crystal geyser bottling plant project draft eir · 4.12 utilities aes 4.12-3 crystal geyser...

4.12 Utilities

AES 4.12-1 Crystal Geyser Bottling Plant Project January 2017 Draft Environmental Impact Report

4.12 UTILITIES

This section addresses the potential for the Proposed Project to result in impacts to utilities. Utilities

analyzed in this Environmental Impact Report (EIR) include wastewater (Section 4.12.1); solid waste

(Section 4.12.2); electric utilities (Section 4.12.3). As discussed in the Initial Study (IS; Appendix C),

effects to water supply utilities and stormwater drainage facilities are not required to be discussed in this

EIR. See Section 4.11, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a detailed discussion of potential impacts to

hydrology and water quality from the operation of on-site groundwater wells and on-site wastewater

treatment and disposal facilities under the Proposed Project.

4.12.1 WASTEWATER SYSTEM

Following an overview of the environmental setting in Section 4.12.1.1 and the relevant regulatory setting

in Section 4.12.1.2, project-related impacts and recommended mitigation measures are presented in

Sections 4.12.1.3 and 4.12.1.4, respectively.

4.12.1.1 Environmental Setting

Wastewater Conveyance Facilities

The City of Mt. Shasta’s (City’s) sewer system conveys wastewater from its 11,714-acre service area to a

wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) owned and operated by the City. Under existing conditions, the

facilities within the project site are connected to the City’s sanitary sewer system through an existing

sewer line in the southwest corner of the central project site. A sewer system capacity analysis was

completed for the segments of the pipelines that convey wastewater from the project site to the WWTP,

which are shown in Figure 4.12-1; the capacity analysis is included as Attachment A to Appendix L. As

described therein, the existing system has one section of 12-inch diameter pipe that reaches capacity at

1.96 million gallons per day (mgd) and is, therefore, undersized for the peak wet weather flow (PWWF) of

3.86 mgd at that section1. The limiting sewer pipe section is located on South Old Stage Road, South of

Ream Road, between Manholes 13A and A15. The location of the limiting pipeline is shown on Figure 3-

13.

Wastewater Treatment Plant

The WWTP is located at the southern terminus of Grant Road, just south of the City limits and west of

Interstate 5 (I-5), three miles south of the project site. Originally constructed in 1976, the WWTP was

designed for average dry-weather flows (ADWF) of 0.7 mgd and PWWF of 2.8 mgd. With subsequent

improvements, the dry-weather design capacity is now 0.75 mgd and the wet-weather capacity is 3.56

1 The sewer system capacity analysis used the City’s H20MAP Version 9.0 Hydraulic Model results for the 2010 PWWF of 3.5 mgd as the existing demand for the analysis (CH2M Hill, 2015b). However, as noted in Appendix L,

the PWWF at the limiting sewer pipe section is approximately 3.86 mgd (CH2M Hill, 2016d). It should be noted that the limiting sewer pipe is located downstream of where two sewer systems combine before flowing to the WWTP; therefore, the PWWF of each individual system upstream of the limiting sewer pipe would be less than 3.86 mgd.

§̈¦5

§̈¦5

UV89

Old Stage RdLake St

Pine St

Lassen Ln

Ream

Ave

Moun tSh as ta Blvd

Everitt Memoria l Hwy

Chestnut St

Azale

a Dr

Wash

ington

Dr

Mccloud AveAlpine St

Mount S hasta Mt Lassen Hwy

Mount Shasta Blvd

Moun

t Sha

sta B

lvd

Ski Village Dr

Figure 4.12-1Mt. Shasta Sewer System

SOURCE: CH2mHill, 8/2015; USDA aerial photograph, 7/7/2014; AES, 11/2/2016 Crystal Geyser Draft Environmental Impact Report / 216537

