenic to meet new permit limits.
A
CW
Tt
C
TfB
2
TWp
Oe
2
Cewwct
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
The City is conthe following:
Settling aprior to thtreatmenttherefore
Chemical wellhead Precipitatand filtrat
Wellheadthe currendelivered required tmay be pohaul the aCity‐owneoccur whedewatere
Groundwmaximumflexibility produces groundwa
CONTROL
The existing Wfunctions. OthBuilding expa
O2.5
The upgradedWWTP. Routiperiodically o
Operation of texpanded com
P2.6
Construction expected to eworkers per mwith the possconstruction‐trips per day a
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
nsidering a va:
nd Filtration he secondary t. Polymer ad, no construc
Precipitationtreatment sitted arsenic cotion facilities.
d Capture––Innt practice), tto a land dispto haul the reossible to usearsenic sludgeed agriculturaen drying bedd sludge wou
water Managem arsenic loadover which wlower arsenicater with elev
BUILDING
WWTP Controher existing bnsion would n
OPERAT
d and expandene maintenanr annually de
the expandedmponents of t
PROJECT
activities for end by mid‐20month and woibility of workrelated trips iand an averag
ase I Immediate Im
ariety of optio
with Polymesettling and
ddition equipmction would b
n––Arsenic cates. A new chould be remov
nstead of discthe backwashposal facility.esiduals depee drying beds e to a suitableal lands in conds at the WWuld be hauled
ement––It mads at the WWTwells are operc concentrativated arsenic
G LABORAT
ol Building wouildings wounot substanti
ION AND
ed WWTP is ence would ocpending on t
d WWTP wouthe WWTP.
T CONST
the Phase I Im015. Construcould take plack between 7:0is expected toge of 5 trips p
mprovements NOP
ons for remov
er Addition––tertiary filtratment is alreade necessary t
an be precipitemical feed sved either at
charging the bh could be dew It is anticipatnding on the at the WWTPe landfill, or tnjunction with
WTP are used t from the we
ay be possibleTP. Some werated. Some Cons. It may alevels.
TORY
ould be expanld be convertally increase
D MAINT
expected havcur for all newhe specific fa
uld require up
TRUCTIO
mmediate Imction activitiesce primarily b00 AM and 8:o be approximper day.
P/IS
ving additiona
–Anecdotal evtion can enhady installed ato implement
tated using fesystem and rethe existing t
backwash watwatered onsited that up tonumber of wP to dewater o blend it with biosolids reto dewater thells to the WW
e to manage tlls produce mCity wells drawlso be feasibl
nded (on its eted or upgradits current he
TENANC
e the same ow and expandcility.
p to 5 addition
ON
provements ws would requbetween the h:00 PM Saturdmately 2,000,
al arsenic fro
vidence suggeance arsenic rat the WWTP,t this option.
erric chloride,eaction vessetertiary filters
ter to the wate at the welo eight (8) truwells involvedthe wellheadth biosolids aeuse. Up to 20he wellhead tWTP in this se
the City’s gromore arsenic tw from a deele to deepen
east side) to aded within theeight.
CE
operating houded facilities.
nal employee
would likely cire the utilizahours of 7:00day and Sund, with a maxim
m the WWTP
ests that the removal and , but is not ro
, similar to thels would be rs, or through
astewater colllhead, collectuck trips per m (ECO:LOGIC d treatment bt the WWTP 0 truck trips preatment baccond case.
oundwater wethan others aeper aquifer texisting wells
ccommodateeir existing fo
urs and work s. Maintenanc
es to operate
commence ination of appro0 AM and 4:00day. The totalmum of appro
Notice o
P effluent, inc
addition of pmay be sufficoutinely used;
e process userequired at thnew, separat
lection systemted by truck, month would2008). Alternbackwash watand apply it tper month wockwash water
ells to controlnd the City hthan others, ws to avoid
e additional stootprint. The
shifts as the ee would occu
the new and
n late‐2013 anoximately 15–0 PM on weel number of oximately 20
of Preparation
2-9
cluding
olymer cient ;
ed at the he WWTP. te settling
m (as is and d be natively, it ter and to the ould r – un‐
l the as some which
taff and Control
existing ur
nd are –25 kdays,
truck
P
2
Cpawmsdpqa
2
SCp
F
S
Project Description
2-10
Construction primarily takeactivities occuwould be necmean sea levesoil generateddetermined bpavement as tquantified. Alagricultural ir
P2.7
Several agencCEQA, the Cityproject should
FEDERAL
National
U.S. Armyto Waters
U.S. Fish a U.S. Envir
connectio
STATE
CaliforniaFish and GFish and G
CaliforniaPreservatwould inv
Central VdisturbanSection 40
State Watas amendoffers lowby the U.Sadministrprojects benvironmConformit
n
activities for e place in prevurring in farmessary becauel. Excavationd during consy the projectthe WWTP is l site runoff frigation in th
POTENTI
cies will be invy of Galt is red be approve
Marine Fishe
y Corps of Ens of the U.S. o
and Wildlife Sronmental Pron with Specia
a DepartmentGame Code ifGame Code if
a State Officeion Act. This volve federal f
alley Regionace of more th01, water qua
ter Resourceed in 1987, e
w interest finaS. EPA, and ination of the Sbeing consideental protectty), and the N
the Phase I Imviously distur
med fields immse the site is n would be retruction activ’s contractormodified androm impervioe reuse area.
IAL PER
volved in the esponsible ford. Other pote
eries Service:
gineers: Comoccurs.
Service: Comrotection Ageal Appropriat
t of Fish and f take of listedf any streamb
of Historic Pis a delegatedfunding.
al Water Quahan 1 acre, diality certificat
s Control Boaestablished thancing agreemn certain instaSRF program red under thetion laws, notNational Histo
mmediate Imrbed soils witmediately adjaflat with elevquired for sevities would b. Impervious d expanded. Tous areas wou
RMITS AN
consideratior considering ential permits
Compliance w
mpliance with
mpliance with ency: Compliaion Grant fun
Game: Potend species is likbed alteration
Preservation: d authority of
ality Control Bscharge permtion.
ard: The Fedehe Clean Watements for watances the admhas been delee SRF programtably the fedeoric Preservat
WWTP Facilities M
provements, hin the WWTacent to the cvations ranginveral structurbe disposed oarea would bThe specific auld be contai
ND APP
n of proposedthe adequacys could includ
with Section 7
Section 404 o
Section 7 of tance with thending.
ntial permits ukely to occur,n would occur
Compliance wf the federal g
Board: NPDESmit for stormw
eral Water Poer State Revoter quality proministration hegated to them must comperal ESA (Secttion Act (NHP
Master Plan and P
including plaTP footprint, wcurrently fencng from approres constructof either onsitbe added in thamount of imned within th
PROVALS
d project elemy of the EIR, ade:
7 of the Fede
of the Clean W
the Federal Ee National Env
under the Cal as well as cor.
with Section government
S constructionwater, genera
ollution Controlving Fund (Sojects. The prhas been delee SWRCB. In tply with CEQAtion 7), the fePA) (Section 1
Phase I Immediate
acement of stwith the possced area. Reloximately 38 ted under thiste or at an aphe form of strpervious areahe WWTP and
S REQUI
ments. As theand determin
eral Endanger
Water Act (CW
SA. vironmental P
lifornia ESA Sompliance wit
106 of the Naand pertains
n stormwateral order for de
rol Act (Clean SRF) program.rogram is admegated to the turn, the SWRA and certain ederal Clean A106).
Ascent E
e Improvements Pr
taging areas, wsibility of somatively little gto 50 feet abs project. Anypropriate facructures and a has not yet d treated or u
IRED
e lead agencyning if the ove
red Species A
WA) if discha
Policy Act in
ection 2081 oth Section 16
ational Historto any projec
r permit for ewatering, an
Water Act or. The SRF proministered, nastates. In CalRCB requires tfederal Air Act (Gener
Environmental
City of Galt roject NOP/IS
would me grading bove y excess cility to be
been used for
y under erall
ct (ESA).
rge of fill
of the 00 of the
ric ct that
nd CWA
r CWA), gram ationally, ifornia, that all
ral
Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 2-11
REGIONAL AND LOCAL
City of Galt: Building structure permit for construction of new buildings; grading and drainage permit; paving permit; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approval; electrical and plumbing permits
Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department: Above‐ground storage permit for the storage of diesel on the project site.
Sacramento County: Construction authorizations and encroachment permits
Sacramento County Department of Transportation: Repair of any road damage
Sacramento County Emergency Management District: Modification to the existing unified program consolidated permit, which covers all hazardous materials programs.
Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District: Authority to construct (for devices that emit air pollutants), permit to operate, and Air Quality Management Plan consistency determination.
Project Description Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 2-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS
This page intentionally blank.
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-1
3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
PROJECT INFORMATION
1. Project Title: City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Master Planand Phase I Immediate Improvements Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Galt Community Development Department 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, CA 95632
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Sandra Kiriu, Principal Planner, (209) 366‐7230
4. Project Location: City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant 10059 Twin Cities Road, Galt, CA 95632
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as above
6. General Plan Designation: Public/Quasi‐Public
7. Zoning: Public/Quasi‐Public
8. Description of Project:
See Introduction and Project Description
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)
See Introduction and Project Description
10: Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)
See Introduction and Project Description
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils
Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality
Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise
Population / Housing Public Services Recreation
Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance
None With Mitigation
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-3
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including onsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well asproject‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross‐referenced).
5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
In
3
3
3
Atpi
TbPCtr
Dddt
3
a
Lst
Tsai
nitial Study Enviro
3-4
A3.1
I. Aesthetic
a) Have a
b) Substanot limbuildin
c) Substaquality
d) Createwhichin the
3.1.1 E
Aesthetic resoto the public’spresence woumpacts may o
The City’s WWby agriculturaPacific RailroaCities Road is the Sacramenresidences loc
Due to its lowdrivers on Twdominated bytowers. UPR t
3.1.2 D
a) Have
Less‐than‐Sigscenery or a rthat would be
The project sisite is not distand other struncludes expa
onmental Checklis
AESTHET
ENVIRON
cs. Would the
a substantial a
antially damagmited to, trees,ngs within a st
antially degrady of the site an
e a new source would adversarea?
ENVIRONM
ources are ges experience uld negativelyoccur.
WTP is locatedal fields to thead (UPR) to thlocated appr
nto County Gecated on both
w profile and min Cities Roady flat agricultutrains are visib
DISCUSSIO
e a substan
nificant Imparesource that e considered a
te includes a tinctive from uctures dot thnding the foo
t
TICS
NMENTAL ISSUES
project:
dverse effect o
ge scenic resou, rock outcroppate scenic high
de the existing nd its surround
e of substantiaely affect day o
MENTAL SET
nerally defineand appreciay alter the per
d in a rural, age south and whe east. Stateoximately 0.5eneral Plan (Sh sides of Twi
minimal lightid or SR 99 or ural land and ble from the
ON
ntial advers
act. A scenic vis indigenousa scenic vista
developed Wother low‐prhe horizon, anotprint of the
S
on a scenic vist
rces, includingpings, and histhway?
visual charactedings?
l light or glare or nighttime vi
TTING
ed as both thtion of the enrceived visua
gricultural arewest, undevel Route (SR) 95 mile south oSacramento Cn Cities Road
ing (for securfrom residenscattered treWWTP.
se effect on
vista is generas to the area..
WWTP surrounofile developnd the WWTPexisting WW
WWTP Fac
PoteSign
Imp
ta?
g, but toric
er or
iews
e natural andnvironment. Dl character an
ea within unioped habitat 9 is located aof the WWTPCounty 2011a)d and motoris
rity purposes ces along Twees in the dist
n a scenic v
ally considereThe project s
nded by agricment in the vP blends in to
WTP, this chan
cilities Master Pla
entially ificant pact
LessSign
wMit
Incor
d built featureDepending onnd quality of t
ncorporated conservationabout 2,200 feP site and is pr). Sensitive vists along SR 9
only), the WWwin Cities Roadtance, as well
vista?
ed a view of asite does not
cultural land. viewshed. Nuo this landscange would not
an and Phase I Imm
ss-than-nificant with tigation rporated
LesSig
I
es of the landn the extent tthe environm
Sacramento n land to the eet east of throposed to beiewers near t99 and Twin C
WTP is not a d. Views froml as at least tw
an area that hcontain any
From Twin Cumerous farmpe. Although t be substant
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
dscape that coto which a prment, aesthet
County. It is bnorth, and thhe WWTP sitee a scenic corhe WWTP incCities Road.
noticeable fem the project wo cellular/ra
has remarkabaesthetic reso
ities Road, thm facilities, buthe proposedtially different
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
ontribute oject’s ic
bounded he Union e. Twin rridor in clude
eature to site are adio
ble ources
he project ildings, d project t from
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-5
the existing view of the WWTP. The proposed project would include both new facilities and expansion of existing facilities. Proposed facilities would be visible to persons living in the residences located on both sides of Twin Cities Road (approximately 0.5 mile to the south) and motorists along Twin Cities and Road SR 99 (approximately 2,200 feet to the east). Although views of the site would be altered, the project would not substantially change the visual character of the site because the proposed project would be located at or immediately adjacent to the already developed WWTP site, which includes buildings ranging in height from 10 to 20 feet tall. The proposed facilities would be similar in height and visual appearance as the existing WWTP facilities. Minimal lighting would be used at the expanded WWTP for security purposes, consistent with current conditions.
Because the proposed project would not adversely affect a scenic vista, this impact would be less than significant.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
No Impact. The proposed project would not be located near a designated or eligible state scenic highway (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2011). Furthermore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. See item a), above. The proposed project would be located in a rural, agricultural area. While the project includes expansion of the WWTP site, it would represent a negligible change in the surrounding visual character, and the change would be visually consistent with the landscape. The proposed project would not substantially change the visual character or quality of the site because the project would be located at or immediately adjacent to the already developed WWTP site, and would include utility infrastructure consistent with current uses at the site. The proposed facilities would be similar in height and visual appearance as the existing WWTP facilities. The visual character of the site, even with the proposed new facilities, would remain essentially unchanged from its existing condition. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, water, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight. At night, artificial light can cause glare. The proposed project would include the addition of new lighting fixtures, primarily for the security needs of the WWTP. New lighting would be installed within the WWTP site and would be directed downward, and fully screened to avoid nighttime lighting spillover effects on adjacent land uses and nighttime sky conditions. The limited amount of new lighting would represent a negligible addition relative to the existing facility lighting. In addition, proposed facilities would be constructed with non‐reflective materials, as are the existing facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
In
3
3
nitial Study Enviro
3-6
A3.2
II. Agricultu
In determininsignificant envthe CaliforniaAssessment MCalifornia Depto use in assedetermining wtimberland, aagencies mayDepartment ostate’s inventRange Assessproject; and fprovided in FoResources Bo
Would the pro
a) ConveFarmlashownFarmlaCalifor
b) ConfliWilliam
c) ConfliforestsectioResouTimbeCode s
d) Resultforest
e) Involvwhichconveconve
onmental Checklis
AGRICUL
ENVIRON
ure and Forest
g whether impvironmental ef Agricultural LaModel (1997, apartment of Cossing impacts owhether impacre significant e refer to informof Forestry andory of forest lament Project aforest carbon morest Protocolsard.
oject:
ert Prime Farmand of Statewin on the maps and Mapping arnia Resources
ct with existingmson Act cont
ct with existing land (as definn 12220(g)), tiurces Code secterland Productsection 51104(
t in the loss of land to non‐fo
ve other change, due to their lrsion of Farmlarsion of forest
t
LTURE A
MENTAL ISSUES
Resources.
pacts to agricuffects, lead ageand Evaluations updated) preonservation as on agriculture cts to forest resenvironmental mation compiled Fire Protectioand, including tand the Forest measurement ms adopted by t
land, Unique Fde Importanceprepared pursand Monitorings Agency, to no
g zoning for agract?
g zoning for, oed in Public Remberland (as dtion 4526), or tion (as defined(g))?
forest land or orest use?
es in the existiocation or natand to non‐agr land to non‐fo
AND FOR
S
ltural resourceencies may refn and Site epared by the an optional mand farmland.sources, includeffects, lead ed by the Califon regarding ththe Forest andLegacy Assessmethodology he California A
Farmland, or e (Farmland), asuant to the g Program of ton‐agricultural
gricultural use o
r cause rezoninesources Code defined by Pubtimberland zond by Governme
conversion of
ng environmenure, could resuricultural use oorest use?