LEGEND

Project SiteMain Sewer SystemAnalyzed Sewer System

0 1,100 2,200

Feet

!¢ÐNORTH

4.12 Utilities


mgd (City of Mt. Shasta, 2015). The WWTP currently receives an ADWF of approximately 0.7 mgd2 and

a PWWF of up to approximately 3.5 mgd (PACE Engineering, 2016b). Treatment at the WWTP currently

consists of processing influent though a series of six lagoons followed by clarification, filtration, and

disinfection. Treated effluent is discharged at one of three locations depending on the time of year,

effluent quality, Sacramento River flow rate, and economics. The WWTP can discharge 0.7 mgd to the

leach fields, 0.8 mgd to the golf course, and 0.8 mgd to the Sacramento River (Boyer, 2016). The WWTP

has 4.8 million gallons (MG) of buffer storage that are used during wet weather events, this buffer storage

is planned to be decreased to 1.6 MG with the planned WWTP improvements. There are two distinct time

periods that dictate to which of the three locations effluent can be discharged:

Recreation season (June 15 to September 14) - Treated effluent is discharged at the Mt. Shasta

Resort Golf Course (golf course) unless effluent quality standards cannot be met or if irrigation

water is not needed at the golf course. In those cases, treated effluent is pumped to a leach field

located east of the I-5/Highway 89 interchange.

Non-recreation season (November 16 to April 14) - Treated effluent is discharged to the

Sacramento River. Discharge must meet or exceed a 20 to 1 dilution ratio of river water to

effluent, and a maximum average dry weather flow of 0.8 mgd may be discharged. However, if

river flows exceed 400 cubic feet per second (cfs), discharge is allowed only if a higher standard

of treatment is met. If a higher quality effluent cannot be achieved, the effluent is discharged to

the leach field.

Discharges from the WWTP are currently regulated by Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) Order No.

R5-2012-086 and Time Schedule Order No. R5-2012-0087 issued by the Central Valley Regional Water

Quality Control Board (CVRWQCB) in October 2012. The requirements include limitations and provisions

for wastewater discharge, including more stringent limits on ammonia, copper, zinc, biochemical oxygen

demand (BOD), total suspended solids (TSS), and pH levels. Some of these new limits require

improvements to the treatment and discharge facilities at the WWTP. The impacts of improving the

WWTP to meet CVRWQCB treatment discharge requirements have been previously addressed in the

Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared in November 2015 (SCH# 2015112045).

A notice of determination stating that the State-Mandated Wastewater Treatment and Outfall

Improvement Project would not have a significant effect on the environment with the implementation of

mitigation was filed in May 2016. The 2015 IS/MND is incorporated by reference, as described within

Section 1.4 of this EIR.

In addition to improving the WWTP to meet CVRWQCB treatment discharge requirements, the 2015

IS/MND evaluated the improvements needed to increase the treatment and disposal capacity of the

WWTP to be able to serve anticipated growth through 2039 under two scenarios: population growth within

2 The City’s ADWF for 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 was 0.72, 0.7, 0.67, 0.62, and 0.58 mgd, respectively. However, in 2006, the ADWF was 0.8 mgd. The gradual reduction in ADWF can be attributed to a number of circumstances, including economic and climatological conditions. Gradual ADWF reduction between 2010 and 2015 is attributable to drought conditions and subsequent water conservation efforts by the City. The ADWF for 2016 is not available due to flow meter failure at the POTW headworks. Drought conditions have lowered area water tables in wet areas where many sewer mains reside, thereby reducing the summertime infiltration/inflow (I&I) component that has, historically, been present during ADWF conditions. Based on the available flow data and presumed impact from current drought conditions, it is estimated the current ADWF is 0.7 mgd.

4.12 Utilities


the service area and population growth plus anticipated treatment and disposal demands from the

Proposed Project. Based on the respective growth rates of properties served within and outside the City

limits, the 2015 IS/MND estimated that a capacity of 0.9 mgd would be required to serve anticipated

growth through 2039. The 2015 IS/MND stated that the Proposed Project, at full production (two bottling

lines), could contribute up to 0.15 mgd to the City’s WWTP. Accordingly, the 2015 IS/MND determined

that if the City were to issue a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge to CGWC, as discussed in

Section 3.5.8.3 under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2, the planned treatment and disposal

capacity would need to be increased from 0.9 mgd to 1.05 mgd to serve the anticipated 2039 demand.

The planned improvements to the WWTP to comply with CVRWQCB requirements and increase the

capacity of the treatment facility to meet future demand are shown on Figure 3-16 and include:

replacement of the existing treatment lagoon system with a new treatment facility using a different

treatment process, lined emergency retention basin in place of the northeastern-most lagoon,

replacement of the energy dissipater and trust block at the existing tank site, installation of a replacement

17-foot long river diffuser at the existing outfall, improvements to the existing access road to the outfall,

and creation of a footpath from the access road to the outfall. Improvements to the WWTP have been

approved by the City and are anticipated to occur between April 2019 and October 2021, over two years

(PACE Engineering, 2016b). The 2015 IS/MND notes that it is the City’s intent, following California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) approvals, to improve the WWTP to meet the new discharge

requirements and provide a capacity of 0.9 mgd. The 2015 IS/MND stated that further improvements to

increase the capacity to 1.05 mgd would be made only following separate approval for connection of the

bottling facility to the City’s wastewater system and receipt of financial assurance from Crystal Geyser

that they would cover the cost of the expansion. The potential effects from connection of the Proposed

Project to the City’s system are analyzed in this EIR.

4.12.1.2 Regulatory Framework

Federal

Clean Water Act (CWA)

The Clean Water Act (CWA) is the primary federal legislation governing surface water quality protection.

The statute employs a variety of regulatory and non-regulatory tools to sharply reduce direct pollutant

discharges into waterways, finance municipal wastewater treatment facilities, and manage polluted runoff.

These tools are employed to achieve the broader goal of restoring and maintaining the chemical,

physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters so that they can support the protection and

propagation of fish, shellfish, and wildlife and recreation in and on the water. Pollutants regulated under

the CWA include priority pollutants, including various toxic pollutants; conventional pollutants, such as

BOD, TSS, fecal coliform, oil and grease, and pH; and non-conventional pollutants, including any

pollutant not identified as either conventional or priority. The CWA regulates both direct and indirect

discharges (USEPA, 2016c).

Federal Anti-degradation Policy

The federal Anti-degradation Policy is part of the CWA (Section 303[d]) and is designed to protect water

quality and water resources. The policy directs states to adopt a statewide policy that includes the

following primary provisions: (1) existing instream uses and the water quality necessary to protect those

4.12 Utilities


uses shall be maintained and protected; (2) where existing water quality is better than necessary to

support fishing and swimming conditions, that quality shall be maintained and protected unless the state

finds that allowing lower water quality is necessary for important local economic or social development;

and (3) where high-quality waters constitute an outstanding national resource, such as waters of national

and state parks, wildlife refuges, and waters of exceptional recreational or ecological significance, that

water quality shall be maintained and protected.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program, Section 402 of the CWA,

controls direct discharges into navigable waters. Direct discharges or point source discharges are from

sources such as pipes and sewers. NPDES permits, issued by either the United States Environmental

Protection Agency (USEPA) or an authorized state/tribe, contain industry-specific, technology-based,

and/or water-quality-based limits, and establish pollutant monitoring and reporting requirements. The

USEPA has authorized 40 states to administer the NPDES program, including California. A facility that

intends to discharge into the nation's waters must obtain a permit before initiating a discharge. A permit

applicant must provide quantitative analytical data identifying the types of pollutants present in the

facility's effluent and the permit will then set forth the conditions and effluent limitations under which a

facility may make a discharge (USEPA, 2016c).