WWTP Fac
REST RE
PotenSigni
Imp
es are er to
odel . In ding
ornia he d ment
Air
as
he use?
or a
ng of,
blic ned ent
nt, ult in or
cilities Master Pla
ESOURC
ntially ificant pact
LessSign
wMiti
Incor
an and Phase I Imm
CES
s-than-nificant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-7
3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) classifies agricultural land in eight categories based on soil quality and irrigation status. Based on the FMMP data, the 298‐acre project site includes land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Grazing Land, Urban and Built‐Up Land, and a small amount of Unique Farmland (Exhibit 3‐1). Some of the agricultural land is used by the City to dispose of biosolids and/or treated effluent.
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of preserving agriculture and restricting unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the contract, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments based on the property’s value for farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.
No forests are located within or adjacent to the project site.
3.2.2 DISCUSSION
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project includes expansion of the existing WWTP footprint to the immediate west and south. This expansion could result in the conversion of up to 35 acres of agricultural land that is designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, which is considered Important Farmland under CEQA. The actual amount of land conversion would likely be less than 35 acres; however, for purposes of this analysis, the maximum area of disturbance was used. This impact would be considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?
Potentially Significant Impact. The 298‐acre project site is designated for Public/Quasi‐Public land uses. Agricultural land surrounds the project site; however, it is unknown if any of this land is under a Williamson Act contract or whether the proposed project would conflict with this designation, especially the proposed expansion of the WWTP onto agricultural land. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
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))?
No Impact. The project site is designated for Public/Quasi‐Public land uses. There is no existing zoning for forest land within the project area, nor is the site forested. The project area is already developed with similar WWTP facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact. The project site is not forested. Therefore, no forest lands would be lost or converted to non‐forest uses as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-8 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Source: Data provided by FMMP in 2010 and West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 3-1 Potential Disturbance of Farmland
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-9
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Indirect impacts on agricultural lands can occur in two ways: 1) by urban development increasing property values, or extending infrastructure, thereby placing pressure on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to non‐agricultural uses; or 2) through land use conflicts between the proposed use and the agricultural use leading eventually to the diminishment of the agricultural use (for example, reduction of viable cropland in response to crop‐dusting‐related complaints from a new adjacent subdivision).
The proposed project includes the expansion of the existing WWTP on up to 35 acres of Important Farmland within the City’s 298‐acre incorporated property, which is zoned Public/Quasi‐Public. It is not anticipated that expansion of the WWTP would conflict with the surrounding agricultural land uses because crops grown on the City property are (and would continue to be) selected based on WWTP reclamation activities. Nonetheless, this issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.
The purpose of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan is to accommodate the City’s anticipated growth identified in the 2030 General Plan. However, the potential growth‐inducing effects of WWTP expansion, and the potential for secondary effects related to conversion of farmland, will be analyzed in the EIR.
In
3
3
I
Wadd
W
nitial Study Enviro
3-10
A3.3
III. Air Quality
Where availabapplicable air qdistrict may bedetermination
Would the pro
a) Conflicapplicai. Shii. Lo
b) Violatesubstanviolatioi. Sh
Poii. Lo
Airiii. Mo
c) Result any critnon‐attambienemissioozone
i. ShCri
ii. LoCri
d) Exposeconceni. Sh
Poii. Lo
PoToxic Air C
i. ShCo
ii. LoCo
e) Create numbe
onmental Checklis
AIR QUA
ENVIRON
y.
le, the significaquality managee relied on to ms.
oject:
t with or obstrable air quality ort‐Term Consng‐Term Oper
e any air qualityntially to an exon? ort‐Term Consollutants and Prng‐Term Operr Pollutant andobile Source Ca
in a cumulativeteria pollutanttainment undent air quality stons which exceprecursors)?
ort‐Term Consiteria Pollutantng‐Term Operiteria Pollutant
e sensitive recentrations? ort‐Term Consollutants and Prng‐Term Operollutants and PrContaminants ort‐Term Consontaminants ng‐Term Operontaminants
objectionableer of people?
t
ALITY
MENTAL ISSUES
ance criteria esement or air pomake the follow
ruct implemenplan? struction ation
y standard or cxisting or proje
struction‐Relatrecursors ational‐Relatedd Precursor Emarbon Monoxid
ely considerab for which the er an applicabltandard (includeed quantitativ
struction‐Relatt ational‐Relatedt
eptors to subst
struction Relatrecursors ational Relatedrecursors
struction Relat
ational Related
odors affectin
S
stablished by tollution controwing
tation of the
contribute cted air quality
ted Criteria Air
d Regional Critmissions de Emissions
ble net increaseproject regione federal or stading releasing ve thresholds f
ted Increase of
d Increase of a
antial pollutan
ed Criteria Air
d Criteria Air
ed Toxic Air
d Toxic Air
ng a substantia
WWTP Fac
PotenSignif
Imp
the ol
y
teria
e of n is ate
for
f any
any
nt
l
cilities Master Pla
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-11
3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is located in Sacramento County and the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (Basin). Air quality within the Sacramento County portion of the Basin is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Each agency develops rules, regulations, and/or policies to comply with applicable legislation.
EPA and ARB have set ambient air quality standards for certain air pollutants to protect the public health and welfare. U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). ARB has set California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) that are the same or are more stringent than the corresponding federal standards. The CAAQS also include standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.
If an area has not achieved the NAAQS or CAAQS for any criteria pollutant, U.S. EPA and ARB classifies it as a nonattainment area for the respective criteria pollutant. A nonattainment area is required to have an air quality attainment plan (AQAP) to attain and maintain the required standards.
Sacramento County is designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone (reactive organic gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOx]), PM10, and PM2.5, and as an attainment area for all other pollutants.
The project site currently operates as a WWTP and generates relatively low levels of emissions associated primarily with stationary sources (such as pumps) and employee trips. Five acres of solar panels on the City’s 298‐acre property provide power to the WWTP, reducing emissions related to energy generation/use. Nearby sensitive receptors include residences located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road, as well as residences located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the project site on the north side of Twin Cities Road.
3.3.2 DISCUSSION
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Short-Term Construction Potentially Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, criteria air pollutant emissions would be temporarily and intermittently generated from a variety of sources. Project‐related excavation and site grading activities would generate PM dust emissions. Fugitive PM dust emissions are primarily associated with ground disturbance and material transport and vary as a function of parameters such as soil silt content and moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and the intensity of activity performed with construction equipment. Exhaust emissions from diesel equipment, material transport trips, and construction worker‐commute trips also contribute to short‐term increases in PM emissions, but to a lesser extent. Exhaust emissions from these construction‐related mobile sources would also include ROG and NOx. In addition, the application of architectural coatings (i.e., interior and exterior surface painting) would result in off‐gas emissions of ROG. Project construction of this scale could potentially conflict with SMAQMD’s AQAP. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Long-Term Operation Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in long‐term air pollutant emissions from minor project‐generated motor vehicle trips, and from stationary sources (including new treatment facilities and generator). Project operation could potentially conflict with SMAQMD’s AQAP. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-12 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?
Short-Term Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Potentially Significant Impact. See item a), above. Construction‐related ground‐disturbance, in combination with construction worker trips and delivery truck trips, has the potential to result in criteria air pollutants that exceed applicable air quality standards. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Long-Term Operational-Related Regional Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. See item a), above. Project operation would result in air pollutant emissions from project‐generated motor vehicle trips and stationary sources. Thus, project‐generated emissions from operation have the potential to violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, including the non‐attainment status of Sacramento County ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Project Related Local Mobile-Source Carbon Monoxide Emissions Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land‐uses such as residential areas, schools, and hospitals. Occurrences of localized CO concentrations (i.e., “hotspots”) are often associated with heavy traffic congestion, which most frequently occur at signalized intersections of high‐volume roadways. Both project construction and long‐term operation would result in minor amounts of additional traffic to the surrounding intersections that could potentially increase CO emission levels; however, this increase would not be significant and the project site is not located near a high‐volume intersection. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
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)?
Short-Term Construction-Related Increase of any Criteria Pollutant Potentially Significant Impact. Sacramento County is designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction‐related ground‐disturbance, in combination with construction worker trips and delivery truck trips, has the potential to generate criteria air pollutants that exceed applicable air quality standards and contribute to the nonattainment status of the region. As a result, project construction‐generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could be cumulatively considerable. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Long-Term Operational-Related Increase of any Criteria Pollutant Potentially Significant Impact. As described in items a) and b), above, long‐term project operation would result in additional sources of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project could contribute to the nonattainment status of the region, and the proposed project could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, project operation‐generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could be cumulatively considerable. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-13
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Short-Term Construction Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Potentially Significant Impact. The closest sensitive receptors include residences located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road, as well as residences located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the project site on the north side of Twin Cities Road. Other surrounding land uses consist of agriculture land. Construction‐related ground‐disturbance, in combination with construction worker trips and delivery truck trips, has the potential to generate criteria air pollutants that exceed applicable air quality standards and adversely affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity, therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Long-Term Operational Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in b) above, project implementation could result in regional (e.g., NOx, PM10) or local (e.g., CO) emissions of criteria air pollutant or precursors from operational‐related activities that would exceed applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance. Thus, project‐generated criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Toxic Air Contaminants
Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants Potentially Significant Impact. Project‐related construction activities would result in short‐term emissions of diesel particulate matter exhaust (diesel PM) from construction equipment and on‐road trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the site. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel‐fueled engines (diesel PM) were identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by ARB in 1998. Diesel PM is the focus of this discussion because, according to ARB, the potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM outweighs the potential for all other (non‐cancer) health impacts (ARB 2003, 2009). Thus, nearby sensitive receptors could be exposed to increased levels of diesel PM, including the residences located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road, as well as residences located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the project site on the north side of Twin Cities Road. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
Long-Term Operational Related Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants Potentially Significant Impact. Project operation would result in TAC emissions from project‐generated motor vehicle trips and stationary sources. As a result, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
Potentially Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. No historical WWTP records or correspondence with Public Works staff indicate any odor complaints in the last eight years (pers. comm., Clarkson 2012).
Minor odors from the use of on‐site equipment during construction activities would be intermittent and temporary, and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. However, the modification and expansion of WWTP facilities pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan could create objectionable odors that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, this impact would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
In
3
3
I
3
TstccROir
Tp
nitial Study Enviro
3-14
B3.4
IV. Biological
a) Have athrougidentifispeciesregulatGame o
b) Have ahabitatin localthe CalFish an
c) Have aprotectClean Wvernal filling,
d) Interfenative with escorridosites?
e) Conflicbiologior ordi
f) ConflicConserPlan, oconserv
3.4.1 E
The project sisea level. Thethe project sitconservation channel of SkRiver. The WWOperations annclude drawireservoir, pon
The proposedproposed WW
onmental Checklis
BIOLOGI
ENVIRON
Resources. W
substantial adh habitat modied as a candids in local or regtions, or by theor the U.S. Fish
substantial adt or other sensl or regional plifornia Depart
nd Wildlife Serv
substantial adted wetlands aWater Act (inclpool, coastal, ehydrological in
re substantiallresident or mistablished nativors, or impede
t with any locacal resources, nance?
t with the provrvation Plan, Nr other approvvation plan?
ENVIRONM
te is located i project site ite is undeveloland as well aunk Creek, a tWTP also inclund maintenanng down the nds, and surro
d project wouWTP expansio
t
CAL RES
NMENTAL ISSUES
Would the proje
dverse effect, eifications, on adate, sensitive,gional plans, poe California Deh and Wildlife S
dverse effect oitive natural coans, policies, oment of Fish avice?
dverse effect oas defined by Suding, but notetc.) through dnterruption, or
y with the movgratory fish or ve resident or the use of nat
al policies or orsuch as a tree
visions of an adatural Commuved local, regio
MENTAL SET
in an agricults bordered boped. Land noas a conservatributary to Ludes an 18‐acnce activities reservoir andounding berm
ld be locatedn would inclu
SOURCE
S
ect:
either directly oany species or special‐statolicies, or partment of FiService?
n any riparian ommunity idenor regulations ond Game or th
n federally Section 404 of tt limited to, madirect removal,other means?
vement of anywildlife speciemigratory wildive wildlife nur
rdinances protpreservation p
dopted Habitanity Conservatonal, or state h
TTING
ural area of Sy agriculturalorth of the prtion bank helLaguna Creek,cre effluent stat the reservod ponds to rems.
within or imude approxim
WWTP Fac
ES
PotenSigni
Imp
or
tus
sh and
ntified or by he U.S.
the arsh, , ?
y es or dlife rsery
tecting policy
t tion abitat
Sacramento Cl fields on theroject site incld by Wildlan, which flows torage reservoir and pondsmove sedime
mediately admately 35 acre
cilities Master Pla
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
County at appe east, south, cludes Swainsds Inc. Nearb to the Mokevoir and smals are implement, and remo
djacent to thees of agricultu
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
proximately 3and southwe
son’s hawk foby waterbodieelumne River vler adjacent rented on an aoving vegetat
e existing WWural land to th
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
0 feet above est. Land nortraging habitaes include a rvia the Cosumrectangular pas‐needed bation from the
WTP footprint;he west and s
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
mean thwest of at emnant mnes ponds. asis and
; the south.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-15
Current vegetation management activities on the City‐owned agricultural land include mowing for weed abatement and fire prevention.
SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
A literature review and biological reconnaissance survey were conducted in 2009 to determine the presence of special‐status plant and wildlife species and their habitat at the WWTP site, including the adjacent agricultural areas (City of Galt 2009b).
Based on information obtained from the 2009 literature review and regulatory agencies, 16 special‐status plant species and 19 special‐status wildlife species were initially identified as potentially occurring in the proposed project vicinity (City of Galt 2009b). Additionally, in 2009, a biological reconnaissance survey was conducted, the results of which indicate that no vernal pools were present on the project site (City of Galt 2009b). Thus, special‐status species that are associated with vernal pools were excluded from further evaluation. However, the 2009 project footprint was limited to 9.5 acres, while the current project footprint is larger and includes areas that may not have been subject to survey in 2009. Therefore, there may be vernal pools present on the current project site and thus special‐status species that are associated with vernal pools may also be present. The same could be true for special‐status plants, which were not identified in the 2009 project footprint, but could be present in the current project footprint.
Based on the 2009 literature review and field survey, the WWTP site (including the adjacent agricultural areas) represents habitat for the following special‐status wildlife species: giant garter snake (Thamnophis giga), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucrus), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), as well as other bird species protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act (City of Galt 2009b).
No special‐status resident fish species occur in Skunk Creek or Laguna Creek and there are no documented occurrences of special‐status anadromous fishes occurring in either of these water bodies. However, the Cosumnes River and its terminal drainage, the Mokelumne River, support annual runs of Central Valley Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) fall‐run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a federal species of concern. In addition, the Lower Cosumnes‐Lower Mokelumne Hydrologic Unit, which contains the tributaries Laguna Creek and Skunk Creek, is identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook salmon. Finally, the Mokelumne River supports an annual run of Central Valley ESU steelhead (O. mykiss) and some of these fish may stray into the Cosumnes River each year (City of Galt 2009b).
3.4.2 DISCUSSION
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. Based on a literature review and field survey conducted in 2009, the WWTP site (including the adjacent agricultural areas) represents habitat for the following special‐status wildlife species: giant garter snake, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white‐tailed kite, and tricolored blackbird, as well as other bird species protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. Additionally, special‐status plant species and special‐status wildlife species associated with vernal pools may be present at the current project site, which is larger than the 2009 project site. If the proposed project would result in disturbance to or loss of any special‐status species or their habitat, a significant impact would result. This impact is potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-16 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Potentially Significant Impact. Based on a field survey conducted in 2009, no riparian or other sensitive natural communities occur at the WWTP site. However, the adjacent agricultural land was not included in the previous survey, and may contain riparian or other sensitive habitat that could be affected by the proposed project. This impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
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?
Potentially Significant Impact. Based on a delineation of waters of the United States completed at the project site in 2008, no federally protected wetlands (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) are present within the WWTP site. However, the adjacent agricultural land was not included in that wetland delineation, and may contain wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. If the project would remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt any wetlands identified on the project site, a significant impact would result. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.
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?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Pacific flyway, which is a major north‐south route for migratory birds along western North America. Large numbers of waterfowl, shorebirds, and cranes may move through the area seasonally, and may congregate in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields for winter or for use as resting grounds during longer migrations from the Arctic to Central or South America. However, the proposed project would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species. The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact. The proposed project would not include the removal of trees; therefore, it would not conflict with any tree retention policies as defined by the City of Galt General Plan (Policy COS‐3.2 Mature Tree and Woodland Preservation). Further, the proposed project would not conflict with other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur.
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?
No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP because the project would not be located in an area covered by any such plans. The City has formally agreed to participate in the South Sacramento County Habitat Conservation Plan, which is currently being drafted by Sacramento County
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-17
and is in the initial stages of environmental review; however, the plan has not been adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted HCPs. No impact would occur.
In
3
3
V
3
TcMwm
AD
3
a
Nmpa
b
Prdp
nitial Study Enviro
3-18
C3.5
V. Cultural R
a) Cause aof a his
b) Cause aof an a15064.
c) Directlyresourc
d) Disturboutside
3.5.1 E
The project siconducted in Most recentlywhich indicatemile radius of
Additionally, iD. to identify
3.5.2 D
a) Causdefin
No Impact. Nomeet the defiproject site. Ta historical re
b) Causpurs
Potentially Sigrecords searcduring construpresent. This
onmental Checklis
CULTURA
ENVIRON
Resources. Wou
a substantial astorical resourc
a substantial archaeological r5?
y or indirectly ce or site or un
b any human ree of formal cem
ENVIRONM
te has been t1978 by Peaky, in 2009, a re that no prevf the project s
in 2009, a recpaleontologic
DISCUSSIO
se a substaned in Sect
o historical renition of “uniTherefore, thesource. No im
se a substauant to Sec
gnificant Imphes and field uction, whichimpact is con
t
AL RESO
MENTAL ISSUES
uld the project
dverse changece as defined i
dverse changeresource pursu
destroy a uniqnique geologic
emains, includmeteries?
MENTAL SET
the subject ofk & Associateecords searchviously knowsite (City of G
cords search acal resources
ON
antial advetion 15064
esources listeique archaeoe proposed prmpact would
antial advection 1506
pact. No archsurveys. Imp
h could result nsidered pote
OURCES
S
t:
e in the significn Section 1506
e in the significuant to Section
que paleontolofeature?
ing those inter
TTING
f multiple cults and an overh by the Nortn cultural resalt 2009b).
and field surv on the proje
rse change4.5?
ed on or eligiblogical resourroject would occur.
rse change64.5?
aeological reslementation in impacts tontially signific
WWTP Fac
S
PotenSigni
Imp
ance 64.5?
ance n
gical
rred
tural resourcerview in 1994h Central Infosources are lo
vey was conduct site; no fos
e in the sign
ble for the Carces” were idnot cause a s
e in the sign
sources wereof the proposo significant bcant and will
cilities Master Pla
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
es inventorie4 by Ric Windormation Cenocated on the
ucted by palessil material w
nificance o
lifornia Regisdentified withsubstantial ad
nificance o
e identified onsed project wburied archaebe evaluated
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
s, including amiller, Consunter was conde project site
eontologist Kewas observed
of a historic
ter of Historihin or immedidverse change
of an archa
n the project would result ineological resod further in th
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
an intensive stulting Archaeoducted, the reor within a qu
enneth L. Fingd (City of Galt
cal resource
cal Resourcesately adjacene in the signif
eological re
site during pn soil disturbaurces if they he EIR.
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
tudy ologist. esults of uarter‐
ger, Ph. t 2009b).
e as
s or that nt to the ficance of
esource
revious ance are
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-19
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Potentially Significant Impact. No paleontological resources or unique geological features have been identified on the project site or in the project vicinity as a result of previous records searches and field surveys. Project‐related excavations are likely to encounter late Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Riverbank Formation beneath the surface layers of artificial fill overlying agriculturally disturbed soil. The Riverbank Formation includes several vertebrate fossil localities in Sacramento County and is, therefore, considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Previously recovered fossils include those of horse, camel, Columbian mammoth, ground sloth, dire wolf, coyote, bison, pocket gopher, wood rat, broad‐footed mole, garter snake, and blackfish (City of Galt 2009b). However, the potential of adversely affecting these resources is low because vertebrate fossils in floodplain sediments like those of the Riverbank Formation are distributed as localized deposits and their occurrence is therefore unpredictable. Nonetheless, because the potential exists for the proposed project to adversely affect a unique paleontological resource, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Potentially Significant Impact. There are no known human remains located on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would involve soil disturbance during construction, which could result in impacts to any interred on‐site human remains, although their presence is unlikely. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.
In
3
3
V
3
TtCs
SL
Tat
nitial Study Enviro
3-20
G3.6
VI. Geology a
a) Exposeadversedeath i
i) RudeEaGesuCa42
ii) Str
iii) Seliq
iv) La
b) Result
c) Be locathat woand pospread
d) Be locaof the Ucreatin
e) Have soof septsystemof wast
3.6.1 E
The project artrough locateCosumnes grosedimentary d
Soil types undLoam (U.S. De
The topograpabove mean sthe land surfa
onmental Checklis
GEOLOG
ENVIRON
and Soils. Wou
e people or strue effects, inclunvolving:
upture of a knoelineated on thrthquake Faulteologist for thebstantial evidelifornia Geolog2.)
rong seismic gr
ismic‐related guefaction?
ndslides?
in substantial s
ated on a geoloould become uotentially resulting, subsidenc
ated on expansUniform Building substantial r
oils incapable otic tanks or altems where sewerte water?
ENVIRONM
rea is locatedd between thoundwater sudeposits (DW
derlying the pepartment of
hy of the prosea level. Groace (DWR 201
t
GY AND S
NMENTAL ISSUES
ld the project:
uctures to poteuding the risk o
own earthquake most recent t Zoning Map ie area or basedence of a knowgical Survey Sp
round shaking?
ground failure,
soil erosion or
ogic unit or soiunstable as a ret in on‐ or onsie, liquefaction
sive soil, as defng Code (1994risks to life or p
of adequately ernative wasters are not avai
MENTAL SET
in the Great he Coast Rangubbasin. Soils WR 2006).
project area coAgriculture,
ject vicinity isundwater lev11).
SOILS
S
:
ential substantof loss, injury, o
e fault, as Alquist‐Priolo ssued by the Sd on other wn fault? (Referpecial Publicati
?
, including
the loss of top
l that is unstabesult of the prote landslide, lan, or collapse?
fined in Table 14, as updated),property?
supporting the water disposalable for the d
TTING
Valley Geomges on the wein this groun
onsist of San Natural Reso
s relatively flavels near the
WWTP Fac
PotenSigni
Imp
tial or
State
r to on
psoil?
ble, or oject, ateral
18‐1‐B
e use al isposal
morphic Provinest and the Sidwater subba
Joaquin‐Galt urces Conserv
at with elevatproject area
cilities Master Pla
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
nce of Califorerra Nevada asin are unco
complex, Sanvation Servic
tions ranging range from a
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
nia, which is on the east, aonsolidated to
n Joaquin Silte [NRCS] 201
from approxpproximately
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
a broad strucand overlies to semi‐conso
t Loam, and M12).
ximately 38 toy 76 to 96 fee
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
ctural the lidated
Madera
o 50 feet et below
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-21
The project area is approximately 70 miles east of San Francisco within Seismic Risk Zone 3, which requires additional earthquake safety building requirements (City of Galt 2005). No active, identified Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are located within the project area (CDC 2010), and the nearest active fault, Greenville, is located approximately 42 miles southwest of the City (City of Galt 2005).
The project area would be subject to ground shaking from the active and potentially active faults in the Bay Area. Ground shaking at the project area would depend on the magnitude and location of an earthquake and the project area’s soils. Peak ground accelerations in the Galt area, as estimated by the California Geological Society, range from 0.2 to 0.3 gravity (g), which corresponds to a Modified Mercalli Scale Intensity Value of VIII. A Modified Mercalli Scale Intensity Value of VIII would result in little damage to specially built structures, considerable damage to ordinary buildings, severe damage to poorly built structures, and some walls may collapse (City of Galt 2005).
3.6.2 DISCUSSION
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 California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The proposed site is not located in an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the nearest faults are located at least 42 miles away. Because surface ground rupture along faults is generally limited to a linear zone a few feet wide, ground rupture because of a fault across the project site is unlikely. Therefore, hazards associated with a potential fault rupture are considered less than significant.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. If a seismic event occurs at a nearby fault, seismic induced settlement could affect the project site. The extent of damage would depend on a soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake. The proposed project would be subject to ground accelerations of approximately 0.3 g and would be located within Seismic Risk Zone 3 (City of Galt 2005). Potential ground shaking at the project site could expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse impacts. Project design and construction would conform to the standards contained within California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage from strong seismic ground shaking. Because the proposed project would conform to applicable CBC regulations, potential hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
No Impact. Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of strength in saturated, loose to medium dense, granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength. During a seismic event, the extent of damage from ground failure including liquefaction would depend on the soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake.
Areas with the greatest potential for liquefaction are those in which the water table is less than 20 feet below the ground surface (City of Galt 2005). Because the depth to groundwater under the project site is moderate
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-22 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
(approximately 76 feet below the ground surface) and sources of seismic activity are at least 42 miles away, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered low.
As mentioned in item ii) above, project design and construction would conform to CBC Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage from ground failure and liquefaction. Because proposed facilities would conform to applicable CBC and local regulations, potential hazards associated with strong ground failure or liquefaction would be minimized. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
iv) Landslides?
No Impact. The topography of the project vicinity is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 38 to 50 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the project site would not be subject to landslides. No impact would occur.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Soils underlying the project site have a high shrink‐swell capacity (NRCS 2012).Depending on wind and rain conditions, grading activities could result in the potential for erosion and sedimentation of site soils both on‐ and off‐site. During construction activities, graded, excavated, and stockpiled soil could be exposed to erosion via wind and surface water runoff. The City would be required to prepare project grading/improvement plans for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP would include a description of construction activities and would identify the BMPs that that would be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction‐related pollutants (e.g., petroleum products, solvents, paints, cement) that could contaminate nearby water resources. A monitoring program is required to ensure that BMPs are implemented according to the SWPPP and are effective at controlling discharges of stormwater‐related pollutants. Because the City is required to develop a SWPPP, consistent with SWRCB standards, which would minimize the potential soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, this impact would be considered less than significant.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or onsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The specific soil types underlying the project area are San Joaquin‐Galt complex, San Joaquin Silt Loam, and Madera Loam. These soils are not considered unstable and would not be expected to result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (City of Galt 2005). Moreover, the proposed project would be designed to meet all applicable Uniform Building Code (UBC) engineering requirements to ensure that new facilities would not be affected by the above geologic hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that are high in expansive clays or silts and that swell and shrink with wetting and drying, respectively. This shrinking and swelling can result in differential ground movement, which can cause damage to foundations. However, proper fill selection, moisture control, and compaction during construction can prevent these types of soils from causing significant damage.
Soils underlying the project site have a high shrink‐swell capacity (NRCS 2012) and could be considered expansive soil as defined by the NRCS Soil Survey data; locating the project on expansive soils could create
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-23
property risks if the soils are not properly compacted. However, the proposed project would be designed in conformance with the applicable CBC, which has specific site development and construction standards by soil type to prevent expansive soil hazards. Because proposed facilities would include appropriate design measures to minimize potential expansive soil hazards consistent with State and local regulations, this impact would be considered less than significant.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.
In
3
3
V
3
Cdaeh
HiayCSe(
Eogi
Lceta
nitial Study Enviro
3-24
G3.7
VII. Greenhou
a) Generaindirecenvironi.) Sh
Emii.) Lo
Em
b) Conflicadoptegreenhi.) Sh
Emii.) Lo
Em
3.7.1 E
Certain gases determining tatmosphere, aeffect are carbhexafluoride.