General Pretreatment Requirements

Another type of discharge that is regulated by the CWA is discharge that goes to a Publicly Owned

Treatment Works (POTW). POTWs collect wastewater from homes, commercial buildings, and industrial

facilities and transport it via a collection system to the treatment plant. Here, the POTW removes and/or

inactivate harmful organisms and other contaminants from the sewage so it can be discharged safely into

the receiving stream. Generally, POTWs are designed to treat domestic sewage only. However, POTWs

also receive wastewater from industrial (non-domestic) users. The General Pretreatment Regulations

establish responsibilities of federal, state, and local government, industry and the public to implement

Pretreatment Standards to protect municipal WWTPs from damage that may occur when hazardous,

toxic, or other wastes are discharged into a sewer system and to protect the quality of sludge generated

by these plants. Discharges to a POTW are regulated primarily by the POTW itself, rather than the

state/tribe or USEPA (USEPA, 2016c), but are subject to State and Federal laws as well as guidelines

established by the USEPA.

State and Regional

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act

In 1969, the California Legislature enacted the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to preserve,

enhance, and restore the quality of the State’s water resources. The act established the State Water

Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and nine Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCBs) as the

principal State agencies with the responsibility for controlling water quality in California. Under the act,

water quality policy is established, water quality standards are enforced for both surface water and

groundwater, and the discharges of pollutants from point and nonpoint sources are regulated. The act

authorizes the SWRCB to establish water quality principles and guidelines for long-range resource

4.12 Utilities


planning including groundwater and surface water management programs and control and use of

recycled water (CalEPA, 2011).

State Water Quality Control Board

Created by the State Legislature in 1967, the SWRCB allocates water rights, adjudicates water right

disputes, develops statewide water protection plans, establishes water quality standards, and guides the

nine RWQCBs located in the major watersheds of the state. The joint authority of water allocation and

water quality protection enables the SWRCB to provide comprehensive protection for California’s waters

(CalEPA, 2012).

The SWRCB is responsible for implementing the CWA and issues NPDES permits to cities and counties

through RWQCBs. The project site is located in a portion of the state that is regulated by the Central

Valley RWQCB.

CVRWQCB

The CVRWQCB provides planning, monitoring, and enforcement techniques for surface and groundwater

quality in the Central Valley region of California. The primary duty of the CVRWQCB is to protect the

quality of the waters in the region for all beneficial uses. This duty is implemented by formulating and

adopting water quality plans for specific groundwater or surface water basins and by prescribing and

enforcing requirements on all agricultural, domestic, and industrial waste discharges (CalEPA, 2012).

Waste Discharge Requirements Program

In general, the WDR Program (sometimes also referred to as the "Non Chapter 15 [Non 15] Program")

regulates point discharges that are exempt pursuant to Subsection 20090 of Title 27 and not subject to

the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. Exemptions from Title 27 may be granted for nine categories of

discharges (e.g., sewage, wastewater, etc.) that meet, and continue to meet, the preconditions listed for

each specific exemption. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes the discharge of wastes

classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27. The scope of the WDRs Program also includes

the discharge of wastes classified as inert, pursuant to section 20230 of Title 27. Several SWRCB

programs are administered under the WDRs Program, including the Sanitary Sewer Order and recycled

water programs (CalEPA, 2012).

The CVRWQCB typically requires a WDR permit for any facility or person discharging or proposing to

discharge waste that could affect the quality of the waters of the State, other than into a community sewer

system. Those discharging pollutants (or proposing to discharge pollutants) into surface waters, must

obtain an NPDES permit from the CVRWQCB. The NPDES permit serves as the WDR permit. For other

types of discharges, such as those affecting groundwater or in a diffused manner (e.g., erosion from soil

disturbance or waste discharges to land) a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the CVRWQCB

in order to obtain a WDR permit (CalEPA, 2012).