Human‐causentensifying thas global climyears can be eChange 2007)Senate Bill (SBenvironmentaHealth and S
Emissions of Gon a cumulatiglobal climatempact with re
Legislation ancontext and aenvironmentathe cumulativare occurring
onmental Checklis
GREENH
ENVIRON
use Gas Emissio
ate greenhousetly, that may hnment? ort‐Term Consmissions ng‐Term Opermissions
t with an applied for the purphouse gases? ort‐Term Consmissions ng‐Term Opermissions
ENVIRONM
in the earth’sthe earth’s sua phenomenobon dioxide (
ed emissions ohe greenhousate change oexplained wit). By adoptionB) 97, the statal impacts. ABafety Code Se
GHGs have thve basis, to ge change, GHGespect to glob
d executive o process for dal consequencve impacts of and are expe
t
HOUSE G
NMENTAL ISSUES
ons. Would th
e gas emissionhave a significa
struction Relat
ational Related
icable plan, popose of reducin
struction Relat
ational Related
MENTAL SET
s atmosphererface temperon known as tCO2), methan
of these GHGse effect and r global warmthout the conn of Assemblyte of CalifornB 32 mandateection 38530)
he potential toglobal climateG emissions fbal climate ch
orders on thedeveloping ances from GHGGHGs. Small ected to wors
GAS EMI
S
e project:
s, either directant impact on t
ed Greenhous
d Greenhouse
licy or regulating the emission
ed Greenhous
d Greenhouse
TTING
e, classified asrature. GHGs the greenhoune, nitrous ox
s in excess ofhave led to aming. It is extrtribution fromy Bill (AB) 32, ia has acknowes that emissi).
o adversely ae change. Althfrom multiplehange.
subject of clin enforceableGs and globalcontributionsen over time
WWTP Fac
SSIONS
PotenSigni
Imp
tly or the
e Gas
Gas
ion ns of
e Gas
Gas
s greenhouseare responsibuse effect. Proxide, hydroflu
f natural amb trend of unnremely unlikem human actthe Californiawledged that ons of GHGs
ffect the envhough the eme projects thro
imate changee statewide caclimate chans to this cumu) may be pote
cilities Master Pla
S
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
e gases (GHGsble for “trappominent GHGuorocarbons,
bient concentnatural warmiely that globaivities (Interga Global Warthe effects omust be capp
ironment becmissions of onoughout the w
e in Californiaap on GHG emnge, CEQA requlative impacentially consi
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
s), play a critiping” solar raGs contributinperfluorocarb
trations are reing of the earl climate changovernmentarming Solutioof GHG emissiped at 1990 l
cause such eme single projeworld could r
a have establimissions. Givequires that lect (from whichiderable and t
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
cal role in diation in theng to the greebons, and sul
esponsible forth’s climate, nge of the pal Panel on Clins Act of 200ions cause adevels by the y
missions contect will not caresult in a cum
shed a statewen the naturead agencies eh significant etherefore sig
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
e earth’s enhouse fur
r known
ast 50 mate 6, and dverse year 2020
tribute, ause mulative
wide e of evaluate effects nificant.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-25
The project would be located in Sacramento County. According to the Legislature, in AB 32, global warming will “have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry” (Health and Safety Code Section 38501[b]). Sacramento County’s economy relies on many of these industries, and could experience economic and public health damages related to changes in vegetation and crop patterns, lower summer reservoirs, and increased potential for flooding and air pollution that hotter temperatures can produce.
3.7.2 DISCUSSION
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Short-Term Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project during construction would predominantly be in the form of CO2. Emissions would be associated with mobile‐source exhaust from construction worker commute trips, truck haul trips, and equipment used on the project site (e.g., excavators, graders). Depending on the size of the project footprint and duration of construction activities, project construction could generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Long-Term Operational Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would add minor if any additional mobile sources of GHGs as increases in employment, if any, would be minor. The project would treat more wastewater, and wastewater has the potential to release substantial quantities of greenhouse gases, depending on the design of the WWTP. Therefore, the proposed project could have a cumulatively considerable and, therefore, potentially significant impact on climate change. This issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Short-Term Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. As described in item a) above, project construction has the potential to result in GHG emissions that could exceed applicable thresholds and, therefore, construction‐related activities from the proposed project could potentially conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Long-Term Operational Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in item a) above, the operational‐related GHG emissions associated with this project could be substantial. Because operation of the proposed project could generate substantial GHG emissions, the proposed project could potentially conflict with the goals of AB 32 and other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
In
3
3
V
3
HpS(Uwc
nitial Study Enviro
3-26
H3.8
VIII. Hazards a
a) Create environdisposa
b) Create environand/orhazard
c) Emit haacutelywithin school?
d) Be locahazardGovernwould the env
e) For a por, whetwo miwould residin
f) For a pwould residin
g) Impair an adoevacua
h) Exposeloss, inwhere where
3.8.1 E
Hazardous waproperties thaSpecifically, hRCRA) hazardU‐list (discardwaste (i.e., ignconsidered ha
onmental Checklis
HAZARD
ENVIRONM
nd Hazardous
a significant hnment throughal of hazardous
a significant hnment throughr accident condous materials
azardous emissy hazardous maone‐quarter m?
ated on a site wous materials snment Code Seit create a signvironment?
roject located ere such a planiles of a public the project resg or working in
roject within tthe project resg or working in
implementatiopted emergenation plan?
e people or strujury, or death wildlands are residences are
ENVIRONM
aste is definedat make it potazardous wasdous wastes lded commercnitability, corazardous was
t
DS AND
MENTAL ISSUES
Materials. Wo
azard to the ph the routine trs materials?
azard to the ph reasonably foditions involvininto the enviro
sions or handleaterials, substamile of an existi
which is includesites compiledection 65962.5 nificant hazard
within an airpn has not beenairport or pubsult in a safety n the project a
he vicinity of asult in a safety n the project a
on of or physiccy response pl
uctures to a siginvolving wildladjacent to urbe intermixed w
MENTAL SET
d by the Califtentially dangstes include wists—the F‐lisial waste prorosivity, reactes.
HAZARD
S
ould the proje
ublic or the ransport, use,
ublic or the oreseeable upsng the release oonment?
e hazardous orances, or wasteing or propose
ed on a list of pursuant to and, as a resuto the public o
ort land use pl adopted, withblic use airport,hazard for peorea?
a private airstrihazard for peorea?
cally interfere wlan or emergen
gnificant risk ofland fires, inclubanized areas
with wildlands?
TTING
fornia Departgerous or harwaste listed ost (non‐specifducts)—or thtivity, or toxic
WWTP Fac
DOUS M
PotenSignif
Imp
ct:
or
set of
r e d
lt, or
lan hin , ople
ip, ople
with ncy
f uding or
ment of Toxicrmful to humaon one of the fic source wahat exhibits oncity). Certain
cilities Master Pla
MATERIA
ntially ficant
pact
LessSignific
MitigIncorp
c Substances an health or tfour Resourcstes), K‐list (sne of the fouwastes know
an and Phase I Imm
ALS
s-than-cant with gation porated
LesSig
Im
Control (DTSthe environmce Conservatisource‐specifr characteristwn to contain
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
SC) as a wastement (DTSC 20on and Recovic wastes), P‐tics of a hazarmercury are
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
o Impact
e with 007). very Act ‐list, and rdous also
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-27
Prior to the construction of the WWTP in 1983, the project area was used for agriculture. The project area is not located on a site with known hazardous materials (DTSC 2012). According to U.S. EPA’s Envirofacts website database, no superfund sites or RCRA‐listed generators of hazardous waste are located adjacent to or within the project area (EPA 2012).
Current hazardous materials use at the WWTP consists of small amounts of products containing hazards materials used for routine maintenance and repair.
3.8.2 DISCUSSION
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Project construction activities would involve the use, storage, and transport of potentially hazardous products such as paints, solvents, glues, and cements. Petroleum hydrocarbon products such as gasoline, diesel, and lubricants would be used in heavy equipment and construction vehicles.
Consistent with current WWTP operations, hazardous materials would be used, stored, and transported to the project site in compliance with hazardous materials regulations to support long‐term operations. Such materials would include herbicides for vegetation control (i.e., Roundup, stored quantities not to exceed 55 gallons), 12% sodium‐hypochlorite (i.e., bleach, stored in quantities not to exceed 55 gallons), polymers for sludge processing (up to 2,000 gallons), diesel fuel (2,500 gallons), lubricating oils, and commercial and household‐type maintenance products such as cleaning agents and degreasers, paints, and pesticides. Transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans. The City would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal‐OSHA) and DTSC requirements and manufacturer’s instructions, during project construction and operation. Because the proposed project would implement and comply with all existing hazardous material regulations, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be unlikely. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Hazardous materials can present a risk to people or the environment through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, particularly by untrained personnel; environmental unsound disposal methods; transportation accidents; or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. In addition, the project site is located over a half‐mile from any residences, and any potential spills would be unlikely to pose a significant hazard to the public. Implementation of applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards would help ensure that potential public health and environmental hazards would be minimized. Additionally, the City will prepare and implement a spill prevention control and countermeasures program during project construction to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities. Because the proposed project would implement and comply with existing hazardous material regulations, this impact would be less than significant.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-28 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would include the use of common hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and detergents. These materials would be handled consistent with state and federal regulations. There are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25 mile of the project. The nearest school to the project site is Lake Canyon Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site (at 800 Lake Canyon Avenue). No handling of hazardous materials would occur within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
No Impact. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site (DTSC 2012). Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment as a result of existing hazardous material contamination. Therefore, no impact 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?
No Impact. The Mustang Airport is a private airport located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. The nearest public airport is Franklin Field Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not create safety hazards for people living or working in the project area as a result of being in close proximity to an airport. Therefore, 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?
No Impact. There are no private airstrips located near the project site. The closest private airport, Mustang Airport, is located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not create safety hazards for people living or working in the project area as a result of being in close proximity to a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur.
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No Impact. The project area is not currently used for evacuation purposes. To ensure that project construction does not interfere with any adopted City or County emergency operations plans, emergency access to the project area would be maintained at all times. Long‐term project operation would not noticeably increase the vehicle or truck trips associated with the existing WWTP operations. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-29
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?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Land uses in the project area consist primarily of agricultural uses. The project would not result in the placement of housing or other structures that would contain substantial numbers of people, and no wildlands are located on or near the project site. Therefore, the risk associated with wildland fires is considered less than significant.
In
3
3
I
3
Tp(
nitial Study Enviro
3-30
H3.9
IX. Hydrology
a) Violaterequire
b) Substasubstanthere wlowerinproducto a levplanne
c) Substasite or course result i
d) Substasite or course rate orwould
e) Create the capsystempollute
f) Otherw
g) Place hmappeInsuranmap?
h) Place wthat wo
i) Exposeinjury, a result
j) Result
3.9.1 E
The City is locprecipitation Western Reg
onmental Checklis
HYDROL
ENVIRON
y and Water Q
e any water quaements?
ntially depletentially with growould be a netng of the local ction rate of prvel that would d uses for whi
ntially alter thearea, includingof a stream orn substantial o
ntially alter thearea, includingof a stream or amount of surresult in on‐ or
or contribute pacity of existinms or provide sued runoff?
wise substantia
housing within ed on a federal nce Rate Map o
within a 100‐yeould impede o
e people or struor death involvt of the failure
in inundation b
ENVIRONM
cated in a Medin the City is agional Climate
t
LOGY AN
NMENTAL ISSUES
Quality. Would
ality standards
groundwater oundwater rec deficit in aquigroundwater tre‐existing neanot support exch permits hav
e existing draing through the ar river, in a maon‐ or onsite er
e existing draing through the ar river, or substrface runoff in r onsite floodin
runoff water wng or planned ubstantial addi
ally degrade wa
a 100‐year floFlood Hazard or other flood
ear flood hazarr redirect flood
uctures to a sigving flooding, of a levee or d
by seiche, tsun
MENTAL SET
diterranean capproximatele Center 2005
ND WAT
S
the project:
s or waste disc
supplies or intharge such thafer volume or table level (e.grby wells woulxisting land useve been grante
nage pattern oalteration of thnner which worosion or siltat
nage pattern oalteration of thtantially increaa manner whing?
which would exstormwater dritional sources
ater quality?
od hazard areaBoundary or Fhazard delinea
rd area structud flows?
gnificant risk ofincluding flooddam?
nami, or mudflo
TTING
climate with dly 17.7 inches5).
WWTP Fac
ER QUA
PoteSign
Im
harge
terfere at a g., the ld drop es or ed)?
of the he ould tion?
of the he ase the ch
xceed rainage s of
a as lood ation
res
f loss, ding as
ow?
dry, warm sums, with most o
cilities Master Pla
ALITY
entially nificant
mpact
LesSignif
MitInco
mmers and cooccurring from
an and Phase I Imm
ss-than-ficant with tigation rporated
LeSig
I
ool, wet wintm November
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ess-than-gnificant mpact
N
ters. Annual through Mar
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
rch
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-31
SURFACE WATER RESOURCES
The project area is located in the Lower Cosumnes River watershed hydrologic area, which is a subunit of the San Joaquin hydrologic region. The WWTP discharges treated effluent into a remnant channel of Skunk Creek (year round). Effluent is conveyed approximately 0.6 mile in Skunk Creek at which point it flows into Laguna Creek, a tributary to the Lower Cosumnes River. The Lower Cosumnes River is tidally influenced approximately 1.5 to 2 miles downstream of its confluence with Laguna Creek. The Cosumnes River joins the Mokelumne River within the Delta, approximately 5 miles downstream of the WWTP.
The lower approximately 25 miles of the Cosumnes River channel is typically dry, or contains discontinuous segments of wetted conditions, during the summer dry months (Mount et al. 2001). Laguna Creek flows are supplemented by year‐round discharges from the Sacramento Municipal Utilities District’s Rancho Seco decommissioned nuclear power generating facility, which discharges roughly 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) into Hadselville Creek. Hadselville Creek joins Laguna Creek approximately 10.5 miles upstream of where the WWTP effluent enters Laguna Creek. During the irrigation season, typically May through October, riparian users divert nearly all the flow in Laguna Creek for irrigation. As such, it is anticipated that little flow reaches the lower portion of Laguna Creek west of SR 99 near the WWTP during the peak summer irrigation periods. Starting in January 2009, weekly Laguna Creek streamflow monitoring has been conducted by the City’s WWTP staff immediately upstream of Skunk Creek. At that point, the water levels have been frequently lower than the lowest staff gage reading of 3 cfs. However, even that channel has not been observed to be completely dry at any time. Analysis of aerial photographs indicates that continuous streamflow from Laguna Creek to the tidally influenced area of the Lower Cosumnes River can be observed in all photos that were obtained for the May through October period, which included several drier year‐type conditions (i.e., September 2010, August 2008, and July 2004) and other year‐types (City of Galt 2009).
The Central Valley RWQCB has established beneficial uses for the Cosumnes River as: agricultural supply, municipal and domestic supply, contact and non‐contact recreation, warm and cold freshwater habitat, warm and cold migration, warm and cold spawning habitat, and wildlife habitat (Central Valley RWQCB 2011). These beneficial uses would also apply to the river’s tributary streams. The water quality of the Cosumnes River is designated as impaired by the Central Valley RWQCB for exotic species on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality limited stream segments (Central Valley RWQCB 2007). The SRWCB approved new revisions to the 303(d) list in October 2010, which are awaiting approval by U.S. EPA. If approved, the Cosumnes River will also be listed as impaired for Eschericia coli (E. coli) bacteria and sediment toxicity, both resulting from unknown sources. Laguna Creek is not identified as water quality limited on either the 2006 or 2010 Section 303(d) lists.
Effluent discharges to Skunk Creek from the WWTP are regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB under the City’s WDRs/NPDES permit (Order No. R5‐2010‐0099, NPDES No. CA0081434), which was renewed on September 23, 2010. The NPDES permit regulates the allowable concentrations and loadings of constituents that have the potential to affect beneficial uses of the receiving water so that the discharge complies with all applicable water quality standards. Since the issuance of the new NPDES Permit, the WWTP has been authorized to discharge treated effluent to Skunk Creek year‐round. However, during the irrigation season, there is generally little to no discharge into Skunk Creek due to the demand for irrigation water. For example, on May 10, 2012, off‐site discharge was stopped to fill the reservoir in anticipation of summer irrigation demand. Discharge is not expected until July 2012.
FLOODING
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100‐year floodplain is defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a one‐percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The one‐percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100‐year flood. The majority of the 298‐
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-32 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
acre property, including the existing treatment process area, is not located within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain; however, much of the effluent reservoir, parts of the WWTP storage ponds, and small portions of the agricultural areas of the City’s property are within the 100‐year floodplain associated with Skunk Creek as shown in Exhibit 3‐2.
STORMWATER
Stormwater facilities at the existing WWTP site drain to the existing treated effluent storage reservoir, or to the WWTP headworks for treatment.
GROUNDWATER RESOURCES
The project area is located in the Cosumnes Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The groundwater quality of the Cosumnes Subbasin is characterized by calcium‐magnesium or calcium‐sodium bicarbonate types. The subbasin’s water quality has been impaired in some locations for pesticides. Groundwater levels in the subbasin are generally at the mid‐1980s levels (DWR 2006). Historic groundwater levels near the project area ranged from approximately 76 to 96 feet below the land surface (DWR 2011).
3.9.2 DISCUSSION
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
Potentially Significant Impact. Project‐related construction activities would involve grading, earth moving, excavation, infrastructure development, and building construction. During construction, disturbed portions of the project site would be subject to wind erosion, rainfall, and winter stormwater runoff events. Construction activities could result in soil erosion, siltation, or flooding. Specifically, construction activities such as grading could result in disturbance of soils and sediments that could be carried into local water bodies (such as Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) during storm events. Further, accidental discharges of construction‐related fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous substances could contaminate stormwater flows or increase siltation in nearby water bodies, resulting in a reduction in stormwater quality on the project site or downstream of the project area. Therefore, the project could result in potentially significant water quality impacts during construction. This impact will be analyzed further in the EIR.
The Facilities Master Plan, specifically the Immediate Phase I Improvements, would improve water quality of effluent discharged to surface receiving water (i.e., primarily Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) to meet the requirements of the 2010 NPDES Permit; therefore, the project is anticipated to result in a beneficial water quality effect. However, the quantity of effluent discharge to surface receiving waters will increase as the WWTP is expanded to serve the anticipated growth in the City of Galt, based on the 2030 General Plan. Furthermore, the potential changes in impervious surfaces due to the facilities constructed as part of the project could increase the volume of runoff coming from the project area, although such increases are anticipated to be minor. Because of the long‐term nature of the Facilities Master Plan, the increased quantity of effluent discharge, and uncertainty regarding future WWTP facilities construction to meet the City’s anticipated growth, implementation of the Facilities Master Plan could result in potentially significant water quality impacts and this issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-33
Source: Data provided by FEMA 2008; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012
Exhibit 3-2 Floodplain Map
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-34 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Portions of the existing WWTP site are not paved and would potentially allow for groundwater recharge. The Facilities Master Plan would result in the construction of additional impermeable surfaces in the area. However, given the majority of the WWTP property is agricultural fields with permeable surfaces, an increase in impermeable surfaces at the WWTP site would not be expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge. Operation of the project would not significantly alter the existing number of employees (up to five additional employees) and would not be expected to significantly affect potable water consumption. A non‐potable water well was constructed as part of the Tertiary Filtration, UV Disinfection, and Biosolids Dewatering Project to supplement the existing use of groundwater for non‐potable purposes. However, the combined quantity and rate of water drawn from that well and the older existing well is comparable to historical pumping at the older well, other than in the rare event of a fire when fire fighting demands occur. The treatment processes to treat wastewater from the increased City population would not require a substantial increase in water from these groundwater wells. In addition, as part of the Phase I Immediate Improvements, one of the options for removing additional arsenic involves managing the City’s groundwater wells to control the maximum arsenic loads at the WWTP. However, this does not involve drawing greater amounts of groundwater from the wells. Thus, the Facilities Master Plan would have a less‐than‐significant impact on groundwater recharge and groundwater levels.
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 on- or onsite erosion or siltation?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. No streams or rivers would be altered as part of the Facilities Master Plan. The existing effluent flow meter would be altered to handle the increased effluent discharges; however this facility would be replaced and improved at its current location (Exhibit 2‐4). The construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces and would potentially alter the drainage pattern of the existing WWTP site. Storm drain facilities would be implemented and would drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks. The pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered from the existing conditions such that it would increase the potential for erosion or siltation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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 on- or onsite flooding?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The area of impermeable surfaces within the WWTP site would increase as a result of the proposed project. However, the stormwater in the area would be discharged into storm drain facilities constructed as part of the project. The Facilities Master Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area such that it would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-35
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As described above, the existing WWTP site has permeable surfaces. Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan would result in new impermeable surfaces and would potentially increase the quantity of runoff. However, WWTP improvements and expansion would include storm drain facilities to capture all runoff and divert it to the existing surface reservoir or to the WWTP headworks. The project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
Potentially Significant Impact. See item a), above. During construction of facilities pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan, there is a potential to degrade surface water quality due to grading activities or accidental spills. Additionally, while it is unlikely that the proposed project would encounter groundwater or degrade the groundwater quality during construction activities (due to the project areas’ historic groundwater elevations at least 76 feet below the ground surface), it is possible than an accidental spill could occur during construction, resulting in hazardous materials potentially affecting the groundwater quality. These potential construction‐related water quality impacts are considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
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?
No Impact. Although portions of the project site, primarily the effluent reservoir and the treatment storage ponds, are within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain (Exhibit 3‐2), the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project would not involve the construction or placement of any housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?
Potentially Significant Impact. As shown in Exhibit 3‐2, portions of the City’s 298‐acre property, including the effluent reservoir, treatment storage ponds, and marginal areas of the agricultural lands, are within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain associated with Skunk Creek. Also shown on Exhibit 3‐2, the majority of proposed facilities pursuant to the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would be outside of the 100‐year floodplain. However, the potential area of disturbance and potential facilities (labeled “Additional Metals Removal” located north of the existing treatment process area) could be located within the 100‐year floodplain. Structures located within the 100‐year floodplain could impede or redirect flood flows. This would be a potentially significant impact and will therefore be analyzed further in the EIR.
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?
No Impact. The project area is not located adjacent to a levee. A treated effluent storage reservoir is located within the WWTP site. However, the Facilities Master Plan would not alter the reservoir. Therefore, there would be no risk of loss, injury, or death from either natural flooding, levee failure, or from dam inundation and there would be no impact.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-36 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. A seiche, though unlikely, could occur in the existing storage reservoir at the WWTP site. However, the proposed project’s facilities would be constructed at least 5 feet above the water surface and would not be affected by inundation as a result of a seiche. Because of the distance from the nearest large body of water—the Pacific Ocean, approximately 70 miles to the west—it is unlikely that the proposed project would be affected by inundation as a result of a tsunami. Finally, the project site is surrounded by agricultural land in a relatively flat area. As such, the site is not susceptible to large‐scale mudflows. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
A
CW
3
X
3
S
SW
3
a
Pwcscict
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
S3.10
X. Stormwat
a) Result proces
b) Result stormwactiviti
c) Result from mfuelingwashinor storoutdoo
d) Cause treceivibenefitintegritdischar
e) Cause sof stormthe potproject
3.10.1 E
STORMWATE
Stormwater faWWTP headw
3.10.2 D
a) Resu
Potentially Sigwould involveconstruction, stormwater ruconstruction anto local watcould result inthe EIR.
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
STORMW
ENVIRON
ter Quality. Wo
in increase of es?
in an increase water runoff froes?
in an increase material storage, vehicle or eqng), waste handage, delivery aor work areas?
the impairmenng waters or at or cause signity of the waterrge of stormwa
significant chamwater runofftential for signt site and surro
ENVIRONM
ER
acilities at theworks for trea
DISCUSSIO
ult in increa
gnificant Impe grading, eardisturbed pounoff events.activities sucher bodies (sun potentially s
ase I Immediate Im
WATER Q
NMENTAL ISSUES
ould the proje
erosion during
of the level of om the post‐co
of the discharge areas, vehicleuipment maintdling, hazardouareas or loading
nt of the benefreas that provificant harm onrways and watater?
nges in the flof to cause enviificant increasounding areas?
MENTAL SET
e existing WWtment.
ON
ase of eros
pact.As discusrth moving, exortions of the Constructionh as grading cch as Skunk Csignificant ero
mprovements NOP
QUALITY
S
ect:
g the construct
pollutants in onstruction
ge of stormwae or equipmentenance (incluus materials hag docks, or oth
ficial uses of ide water qualn the biologicaer bodies by th
w velocity or vronmental hares in erosion o?
TTING
WTP site drain
ion during
ssed in Sectioxcavation, infproject site wn activities cocould result inCreek and Lagosion impacts
P/IS
Y
PoteSign
Im
ion
ter nt ding andling her
ity al he
volume rm and of the
n to the existi
the constr
on 3.9.2 a), abfrastructure dwould be subjould result in sn disturbanceguna Creek) ds during cons
entially nificant
mpact
LesSignif
MitInco
ing treated ef
uction proc
bove, project‐development,ject to wind esoil erosion, se of soils and during storm estruction. This
Initial
ss-than-ficant with tigation rporated
LeSig
I
ffluent storag
cess?
‐related cons, and buildingerosion, rainfsiltation, or flsediments thevents. Theres impact will
Study Environmen
ess-than-gnificant mpact
N
ge reservoir, o
truction activg constructionfall, and wintelooding. Spechat could be cefore, the probe analyzed f
ntal Checklist
3-37
No Impact
or to the
vities n. During er cifically, carried oject further in
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-38 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
b) Result in an increase of the level of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the post-construction activities?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2 c), d) and e), above, the construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces, which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff coming from the project area, although any increase in stormwater runoff volume is anticipated to be minor and storm drain facilities that drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks would be implemented. The volume and pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered from the existing conditions such that it would increase the potential for erosion or siltation. Furthermore, the proposed WWTP facility upgrades and expansion would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
c) Result in an increase of the discharge of stormwater from material storage areas, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. See discussion under b), above. The construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces, which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff coming from the project area, although any increase in stormwater runoff volume is anticipated to be minor and storm drain facilities that drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks would be implemented. The volume and pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Cause the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit or cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies by the discharge of storm water?
Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2 a), above, project‐related construction activities would involve grading, earth moving, excavation, infrastructure development, and building construction, which could result in soil erosion, siltation, or flooding. Specifically, construction activities such as grading could result in disturbance of soils and sediments that could be carried into local water bodies (such as Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) during storm events. Such construction‐related stormwater discharge could result in potentially significant impacts to the biological integrity of the waterways during construction. This impact will be analyzed further in the EIR.
e) Cause significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm and the potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site and surrounding areas?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2 c), d) and e), above, the construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces, which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff coming from the project area, although any increase in stormwater runoff volume is anticipated to be minor and storm drain facilities that drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks would be implemented. The volume and pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered from the existing conditions such that it would increase the potential for erosion or siltation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
A
CW
3
X
3
TPlf2
3
a
Nttb
b
Ntd
c
Nbn
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
L3.11
XI. Land Use
a) Physica
b) Conflicregulatprojectspecificordinanmitigat
c) Conflicor natu
3.11.1 E
The City of GaPublic land usibraries, musfacilities, and 2009a).
3.11.2 D
a) Phys
No Impact. Ththe City’s WWthe north, andby the propos
b) Confjurisdplanor m
No Impact. Thto all applicabdesignations.
c) Confcons
No Impact. Asboundaries ofnot conflict w
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
LAND US
ENVIRONM
and Planning.
ally divide an e
t with any apption of an agent (including, buc plan, local conce) adopted fting an environ
t with any appural community
ENVIRONM
alt’s General Pse designationeums, governsimilar and c
DISCUSSIO
sically divid
he proposed pWTP. The WWd undevelopesed project. T
flict with andiction ove, local coasitigating an
he project siteble zoning reqTherefore, n
flict with anservation p
s described inf an adopted with such plan
ase I Immediate Im
SE AND
MENTAL ISSUES
Would the pro
established com
plicable land usncy with jurisdiut not limited toastal programfor the purposenmental effect?
plicable habitaty conservation
MENTAL SET
Plan designatn applies to pnment officesompatible us
ON
e an estab
project wouldWTP site is surred land on theTherefore, no
ny applicaber the projestal programn environm
e is designatequirements. To impact wou
ny applicablan?
n Section 3.4, HCP or naturs. No impact
mprovements NOP
PLANNI
S
oject:
mmunity?
se plan, policy, iction over theo, a general pl, or zoning e of avoiding o?
t conservation n plan?
TTING
tes the 298‐acpublic facilities and courts, cses; this use is
blished com
d involve the rounded by ae other threeimpact woul
ble land usect (includinm, or zonin
mental effec
ed Public/QuaThe proposeduld occur.
ble habitat c
“Biological Rral communitywould occur.