Sanitary Sewer Overflow (SSO) Reduction Program

A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is any overflow, spill, release, discharge, or diversion of untreated or

partially treated wastewater from a sanitary sewer system. SSOs often contain high levels of suspended

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/docs/exemptions.pdf

http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/land_disposal/docs/exemptions.pdf

4.12 Utilities


solids, pathogenic organisms, toxic pollutants, nutrients, oil, and grease. SSOs pollute surface and

ground waters, threaten public health, adversely affect aquatic life, and impair the recreational use and

aesthetic enjoyment of surface waters. To provide a consistent, statewide regulatory approach to

address SSOs, the SWRCB adopted Statewide General WDRs for Sanitary Sewer Systems, Water

Quality Order No. 2006-0003 (Sanitary Sewer Order) on May 2, 2006. The Sanitary Sewer Order

requires public agencies that own or operate sanitary sewer systems to develop and implement sewer

system management plans and report all SSOs to the State Water Board’s online SSO database. All

public agencies that own or operate a sanitary sewer system that is comprised of more than one mile of

pipes or sewer lines, which conveys wastewater to a publicly owned treatment facility, must apply for

coverage under the Sanitary Sewer Order (CalEPA, 2012).

Local

Siskiyou County General Plan

The County General Plan and Land Use Policies do not contain any standards or other applicable policies

relevant to the impacts of the Proposed Project related to wastewater utilities.

Siskiyou County Code

Title 5, Chapter 2 of the County of Siskiyou County Code sets various requirements for sewage disposal.

Specifically, it establishes the provisions to which the Siskiyou County Health Officer can issue permits for

and inspect private sewage disposal systems in Siskiyou County (County), including sewage disposal and

treatment systems for industrial uses. The Proposed Project would have to comply with these standards

as enforced by the County.

City of Mt. Shasta General Plan

Although the Proposed Project is not within the jurisdiction of the City, it is within the service area for and

is currently served by the City’s WWTP. The City’s General Plan Land Use Element provides policies

concerning wastewater management. The following General Plan goals, policies, and implementation

measures are relevant to the City’s provision of wastewater services to the Proposed Project.

Wastewater Management Goal LU-16: Maintain a wastewater collection system and treatment plant that

serves the need of the community.

Policy LU-16.1: Ensure that the growth of the community does not outstrip the capacity of the wastewater

collection system and treatment facility.

Implementation Measure LU-16.1(a): Using the provision of connection fees, ensure that

funds are collected to meet long-term capital improvement program needs.

Implementation Measure LU-16.1(b): If the City has compelling information that indicates

that the wastewater treatment and/or collection system does not have adequate capacity

to accommodate additional connections, including capacity during peak flow periods, the

City shall utilize and sustain moratoriums or other restricting policies to ensure that new

connections do not result in adverse environmental impacts or violations of management

4.12 Utilities


standards until the capacity of the system can be expanded or otherwise determined to

be adequate.

City of Mt. Shasta Code

Chapter 13.56 of the City’s Code sets forth regulations regarding industrial wastewater discharges to

provide procedures for complying with requirements placed upon the City by other regulatory agencies.

Specifically, this chapter includes the procedures and requirements for obtaining a City permit for

industrial wastewater discharge. As set forth in Section 13.56.280(c), industrial wastewater can only be

discharged to the City’s sewer system if CGWC has complied with all applicable requirements of Chapter

13.56 and furnished to the City all requested information and if the Director of Public Works determines

that there is adequate capacity in the City’s facilities to convey, treat, and dispose of the wastewaters.

Under Section 13.56.350, the City may require that an industrial wastewater pretreatment system or

device treat industrial flows prior to discharge to the sewer when it is necessary to restrict or prevent the

discharge to the sewer of certain waste constituents, to distribute more equally over a longer time period

any peak discharges of industrial wastewaters, or to accomplish any pretreatment result required by the

Director of Public Works.