P/IS
ING
PotenSignif
Imp
or an,
or
plan
cre project sits such as schochurches, mes typically loc
mmunity?
construction agricultural la sides. No exid occur.
e plan, poling, but not ng ordinancct?
asi‐Public und project facili
conservatio
Resources,” thy conservatio.
ntially ficant
pact
LessSignific
MitigIncorp
te as Public/Qools, fire stateeting halls, ccated through
of new and end uses, an eisting commu
cy, or regu limited to, ce) adopted
der the City oities are cons
on plan or
he project siteon plan. There
Initial
s-than-cant with gation porated
LesSig
Im
Quasi‐Public. tions, hospitacemeteries anhout the com
expansion of environmentaunities would
lation of an a general d for the pu
of Galt’s Geneistent with th
natural com
e does not lieefore, the pro
Study Environmen
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
The Public/Qls, sanitariumnd mausoleummunity (City o
existing facilial mitigation b be physically
n agency wplan, specurpose of a
eral Plan and che zoning and
mmunity
e within the oposed projec
ntal Checklist
3-39
No Impact
Quasi‐ms, ms, public of Galt
ities at bank to y divided
with ific
avoiding
conforms d land use
ct would
In
3
3
X
3
TCt
3
a
Npt
b
Ns
nitial Study Enviro
3-40
M3.12
XII. Mineral R
a) Result resourcresiden
b) Result mineragenera
3.12.1 E
The project arCity’s 2030 Getherefore wer
3.12.2 D
a) Resuthe r
No Impact. Beproposed projto the region
b) Resudelin
No Impact. Thspecific plan,
onmental Checklis
MINERA
ENVIRONM
Resources. Wou
in the loss of ace that would nts of the state
in the loss of aal resource recol plan, specific
ENVIRONM
rea does not eneral Plan EIre scoped out
DISCUSSIO
ult in the loregion and
ecause the prject would noand the resid
ult in the loneated on a
here are no loor other land
t
L RESO
MENTAL ISSUES
uld the project
availability of abe of value to e?
availability of aovery site delinc plan, or other
MENTAL SET
contain any sIR, impacts ret of the Gene
ON
oss of availa the residen
roject site doeot result in thdents of the st
oss of availaa local gene
ocally importad use plan tha
URCES
S
t:
known minerathe region and
locally importneated on a locr land use plan
TTING
state or locallelated to mineral Plan EIR [C
ability of a nts of the s
es not contaie loss of avaitate. Therefo
ability of a eral plan, s
ant mineral reat include the
WWTP Fac
PotenSignif
Imp
al d the
tant cal ?
y designated eral resourceCity of Galt 20
known minstate?
n any state olability of a k
ore, no impact
locally impspecific pla
esource recovproject site.
cilities Master Pla
ntially ficant
pact
LessSignific
MitigIncorp
mineral resoes were found012]).
neral resou
r locally‐desigknown minerat would occu
portant minan, or other
very sites delTherefore, no
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-cant with gation porated
LesSig
Im
ources. (Durind be less than
urce that wo
gnated mineral resource thr.
neral resour land use p
ineated on a o impact wou
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
ng scoping forn significant a
ould be of v
ral resources,hat would be
rce recoveplan?
local generaluld occur.
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
r the nd
value to
, the of value
ry site
l plan,
A
CW
3
X
3
NTarst
Tscpdart
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
N3.13
XIII. Noise. Wo
a) Exposuexcess plan orstate, o
i. Sh
ii. Lo
b) Exposuground
c) A substlevels iwithou
d) A substambienexisting
e) For a pwhere miles othe proproject
f) For a pwould the pro
3.13.1 E
Noise levels inThis scale giveare a unit of mregulated by asound level extime).
The intensity sensitive receconsidered a pattern. The rdistance, depeappears to berather than spthe distance,
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
NOISE
ENVIRON
ould the projec
ure of persons tof standards er noise ordinanor federal stan
ort‐Term Cons
ng‐Term Oper
ure of persons tdborne vibratio
tantial permann the project vut the project?
tantial tempornt noise levels g without the p
roject located such a plan haof a public airpooject expose pet area to exces
roject within tthe project expoject area to ex
ENVIRONM
n California ares greater wemeasurementa maximum sxceeded “x” p
of a sound aneptor’s distanc“point sourcerate at which ending on thee from a line rpherically. Thdepending on
ase I Immediate Im
MENTAL ISSUES
ct result in:
to or generatioestablished in tnce, or in otherdards?
struction Sourc
ational Source
to or generatioon or groundbo
nent increase invicinity above l
rary or periodicin the project project?
within an airpas not been adoort or public useople residing sive noise leve
he vicinity of apose people rexcessive noise
MENTAL SET
re typically meight to the frt indicating thound level (Lpercent of a s
nd the subjecce to that soue” of noise. Sonoise typicale ground absorather than a e rate at whicn other shield
mprovements NOP
S
on of noise levthe local generr applicable loc
ce Noise
Stationary No
on of excessiveorne noise leve
n ambient noisevels existing
c increase in vicinity above
ort land use plopted, within tse airport, wouor working in tels?
a private airstriesiding or worklevels?
TTING
measured in dequencies of he relative am
max) and/or a specific time p
tive noisinessund. Noise froound from thly dissipates forption, atmopoint as the vch traffic noisding factors.
P/IS
PotenSigni
Imp
els in ral cal,
oise
e els?
se
levels
lan or, two uld the
ip, king in
BA, which is tsound to wh
mplitude or inpercentile‐experiod (e.g., L
s or loudness om constructis type of soufrom a point ospheric condvehicles are mse generally d
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
the A‐weighteich the humantensity of a sxceeded sounL50 is the sou
is related as ion activities urce radiates source is 6 toditions, and omoving and thdissipates is 3
Initial
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
ed sound levean ear is mostsound. Soundnd level (Lxx).und level exce
is the intensiand stationauniformly ouo 7.5 dBA for other shieldinhe noise spre3 to 4.5 dBA fo
Study Environmen
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
el of decibelst sensitive. De levels are ty. Lxx represeneeded 50% of
ity of a soundry sources is utward in a speach doubling factors. Traeads cylindricaor each doub
ntal Checklist
3-41
No Impact
(dB). ecibels pically nts the f the
d and a
pherical ng of the affic noise ally bling of
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-42 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT
The closest noise‐ and vibration‐sensitive land uses include residences located south of Twin Cities Road, approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site. These noise sensitive receptors are located outside the Galt City limits, in unincorporated Sacramento County. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, predicted project‐generated noise exposure levels at sensitive receptors will be characterized using the Sacramento County noise criteria.
The project site is located in a rural, agricultural area. The project site is bordered by agricultural land uses, an environmental mitigation bank on the north, and undeveloped land on the other three sides. Twin Cities Road and SR 99 are located south and east of the project site, respectively, and would be used for project construction traffic. Additionally, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks run adjacent to the site and multiple trains pass the project site daily.
SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN
The Sacramento County General Plan (2011b) establishes exterior and interior noise standards for various land uses, and regulates non‐transportation related noise sources for existing sensitive receptors. These standards are shown below in Table 3‐1.
Table 3-1 Non-Transportation Noise Standards Median (L50)/Maximum (Lmax)1
New Land Use Outdoor Area2 Interior3
Receiving Land Use Daytime Nighttime Day & Night
All Residential 55/75 50/70 35/55
Transient Lodging4 55/75 ‐ 35/55
Hospitals & Nursing Homes5,6 55/75 ‐ 35/55
Theatres & Auditoriums6 ‐ ‐ 60/50
Churches, Meeting Halls, Schools, Libraries, etc.6
55/75 ‐ 35/60
Office Buildings6 60/75 ‐ 45/65
Commercial Buildings6 ‐ ‐ 45/65
Playgrounds, Parks6 65/75 ‐ ‐
Industry6 60/80 ‐ 50/70
Notes: 1 The Table 2 (Table 3-1 in this document) standards shall be reduced by 5 dB for sounds consisting primarily of speech or music, and for
recurring impulsive sounds. If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards of Table 2 (Table 3-1 in this document), then the noise level standards shall be increased at 5 dB increments to encompass the ambient.
2 The primary outdoor activity area associated with any given land use at which noise-sensitivity exists and the location at which the County’s exterior noise level standards are applied.
3 Interior noise level standards are applied within noise-sensitive areas of the various land uses, with windows and doors in the closed positions. 4 Outdoor activity areas of transient lodging facilities are not commonly used during nighttime hours. 5 Hospitals are often noise-generating uses. The exterior noise level standards for hospitals are applicable only at clearly identified areas
designated for outdoor relaxation by either hospital staff or patients. 6 The outdoor activity areas of these uses (if any), are not typically utilized during nighttime hours. 7 Where median (L50) noise level data is not available for a particular noise source, average (Leq) values may be substituted for the standards of
this table provided the noise source in question operates for at least 30 minutes of an hour. If the source in question operates less than 30 minutes per hour, then the maximum noise level standards shown would apply.
Source: Sacramento County 2011
The transportation‐related standards contained in the County’s General Plan only apply to new uses that could be exposed to transportation‐related noise. Because the proposed project does not represent a new use, but rather proposes the continuation of an existing use (operation of a WWTP on City‐owned land relatively distant
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-43
from sensitive receptors), this analysis uses the non‐transportation noise standards presented in Table 3‐1. Furthermore, increases in traffic resulting from the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in noise (i.e., above 3 dB).
SACRAMENTO COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE
Noise regulations are also provided in Chapter 6.68 of the Sacramento County Municipal Code (Sacramento County 2012). The daytime and nighttime noise standards for residential and agricultural areas are 55 and 50 dB, respectively. Offsets are applied to the performance standards depending on the cumulative duration of the noise levels, not exceeding 75 dB Lmax during daytime hours and 70 dB Lmax during nighttime hours. Exemptions to these noise standards, as described in Section 6.68.090(e), apply to construction activities as follows:
Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and six a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at eight p.m. through and including seven a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at eight p.m. through and including seven a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of eight p.m. Provided, however, when an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a construction project and the nature of the project necessitates that work in process be continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed to continue work after eight p.m. and to operate machinery and equipment necessary until completion of the specific work in progress can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner.
CITY OF GALT MUNICIPAL CODE
The City of Galt Noise Control Standards (Galt Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Safety, Section 8.40) establishes exterior noise standards as 55 dBA for daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 50 dBA for nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) (Section 8.40.040). Offsets are applied to the performance standards depending on the cumulative duration of the noise levels, not exceeding +20 dB Lmax for any time per hour. Exemptions to the City’s noise standards are described in Code Section 8.40.060, and include exemption for noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided the activities take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Noise associated with agricultural operations is also exempt, provided such operations take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Furthermore, Code Section 8.40.060K exempts public works projects, including the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, maintenance or repair of public infrastructure or facilities, from the City’s established noise standards.
3.13.2 DISCUSSION
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?
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?
The following discussion addresses items a), c), and d):
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-44 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
Short-Term Construction Source Noise Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and changes during construction phases (e.g., demolition/land clearing, grading and excavation, building construction). Typical noise levels for individual pieces of construction equipment are summarized in Table 3‐2. As depicted, the noise levels typically range from approximately 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet.
Project construction would generate noise and temporarily increase noise levels on the project site. Noise levels at the property line of the nearest sensitive receptors, located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site, would depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment and the levels of noise attenuation that would result from distance, topography, and intervening structures. Construction activities would involve the use of typical construction equipment, such as cranes, a backhoe, compactors, a generator, dump and boom trucks, a sandblast pot, excavator, concrete mixer, forklifts, and a welding machine. Potential increased noise from construction would be temporary and would cease once the project is complete.
Table 3-2 Typical Reference Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment
Equipment Type Reference Level (Lmax dBA) @ 50 feet
Crane 85
Loader 80
Telehandler 85
Backhoe 80
Excavator 85
Grader 85
Asphalt Paver 85
Roller 85
Manlift 85
Notes: Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2006
Depending on the activities performed and equipment usage requirements, combined average‐hourly noise levels at construction sites typically range from approximately 65 to 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet (EPA 1971). Assuming a maximum construction noise level of 89 dBA Leq and an average attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, noise levels at approximately 1,800 feet from the construction site could exceed approximately 55 dBA Leq for brief periods of time.
City of Galt Municipal Code Section 8.40.060(E) and Section 6.68.090(e) of the Sacramento County Code exempt noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading provided the activities take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Furthermore, City of Galt Municipal Code Section 8.40.060(K) exempts the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, maintenance or repair of public infrastructure or facilities from the noise standards. Although the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Phase I Improvements Project is therefore exempt from the noise standards, the City will make every effort to comply. As proposed by the City, construction activities would be limited to the daytime hours between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Saturday and Sunday, and, thus would be consistent with the limitations of the City and County Codes. Short‐term construction noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards. This impact would be less than significant.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-45
Long-Term Operational Source Stationary Noise Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The proposed project would include installation of additional noise‐generating sources similar and adjacent to existing sources. Existing noise associated with current operation of the WWTP includes worker vehicle travel inside the plant, oxidation aeration equipment, equipment use in the biosolids drying beds/storage areas, biosolids hauling, and potentially the use of additional back‐up emergency generators in case of power outage. Operation of the proposed project would result in up to five additional employees and associated daily vehicle trips. Expansion of the WWTP would result in the WWTP’s southern property line extending approximately 300 feet southward and, thus, closer to the noise sensitive land uses that are currently 1,800 feet away. However, even at this closer distance (i.e., 1,500 feet), predicted hourly‐average operational noise levels at the property lines of the WWTP would be less than 45 dBA Leq, which is well below the City’s and the County’s minimum noise standard for the residential land use category. Therefore, the project’s long‐term operations would not result in the exposure of people to additional long‐term operational noise levels, and additional noise would not exceed the applicable City and County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project may result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration and noise, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Groundborne vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment and activities are summarized in Table 3‐3. It is expected that maximum groundborne vibration and noise levels would be associated with the use of trucks to haul materials to and from the project site.
Table 3-3 Representative Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment
Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)1 Approximate Lv (VdB) at 25 feet2
Blasting 1.13 109
Large Dozer 0.089 87
Caisson Drilling 0.089 87
Trucks 0.076 86
Rock Breaker 0.059 83
Jackhammer 0.035 79
Small Dozer 0.003 58
1 Where PPV is the peak particle velocity 2 Where Lv is the root mean square velocity expressed in vibration decibels (VdB), assuming a crest factor of 4. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 2006
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), levels associated with the use of trucks are 0.076 inches per second (in/sec) and 86 vibration decibels (VdB) at 25 feet. Based on FTA’s recommended procedure for applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, construction‐related project activities would not result in levels at the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residences located 1,800 feet south of the project site) that exceed Caltrans’s recommended level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA’s maximum acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance).
Long‐term operation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of vibration. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-46 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
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 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?
The following discussion addresses items e) and f) above:
No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or in the immediate vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore, the project would have no noise‐related effect associated with the use of such facilities. No impact would occur.
A
CW
3
X
3
Tcsf
3
a
Puc1a
TatitpGGi
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
P3.14
XIV. Populatio
a) Inducedirectlybusinesextensi
b) Displacnecesselsewh
c) Displacthe con
3.14.1 E
The City of Gacity in Sacramsurrounded bfeet south of t
3.14.2 D
a) Indupropof ro
Potentially Sigupgraded andconstruction o13.2% (U.S. Buand would no
The proposeda significant bthe upgradedmprovementthe proposed population ofGeneral Plan tGeneral Plan. mpacts that a
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
POPULA
ENVIRON
n and Housing
substantial poy (for example,sses) or indirecion of roads or
ce substantial nitating the conhere?
ce substantial nnstruction of re
ENVIRONM
alt’s estimatemento County y agriculturalthe project si
DISCUSSIO
ce substanposing new oads or othe
gnificant Impd expanded Wover approximureau of Laboot induce grow
d project woubarrier to the and expande
ts would be suproject was f 51,291 residto accommodNeverthelessare potentiall
ase I Immediate Im
TION AN
MENTAL ISSUES
g. Would the p
opulation grow, by proposing ctly (for exampr other infrastr
numbers of exinstruction of re
numbers of peeplacement ho
MENTAL SET
d population (U.S. Census l land. The neite.
ON
ntial popula homes ander infrastru
pact. The proWWTP. A maxmately 18 moor Statistics 2wth in the pro
ld increase thgrowth and eed WWTP to subject to addprojected andents at full budate this news, the potentiy significant.
mprovements NOP
ND HOUS
S
project:
wth in an area, new homes anple, through ructure)?
isting homes, eplacement ho
ople, necessitaousing elsewhe
TTING
in 2010 was Bureau 2012
earest residen
ation growtd business
ucture)?
posed projectimum of 25 eonths. As of Ju010). It is assoject area, eit
he capacity ofexpansion of tserve new groitional CEQA d planned foruild‐out (2030w growth, andial growth facThis will be a
P/IS
SING
PotenSignif
Imp
either nd
ousing
ating ere?
approximate2). No housesnces are locat
th in an areses) or indir
t would requemployees wouly 2010, Sacrumed that cother directly o
f the existing the City. Newowth, and coreview. Howr in the City of0) (City of Ga its impacts wcilitated by thaddressed in t
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
ly 24,000, wh are located wted on Twin C
ea, either drectly (for e
ire up to five ould be tempramento Couonstruction wor indirectly.
WWTP. By sow collection synstruction ofever, any newf Galt 2030 Glt 2009a). Gowere addressehe proposed pthe growth‐in
Initial
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
hich makes it within the proCities Road, ap
irectly (for example, th
new employporarily emplonty had an un
workers would
o doing, the pystems wouldf such collectiw growth thaGeneral Plan, oals and policied in the Cityproject could nducing impa
Study Environmen
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
the second soject site, whpproximately
example, bhrough exte
yees to operatoyed during pnemploymend be local res
project wouldd likely be reqion system t could be sewhich anticipies are outliny’s EIR on the result in indi
acts analysis o
ntal Checklist
3-47
No Impact
mallest hich is y 1,800
by ension
te the project nt rate of idents
d remove quired for
rved by pates a ed in the 2030 rect of the EIR.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-48 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed within or immediately adjacent to the existing WWTP site. No existing homes would be removed or displaced by the project’s construction or operational activities, nor would replacement housing be constructed elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
No Impact. As described in item b) above, the proposed project would be constructed within or immediately adjacent to the existing WWTP site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace people or require the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.
A
CW
3
X
3
Fp11
TT2
Tmm
3
a
FLr
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
P3.15
XV. Public Ser
a) Result associaalteredphysicaconstruenvironacceptaperform
Fire pro
Police p
Schools
Parks?
Other p
3.15.1 E
Fire protectioprovided by th186 employee1050 Walnut
The City of GaThe City’s pol24 police offic
The closest scmiles southeamile southeas
3.15.2 D
a) Resuor phgoveenvirtime
Fire protectLess‐than‐Sigrequire up to
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
PUBLIC S
ENVIRONM
rvices. Would t
in substantial aated with the pd governmentaally altered govuction of whichnmental impacable service ramance objectiv
otection?
protection?
s?
public facilities
ENVIRONM
n for the Cityhe Cosumneses (City of GaAvenue, appr
alt’s Police Deice force provcers (City of G
chool to the past of the projst of the WWT
DISCUSSIO
ult in substhysically alternmental fronmental s, or other
tion, policenificant Impafive new emp
ase I Immediate Im
SERVICE
MENTAL ISSUES
the project:
adverse physicprovision of neal facilities, or tvernmental fach could cause scts, in order to tios, response ves for any of t
s?
MENTAL SET
y of Galt, the Cs Community lt 2005). The roximately 1.
epartment is lvides an officGalt 2005).
project site is ject area. LakTP site.
ON
antial advetered govefacilities, thimpacts, in performan
e protectionact. As statedployees. It is a
mprovements NOP
ES
S
cal impacts w or physicallythe need for necilities, the significant maintain times, or othethe public serv
TTING
City of Elk GroServices Distnearest fire s6 miles from
located at 45er to citizen r
the Lake Canke Canyon Par
erse physicrnmental fa
he construcn order to mnce objectiv
n, schools, in Section 3.assumed that
P/IS
PotenSignif
Imp
y ew or
er ices:
ove, and somrict (CCSD) Fistation to thethe project s
5 Industrial Dratio of appro
yon Elementark is the near
cal impactsacilities, orction of whmaintain acves for any
parks, and13, “Populatit construction
ntially ficant
pact
LessSignific
MitigIncorp
me outlying arre Departmee project site iite.
Drive, approxioximately 1 to
ary School, wrest recreatio
s associatedr the need fich could ccceptable s of the pub
d other pubion and Housn workers wo
Initial
s-than-cant with gation porated
LesSig
Im
reas of Sacrament. The CCSDis Station #46
imately 2 mileo 1,000 and in
which is locatenal facility an
d with the for new or
cause signifservice ratiblic services
blic facilitiesing,” the proould be local r
Study Environmen
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
mento CountyD has 8 station6, which is loc
es from the Wncludes appro
ed approximand is approxim
provision ophysically aficant os, respons:
es? posed projecresidents who
ntal Checklist
3-49
No Impact
y is ns and cated at
WWTP. oximately
ately 0.9 mately 1
of new altered
se
ct would o would
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-50 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
not increase the demand for public services nor generate the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.
The proposed project would increase the capacity of the existing WWTP, which could indirectly contribute to increased growth in the WWTP service area and a consequent increase in the need for fire or police protection, or construction of new schools, parks, or other public facilities No direct effects are expected; however, the growth‐inducing impacts of the project will be discussed in the EIR.
A
CW
3
X
3
NCar
3
a
Lpc
TiN
b
Nr
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
R3.16
XVI. Recreatio
a) Increasparks osubstanoccur o
b) Includeconstrumight henviron
3.16.1 E
No recreationCity’s police dacre site, subsrecreational f
3.16.2 D
a) Increfaciliacce
Less‐than‐Sigproposed projconstruction o
The proposedncreased groNo direct effe
b) Inclufacili
No Impact. Asresidential lan
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
RECREA
ENVIRON
n. Would the p
se the use of exor other recreantial physical dor be accelerat
e recreational fuction or expanhave an adversnment?
ENVIRONM
nal facilities odepartment astantially remacility and is
DISCUSSIO
ease the usities such t
elerated?
nificant Impaject would reor of any resi
d project wouwth in the Wects are expec
ude recreatities that m
s described innd uses that w
ase I Immediate Im
TION
MENTAL ISSUES
project:
xisting neighboational facilitiesdeterioration oted?
facilities or reqnsion of recrease physical effe
MENTAL SET
r activities arnd other law
moved from thapproximate
ON
se of existinthat substa
act. As statedequire up to fidential land u
ld increase thWWTP service cted; howeve
tional facilitmight have a
n item a) abovwould increas
mprovements NOP
S
orhood and regs such that of the facility w
quire the ational facilitieect on the
TTING
e located witenforcementhe proposed cly 1 mile sout
ng neighboantial physi
in Section 3.ive new empluses that wou
he capacity ofarea and a coer, the growth
ties or requan adverse
ve, there wouse demand fo
P/IS
PoteSigni
Imp
gional
would
s that
hin the existit officers, is loconstruction theast of the
orhood andcal deterio
13, “Populatiloyees. Furthuld increase d
f the existing onsequent inch‐inducing im
uire the cone physical e
uld be minimaor recreationa
entially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitIncor
ng WWTP sitocated withinarea. Lake CaWWTP site.
regional poration of th
ion and Housermore, the pdemand for re
WWTP, whiccrease in the pacts of the p
nstruction effect on th
al new emploal facilities. Th
Initial
s-than-icant with tigation rporated
LesSig
Im
te. A private gn the northweanyon Park is
parks or othhe facility w
sing,” of this dproject does ecreational fa
ch could indiruse of parks project will be
or expansihe environm
oyment oppoherefore, no i
Study Environmen
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
gun range, usest corner of the nearest
her recreatwould occu
document, thnot involve thacilities.
rectly contribuin the projece discussed in
on of recrement?
rtunities and impact would
ntal Checklist
3-51
No Impact
ed by the the 298‐
ional r or be
e he
ute to t vicinity. n the EIR.
eational
no new d occur.
In
3
3
X
3
ACTiB
E3rrTc24
nitial Study Enviro
3-52
T3.17
XVII. Trans
a) Conflicestablisperformaccountransit componot limfreewatransit?
b) Conflicprograstandastandamanaghighwa
c) Result either alocatio
d) Substa(e.g., shincomp
e) Result
f) Conflicregardior othesuch fa
3.17.1 E
Access to the Cities Road (aTwin Cities Roncluding HeraBoulevard are
Existing inters3‐5. Twin Citieresulting fromrestricted. AnTwin Cities Rocounts on Tw2009; Sacram4 PM to 6 PM
onmental Checklis
TRANSP
ENVIRON
sportation/Tra
t with an applishing measuremance of the cnt all modes of and non‐moto
onents of the cimited to interseays, pedestrian?
t with an applim, including, brds and travel rds establishedement agencyays?
in a change in an increase in n that results i
ntially increaseharp curves orpatible uses (e.
in inadequate
t with adopteding public tranerwise decreasacilities?
ENVIRONM
project site islso known asoad is a two‐laald, Ione, ande frontage roa
section condites Road has am fair progres LOS of D is coad immediatin Cities Roadento County .
t
ORTATI
MENTAL ISSUES
ffic. Would th
icable plan, ordes of effectivencirculation systtransportationorized travel anirculation systeections, streets and bicycle pa
icable congestibut not limited demand measd by the count for designated
air traffic patttraffic levels oin substantial s
e hazards due tdangerous int.g., farm equip
emergency ac
d policies, plansit, bicycle, or se the perform
MENTAL SET
s provided bys SR 104 east ane road thatd Jackson, to tads that para
tions and trafan LOS of C orsion and/or loonsidered actely west of thd west of SR 92008). Peak t
ON/TRA
S
e project:
dinance or polness for the em, taking inton including mand relevant em, including bs, highways andaths, and mass
ion managemeto level of ser
sures, or other y congestion d roads or
erns, includingr a change in safety risks?
to a design featersections) or pment)?
cess?
ns, or programspedestrian facance or safety
TTING
y Twin Cities Rof SR 99) runt connects Gathe east (Cityllel SR 99 on t
ffic counts for D at the inteonger cycle leceptable at thhe West Stoc99 ranged frotraffic on the
WWTP Fac
AFFIC
PotenSigni
Imp
icy
o ss
but d s
ent vice
g
ature
s cilities, of
Road and SR 9s east‐west aalt to Interstay of Galt 2005the west and
r Twin Cities ersections neaengths and inhe Twin Citieskton Boulevam 5,700 to 6,highway and
cilities Master Pla
ntially ificant pact
LessSignifi
MitiIncor
99—a four‐laand is the majate 5 to the w5). West Stock east sides.
Road and SR ar SR 99. An Lndicates mosts/West Stockard intersectio,700 (City of Gd roads gener
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-icant with igation rporated
LesSig
Im
ane north‐soujor arterial in
west and into Akton Boulevar
99 are providLOS of C indict drivers woulkton Blvd inteon is A (City oGalt 2005; Khally occurs fro
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
uth freeway. Tthe project vAmador Counrd and East St
ded in Tables cates higher dld feel somewersection. Theof Galt 2005).hashabi, pers.om 7 AM to 9
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
Twin vicinity. nty, tockton
3‐4 and delays what e LOS on Traffic . comm., 9 AM and
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-53
Table 3-4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations
Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay (seconds) LOS
Twin Cities Road/W. Stockton Boulevard Signal AMPM
22.6 41.7
CD
Twin Cities Road/E. Stockton Boulevard Signal AMPM
21.3 28.6
CC
Notes: Signal = Signalized intersection; SSSC = Side street stop-controlled intersection Delay and LOS for the intersection and (worst movement) are reported for side street stops. Source: City of Galt 2005
Table 3-5 Average Daily Traffic Counts in the Project Vicinity
Roadway Segment 24-hr Traffic Volume
Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume
Level of Service Date of Collection
Twin Cities Road1 Just west of West Stockton Blvd
N/A 5,700 A 2003
Twin Cities Road2 West of Highway 99 6,700 N/A N/A 2005
Twin Cities Road3 West of Highway 99 6,181 N/A N/A 2008
N/A = not available Sources: 1 City of Galt 2005. 2 Khashabi, pers. comm., 2009. This data was collected during a 24-hour period. 3 Sacramento County 2008. This data was collected during a 24-hour period.
It should be noted that the City of Galt, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), plans to modify the Twin Cities Interchange on SR99 in 2012 to increase capacity on Twin Cities Road to solve current deficiencies and accommodate planned growth within both the city of Galt and within the south Sacramento County region consistent with the respective adopted General Plans and the Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for SR‐99. The project would improve traffic congestion (LOS) at the interchange, provide modern roundabouts at each of the frontage road intersections, provide a new freeway onramp in the southbound direction onto SR‐99, provide pedestrian access at the two intersections and a sidewalk on the north side of Twin Cities Road connecting the intersections, and includes American Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades.
3.17.2 DISCUSSION
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?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Project construction would result in short‐term increases in traffic on local roadways. Construction activities would include equipment and materials hauling to and from the project site, construction employee commute trips to and from the project site, and on‐site hauling of equipment and materials. The total number of construction‐related trips is expected to be approximately 2,000, with a
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-54 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
maximum of approximately 20 truck trips per day and an average of 5 trips per day during the 18‐month construction period. Truck trips to the project site would occur on Twin Cities Road and SR 99 generally during the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM. Although there would be some vehicle traffic associated with hauling heavy equipment and construction materials to the site, this would occur for only a few weeks at most, and would not occur throughout the duration of project construction. Workers commuting to and from the site would be associated with the largest increase in traffic volumes during construction, but this would be limited mainly to morning arrival and afternoon departures, would occur only during established daylight working hours, and would not produce a large enough traffic volume to significantly alter existing LOS designations or exceed the capacity of the existing local roadways or highway.
During project operation, truck trips would be nearly the same as existing conditions. Employee‐related trips during project operation would only slightly increase from existing conditions because of the up to five new employees who would be added.
As part of the Phase I Immediate Improvements, one of the options for removing additional arsenic involves dewatering the backwash at various wellhead locations in the City, collecting the backwash by truck, and delivering it to a land disposal facility. It is anticipated that up to 20 truck trips per month would be required to haul the residuals depending on the number of wells involved (ECO:LOGIC 2008).
As described above, the local roadways have existing LOS designations of C or better, with the exception of the peak evening hour time period for the Twin Cities Road/W. Stockton Boulevard intersection, which has an LOS of D and is still acceptable by City standards. Given the relatively low number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, the project is not expected to cause an exceedance of an established LOS standard on these local roadways. Cumulatively, the construction‐related traffic associated with the proposed project would be temporary and also unlikely to measurably contribute to an exceedance of the existing capacity or LOS standards on the roadways used by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including exceeding either individually or cumulatively an LOS standard or an existing capacity established by Sacramento County for designated roads or highways. Because the proposed project would result in a relatively small number of additional construction‐related trips, and is anticipated to not appreciably change operations‐related trips over the long‐term compared with existing conditions, existing traffic load and capacity of the street system would not be significantly altered.