4.12.1.3 Impacts

Method of Analysis

Evaluation of potential wastewater service impacts was based on comparing the current capacity and

approved expansion of the City’s sewer system and WWTP to the amount of wastewater that would be

conveyed to the City’s WWTP under each of the four wastewater treatment options described in Section

3.5.8.3. The analysis was based in part on information from the Technical Memorandum regarding the

Crystal Geyser Onsite Wastewater Treatment (CH2M Hill, 2016a; Appendix D), the Technical

Memorandum regarding Mt. Shasta Sewer Improvements for Crystal Geyser Capacity Needs (CH2M Hill,

2016d; Appendix L), Technical Memorandum regarding effluent-groundwater mixing simulations for

Wastewater Treatment Option 3 (Geosyntec, 2016; Appendix H), and the 2015 IS/MND for

improvements to the City’s WWTP, which is incorporated by reference as described within Section 1.4 of

this EIR. A detailed discussion of potential impacts to hydrology and water quality from the on-site

wastewater treatment and disposal facilities under the Proposed Project is provided in Section 4.11,

Hydrology and Water Quality. The baseline from which environmental impacts associated with

wastewater is measured consists of the environmental setting described above, which is based on

conditions in 2016. Under baseline conditions, the Plant facilities are non-operational and are considered

to generate no wastewater flows.

Off-site sewer improvements inherently would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements or result in

the construction or expansion of other wastewater conveyance facilities or wastewater treatment facilities.

Therefore, the off-site sewer improvements are not discussed in the impact analysis below. The

environmental effects from the installation of the off-site sewer improvements under Options P1 and P2

are discussed as appropriate in the other impact areas of this EIR.

4.12 Utilities


Environmental effects from the planned City of Mt. Shasta State-Mandated Wastewater Treatment and

Outfall Improvement Project are discussed in Impact 4.12-4, below. Environmental effects from the

proposed Lassen Substation Project are discussed in Section 4.12.3, Impact 4.12-7.

Thresholds of Significance

Criteria for determining the significance of impacts associated with wastewater systems were developed

based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact

to wastewater systems if it would:

Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable RWQCB;

Require or result in the construction of new wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of

existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects;

Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the

project that it does not have adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in

addition to the provider’s existing commitments.

Project Impacts

IMPACT 4.12-1 EXCEED WASTEWATER TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE

APPLICABLE RWQCB

Significance Less than Significant

Mitigation Measures None Required

Significance After

Mitigation Less than Significant

Domestic Wastewater - All Options

As described in Section 3.5.8.3, the domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project from

faucets, drinking fountains, sinks, bathrooms, etc., would be discharged into the City’s sewer system

under each of the wastewater treatment options. Operation of the Plant at full production (two bottling

lines) would increase the amount of wastewater produced within the area by approximately 600 gallons

per day (gpd) over baseline conditions (see Section 4.0). Wastewater treatment requirements for the

domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would be based on all applicable State and

federal regulations and policies including the WDRs issued to the City by the CVRWQCB (see Section

4.12.1.1), which include limitations on effluent discharge to receiving waters. In general, effluent

discharge requirements include specifications for adequate disinfection treatment and limitations on

radioactivity, pollutant concentrations, sediments, pH, temperature, and toxicity to meet current tertiary

treatment standards prior to discharge.

The domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would not contain harmful levels of toxins

that are regulated by the CVRWQCB (such as large quantities of pesticides, herbicides, oil, grease, and

other chemicals that are typical and require separate permitting for agricultural and industrial uses) and all

4.12 Utilities


effluent would comply with the wastewater treatment standards of the CVRWQCB. Therefore, the

domestic wastewater generated by the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts

related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB and no mitigation is required.