No mass transit facilities or pedestrian and bicycle paths are located at the project site. As discussed above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not significantly affect the capacity of SR 99 or Twin Cities Road. In addition, no bicycle or pedestrian paths are located on the access roads or highways. Thus, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on pedestrian and bicycle paths, or mass transit. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
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?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As described in a) above, the long‐term traffic associated with project operation would not substantially affect local transportation facilities. Project construction, however, would generate substantially more trips than are currently generated; however, this would be temporary. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-55
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?
No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is located approximately 2.8 miles to the southeast, and the proposed project does not propose any uses that could have an effect on air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The level of traffic generated by project operations would be similar to existing levels of traffic generated by the WWTP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased potential for conflicts with agricultural‐related traffic, including farm equipment. This impact is considered less than significant.
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Emergency access would be provided via Twin Cities Road. During construction activities, emergency access along Twin Cities Road would be available at all times. All construction‐related equipment and vehicles would park at the project site and would not block roadways or result in inadequate emergency access. Access to the project site would be maintained during the project operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
No Impact. Project construction and operation would not result in the removal of, or need for, alternative transportation facilities such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The proposed project would be located in an agricultural area and it is expected that all employees would travel to the project site in personal vehicles. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impact would occur.
In
3
3
X
3
W
T
W
Td(1
S
SS
nitial Study Enviro
3-56
U3.18
XVIII. Utiliti
a) Exceedapplica
b) Requirewastewexistingcause s
c) Requirewater dfacilitiesignific
d) Have suprojectare new
e) Result treatmprojectprojectprovide
f) Be servcapacitdisposa
g) Complyregulat
3.18.1 E
WASTEWA
The existing W
WATER SU
The City’s Pubdemands are including res1.847 million
STORMWA
Stormwater oStormwater is
onmental Checklis
UTILITIES
ENVIRONM
ies and Service
d wastewater table Regional W
e or result in thwater treatmeng facilities, thesignificant envi
e or result in thdrainage facilites, the construcant environme
ufficient watert from existing w or expanded
in a determinaent provider tht that it has adt’s projected der’s existing co
ved by a landfity to accommoal needs?
y with federal, tions related to
ENVIRONM
ATER
WWTP is desc
UPPLY
blic Works Demet through idential, comgallons with a
ATER DRA
on the projects discharged i
t
S AND S
MENTAL ISSUES
e Systems. Wo
reatment requWater Quality C
he constructiont facilities or e construction oironmental eff
he constructioties or expansioction of whichental effects?
r supplies availentitlements a
d entitlements
ation by the wahat serves or mequate capacitemand, in addommitments?
ll with sufficienodate the proje
state, and locao solid waste?
MENTAL SET
cribed in Chap
epartment opgroundwatermercial, and an average an
AINAGE
t site is captuinto the exist
SERVICE
S
ould the projec
uirements of thControl Board?
n of new wateexpansion of of which couldfects?
n of new stormon of existing could cause
able to serve tand resources,needed?
astewater may serve the ty to serve theition to the
nt permitted ect’s solid wast
al statutes and
TTING
pter 2, “Proje
erates the por supplies. Windustrial accnnual daily co
red and colleing surface re
WWTP Fac
E SYSTE
PotenSignif
Imp
ct:
he ?
er or
d
m
the , or
te
d
ct Description
otable water sater is suppliecounts). In 20onsumption o
cted by an exeservoir or to
cilities Master Pla
MS
ntially ficant
pact
LessSignific
MitigIncorp
n.” Please ref
supply and died to approxi006, total watof 4.6 mgd (C
xisting stormwo the WWTP h
an and Phase I Imm
s-than-cant with gation porated
LesSig
Im
fer to the disc
istribution syimately 7,300ter consumptCity of Galt 20
water drainagheadworks.
Ascent E
mediate Improvem
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
cussion there
stem in Galt. 0 accounts in tion in the Cit005).
ge system.
Environmental
City of Galt ments NOP/IS
No Impact
ein.
All water the City ty was
Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 3-57
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL
Solid waste generated by the City is transported and disposed of by California Waste Recovery Systems (CWRS) at one of six landfills. The landfills that receive solid waste from the City include: Arvin Sanitary Landfill, Foothill Sanitary Landfill, Forward, Inc., L‐D Landfill Co., North County Landfill, and Sacramento County Landfill. In 2003, the City produced approximately 20,000 tons of solid waste and recycled approximately 30% of that waste (City of Galt 2005).
3.18.2 DISCUSSION
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Consistent with the stated project need and objectives, the proposed WWTP upgrades would be designed to achieve compliance with effluent requirements in the Central Valley RWQCB 2010 NPDES permit. In addition, the proposed WWTP expansion would be designed to meet the City’s wastewater treatment demands as identified in the City’s 2030 General Plan. Because proposed upgrades would improve effluent water quality relative to existing effluent water quality and would be designed to meet permit requirements, this impact would be less than significant.
b) 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?
Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of upgrades to the existing WWTP and expansion of treatment capacity, which could result in significant impacts to agriculture, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality, as discussed in the relevant areas of this Initial Study. All potentially significant impacts identified herein will be addressed in the EIR.
c) 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?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The existing WWTP site includes pervious surfaces and impervious surfaces and drains to the existing storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks. The proposed project would involve the construction of impervious surfaces (i.e., paved areas and the covered facilities), and would require modification of the existing stormwater drainage system. The proposed project includes storm drain facilities to capture runoff and divert it to the existing surface reservoir or to the WWTP headworks, consistent with current WWTP operations. The environmental impacts of constructing new and/or expanding existing stormwater drainage facilities are evaluated throughout this document. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require any increase in water supplies. None of the proposed facilities would substantially increase water use at the site. No new water supply entitlements, expanded entitlements, or facilities would be required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-58 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that 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?
No Impact. The proposed project would increase wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate existing and projected flows in the City of Galt 2030 General Plan. Because the proposed expansion would be designed to accommodate existing and planned growth, projected demand for wastewater treatment services would be adequately served. No impact would occur.
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Solid waste could be generated during project construction activities. Operations would be expected to increase the existing quantity of solid waste generated at the WWTP proportional to flow. With the exception of wastewater treatment biosolids, all solid waste generated by the project’s construction and operation activities would be disposed of at one of the landfills that serve the City (listed above). Because of the minimal quantity of solid waste expected, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No Impact. The proposed project would generate minimal quantities of solid waste that would be disposed of at an appropriate landfill. Hazardous waste would not be generated and the project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact.
A
CW
3
X
ARPPv
3
a
Pca
Ascent Environmen
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma
M3.19
XIX. Mandator
a) Does thdegradreducefish or sustainanimal range oor elimof Calif
b) Does thlimitedconsideprojectwith thcurrentproject
c) Does thcause seither d
Authority: Public Reference: Public Resources Protect the Historv. City and County
3.19.1 D
a) Doesenvirfish oplantendamajo
Potentially Sigcultural resouanalyzed furth
ntal
aster Plan and Ph
MANDAT
ENVIRONM
ry Findings of S
he project havede the quality oe the habitat ofwildlife populaning levels, threcommunity, reof an endangerminate importanfornia history o
he project haved, but cumulatierable” meanst are considerahe effects of pat projects, andts.)
he project havesubstantial advdirectly or indi
Resources Code SGovernment
Code Sections 2ric Amador Watery of San Francisco
DISCUSSIO
s the projecronment, sor wildlife pt or animalangered, raor periods o
gnificant Impurces in the prher in the EIR
ase I Immediate Im
TORY FI
MENTAL ISSUES
Significance.
e the potentiaof the environmf a fish or wildlation to drop beaten to elimineduce the numred, rare, or thnt examples ofor prehistory?
e impacts thatvely consideras that the increable when viewast projects, th the effects of
e environmentverse effects orectly?
Sections 21083, Code Sections 651080, 21083.5, 2
rways v. Amador Wo (2002) 102 Cal
ON
ct have theubstantiallpopulation l communitare, or threaof California
pact. The proroject area. TR.
mprovements NOP
NDINGS
S
l to substantiament, substantife species, caubelow self‐nate a plant or mber or restricthreatened specf the major per
are individualble? (“Cumulaemental effectswed in connecte effects of otprobable futu
tal effects thatn human being
21083.5. 5088.4. 21095; Eureka CWater Agency (20.App.4th 656.
e potential ty reduce th to drop bety, reduce tatened spea history or
posed projectTherefore, thi
P/IS
S OF SIG
PotenSignif
Imp
lly tially use a
t the cies, riods
ly atively s of a tion her re
t will gs,
itizens for Respon04) 116 Cal.App.
to substanhe habitat o
elow self-suthe numbeecies, or elir prehistory
t has the potes is a potentia
GNIFICAN
ntially ficant
pact
LessSignific
MitigIncorp
nsible Govt. v. City.4th at 1109; San
ntially degraof a fish or
ustaining leer or restrictiminate imy?
ential to subsally significan
Initial
NCE
s-than-cant with gation porated
LesSig
Im
ty of Eureka (200n Franciscans Uph
ade the quar wildlife spevels, threat the rangeportant exa
stantially affent impact and
Study Environmen
ss-than-gnificant mpact
N
7) 147 Cal.App.4tholding the Down
ality of the pecies, causaten to elime of an amples of t
ect biological d these issues
ntal Checklist
3-59
No Impact
th 357; ntown Plan
se a
minate a
the
and will be
Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 3-60 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively 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.)
Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will evaluate potential cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions (global climate change), and hydrology and water quality. Aside from these issue areas, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. However, the project could result in potentially cumulatively considerable significant impacts within the above issue areas, which will be evaluated further in the EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will evaluate environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, including exposure to air pollutants and objectionable odors. Aside from these issue areas, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. However, the project could result in potentially significant impacts within the issue areas described above. These issue areas will be evaluated further in the EIR.
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 4-1
4 REFERENCES
ARB. See California Air Resources Board.
California Air Resources Board. 2003. HARP User Guide. Sacramento, CA.
California Air Resources Board. 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/chap109.htm. Accessed August 24, 2011.
California Department of Conservation. 2010 (January). California Geological Survey ‐ Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Table 4. Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of January 2010. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2012.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. Defining Hazardous Waste. Available: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWMP_DefiningHW11.pdf. Last updated February 9, 2007. Accessed April 17, 2012.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2012. Envirostor. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed April 17, 2012.
California Department of Transportation. 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Sacramento County. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Last updated September 7, 2011. Accessed March 27, 2012.
California Department of Water Resources. 2006 (February 3). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Cosumnes Subbasin. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5‐22.16.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2012.
California Department of Water Resources. 2011. Groundwater Level Data‐ Well 05N06E10P001M. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/index.cfm. Last updated September 13, 2011. Accessed April 17, 2012.
Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.
CDC. See California Department of Conservation.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2007 (June 28). 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r5_06_303d_reqtmdls.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2012.
Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011 (October). Fourth Edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/. Accessed April 17, 2012.
Central Valley RWQCB. See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.
City of Galt. 2005 (November). 2030 Galt General Plan Final Existing Conditions Report. Galt, CA. Prepared by Mintier & Associates, RACESTUDIO, Environmental Science Associates, Applied Development Economics,
List of Preparers Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 4-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
and Omni‐Means, Inc. Available: http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=509. Accessed March 28, 2012.
City of Galt. 2009a (April). 2030 Galt General Plan Policy Document Final. Galt, CA. Prepared by Mintier & Associates, Environmental Science Associates, Applied Development Economics, and Omni‐Means. Available: http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=913. Accessed April 2012.
City of Galt. 2009b (June). Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Filtration, Ultraviolet Disinfection, and Biosolids Dewatering Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2009062042. Galt, CA. Prepared by Robertson‐Bryan, Inc., Elk Grove, CA.
Clarkson, Mark A. 2012. Personal communication from Mark A. Clarkson, P.E, City of Galt Utilities Superintendent, Public Works Department, to Suzanne Enslow of Ascent Environmental regarding the lack of WWTP odor complaints. May 14, 2012.
DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.
DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.
ECO:LOGIC Consulting Engineers. 2008 (April 20). Technical Memorandum #1, Arsenic Treatment Residuals Disposal Assessment. Prepared for the City of Galt.
EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
FHWA. See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
FTA. See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 (February). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.
IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Khashabi, Khosrow. Traffic Engineer. Sacramento County Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA. May 6, 2009––telephone conversation with Megan Giglini of Robertson‐Bryan, Inc. regarding traffic counts at Twin Cities Road west of Highway 99.
Mount, J., G.E. Fogg, L. Kavaas, J. Fleckenstein, M. Anderson, Z.Q. Chen, and E. Suzuki. 2001 (September). Linked Surface Water‐Groundwater Model for the Cosumnes River Watershed: Hydrologic Evaluation of Management Options to Restore Fall Flows. Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Cooperative Agreement No. 11332‐8‐J264. Available: http://watershed.ucdavis.edu/pdf/Mount‐et‐al‐USFWS‐2007.pdf. Accessed April 2012.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Last updated February 17, 2012. Accessed April 16, 2012.
NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Sacramento County. 2008 (April 15). Sacramento County Traffic Counts. Municipal Services Agency, Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA. Available:
Ascent Environmental References
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 4-3
http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/transportation/Lists/Traffic%20Counts/AllItems.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2012.
Sacramento County. 2011a (November 9). Sacramento County General Plan. Adopted 1965; reflects amendments through November 9, 2011. Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/planning/Pages/GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed April 4, 2012.
Sacramento County. 2011b. Sacramento County General Plan Noise Element. Available: http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/planning/Pages/GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed April 4, 2012.
Sacramento County. 2012. Sacramento County Code. Available: http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=6‐6_68‐6_68_090&frames=on. Accessed April 4, 2012.
U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010 (July). Sacramento County, CA Unemployment for July 2010. Available: http://unemployment‐rates‐county.findthedata.org/l/54928/Sacramento‐County‐CA. Accessed April 12, 2012.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, County Business Patterns, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, Census of Governments. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0628112.html. Accessed March 29, 2012.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2006a (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Cambridge, MA.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2006b (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Burlington, MA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 (December 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. EnviroMapper. Available: http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home. Accessed April 17, 2012.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2005 (December 31). Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Lodi, California (045032). Period of Record 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2005. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmnca.html. Accessed April 17, 2012.
List of Preparers Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 4-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
This page intentionally blank.
City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 5-1
5 LIST OF PREPARERS
CITY OF GALT (LEAD AGENCY)
Sandra Kiriu, AICP ............................................................................................................................. Principal Planner
Mark A. Clarkson, P.E. ............................................................... Utilities Superintendent, Public Works Department
ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION)
Gary Jakobs .................................................................................................................................... Principal‐in‐Charge
Suzanne Enslow ................................................................................................................................. Project Manager
Sarah Henningsen .................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner
Dimitri Antoniou ........................................................................................................................Noise and Air Quality
Lisa Kashiwase ........................................................................................................................................ GIS Specialist
Christy Probst ........................................................................................................................................ Graphic Artist
Amber Giffin ....................................................................................................................................... Word Processor
WEST YOST ASSOCIATES (PROJECT ENGINEER FOR FACILITIES MASTER PLAN)
Jeff Pelz, P.E. .................................................................................................................................. Principal‐in‐Charge
List of Preparers Ascent Environmental
City of Galt 5-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS
This page intentionally blank.