Industrial Wastewater Treated and Discharged to the City’s WWTP - Options 1 and 2

As described in Section 3.5.8.3, process and rinse wastewater would be discharged into the City’s sewer

system under Wastewater Treatment Option 1 and industrial process wastewater would be discharged

into the City’s sewer system under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2. Pursuant to Chapter 13.56 of

the City’s Code, CGWC has submitted an application for a Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge

from the City and the City has issued a draft of the permit, which is included as Appendix I. As required

by the City’s Code, the draft permit includes conditions and sampling and testing protocols for the

Proposed Project that are designed to ensure that the City’s WWTP will be able to comply with the

requirements set forth in the WDR Order (No. R5-2012-086) and Time Schedule Order (No. R5-2012-

0087) issued to the City by the CVRWQCB. These conditions are listed in detail in the draft Permit

(Appendix I) and include, but are not limited to, the effluent limitations summarized in Table 4.12-1.

Compliance with the Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge would be monitored and enforced by the

City which may suspend or revoke the permit in accordance with provisions outlined in Section 13.56.300

and 13.56.310 of the City’s Code should CGWC fail to meet the permit requirements. Should new

requirements be imposed on the City by CVRWQCB or other circumstances occur that would inhibit the

WWTP’s ability to comply with the WDR, the City may change the restrictions or conditions of a Permit for

Industrial Wastewater Discharge so that compliance can be maintained. Therefore, compliance with the

Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge, once issued by the City, would ensure that the Proposed

Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of

the CVRWQCB and no mitigation is required.

TABLE 4.12-1

DRAFT INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER PERMIT EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS

Parameter Units Daily Maximum Monthly Average Limitation Basis

BOD lbs/day 100 40 WWTP Design Criteria

TSS lbs/day 70 58 WWTP Design Criteria

Arsenic (T) µg/L 8.24 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Cadmium (T) µg/L 1.62 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Chromium (T) µg/L 46.9 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Copper (T) µg/L 6.54 n/a NPDES Limit

Cyanide (T) µg/L 17.7 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Lead (T) µg/L 46.9 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Mercury (T) µg/L 3.68 n/a CTR Chronic Limit

Nickel (T) µg/L 80.8 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Zinc (T) µg/L 7.12 n/a NPDES Limit

pH (Min. – Max.) S.U. 6.5-8.5 n/a NPDES Limit

TKN as N lbs/day as N 8.01 n/a WWTP Design Criteria

UVT (Min.) % 55% n/a WWTP Design Criteria

Flow (Total industrial flow) GPD 24,000 n/a Request by Discharger

Source: Weklych, 2016f.

4.12 Utilities


Industrial Wastewater Discharged on the Project Site - Options 2, 3, and 4

As described in Section 3.5.8.3, industrial rinse wastewater would be disposed of on site under

Wastewater Treatment Options 2, 3 and 4; and industrial process wastewater would be disposed of on

site under Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4. Industrial rinse wastewater discharged this way would

have to comply with either the existing WDR Order No. 5-01-233 (Wastewater Treatment Option 2) or a

modified WDR order issued by the CVRWQCB (Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4). The following

analysis describes how each wastewater treatment option would comply with wastewater treatment

requirements established by the CVRWQCB.

Wastewater Treatment Option 2

Under Wastewater Treatment Option 2, industrial rinse water would be discharged into the Plant’s on-site

leach field located south of the plant building. As described in Section 3.3, the existing on-site leach field

was designed to accommodate 72,000 gpd and is currently permitted by the CVRWQCB for the

discharge of industrial rinse water under WDR Order 5-01-233. Since the Proposed Project at full

production (two bottling lines) would generate a maximum of 50,000 gallons per production day (gppd) of

industrial rinse water, no expansion of the leach field or modification to the applicable WDR is expected to

be required under Wastewater Treatment Option 2. During the operation of the Proposed Project, CGWC

would continue to submit technical and monitoring reports pursuant to the conditions of WDR Order 5-01-

233 to ensure compliance. Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant

impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB under Wastewater

Treatment Option 2 and no mitigation is required.


Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would only occur during the production of sparkling water and flavored

water. Under Wastewater Treatment Option 3, industrial rinse wastewater would be sent to the on-site

leach field, as described under Wastewater Treatment Option 2, while industrial process wastewater from

the production of sparkling water would flow to a series of two below grade concrete holding tanks and

then sent to the pH neutralization system to treat the pH of the flow stream to acceptable pH limits before

being discharged to the existing leach field system. Because the industrial process wastewater proposed

to be discharged to a leach field under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 would be from a different

wastewater source and have different water quality than what is currently permitted, Wastewater

Treatment Option 3 would require a new or modified WDR permit from the CVRWQCB. As described in

Section 4.8.4 and Appendix H, the estimated concentration of constituents in the industrial process

wastewater from the production of sparkling and flavored water is much less than the California MCL for

drinking water and, while it is anticipated that there will be slight rise in several background constituents in

the shallow groundwater aquifer, the constituents are still well within drinking water standards. During the

operation of the Proposed Project, CGWC would be required to submit technical and monitoring reports

pursuant to the conditions of the modified WDR order to ensure compliance. Therefore, the Proposed

Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the wastewater treatment requirements of

the CVRWQCB under Wastewater Treatment Option 3 and no mitigation is required.

4.12 Utilities



Under Wastewater Treatment Option 4, industrial rinse water from the production of sparkling and

flavored water, juice beverages, and teas would be discharged into the Plant’s on-site leach field, as

described in Wastewater Treatment Option 2, while industrial process wastewater would be treated on

site before being discharged into the Plant’s existing on-site leach field, which would be expanded to

accommodate additional flows, or into the proposed on-site irrigation system. Because the water

proposed to be discharged to a leach field under Wastewater Treatment Option 4 would be from a

different wastewater source and have different water quality than what is currently permitted, Wastewater

Treatment Option 4 would require a new or modified WDR permit from the CVRWQCB. The wastewater

treatment system (WWTS), described in Section 3.5.8.3 and Appendix C, was designed based on

wastewater flow rates and characterization during each production run (sparkling water, tea, and juice) as

well as expected effluent requirements, which were based on groundwater quality located below the

existing leach field (see Table 4.8-2). Therefore, the proposed WWTS would treat industrial process

water to the same level or better than the groundwater quality located below the existing leach field.

During the operation of the Proposed Project, CGWC would be required to submit technical and

monitoring reports pursuant to the conditions of new or modified WDR order to ensure compliance.

Therefore, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to the wastewater

treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB under Wastewater Treatment Option 4 and no mitigation is

required.

IMPACT 4.12-2

REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF

WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF

EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD

CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

Significance Proposed Project Wastewater Options 1 and 2 –Significant

Proposed Project Wastewater Options 3 and 4 – Less than Significant

Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1: Limitation of Industrial Wastewater Flows

Significance After


A sewer system capacity analysis was completed for segments of the City’s sewer system that conveys

wastewater from the project site to the WWTP (Figure 4.12-1) and is included as Attachment A to

Appendix L. The capacity analysis determined whether any pipelines should be considered for upsizing

based on their post-project capacity. If any pipelines had a post-project capacity of over 100 percent (i.e.

no capacity available for the Proposed Project and/or future connections), then they would be identified

as needing to be upsized as a result of the Proposed Project. The analysis was completed for existing

conditions3 and three wastewater discharge scenarios: Scenario 1 addition of 50,000 gpd (0.05 mgd),

Scenario 2 addition of 70,000 gpd (0.07 mgd), and Scenario 3 addition of 100,000 gpd (0.1 mgd). Table

3 The sewer system capacity analysis used the City’s H20MAP Version 9.0 Hydraulic Model results for the 2010 PWWF of 3.5 mgd as the existing demand for the analysis (CH2M Hill, 2015b).

4.12 Utilities


4.12-2 summarizes the results of the analysis. As described in Section 4.12.1.1, there was one section

of pipe that was determined to be undersized for the PWWF experienced at that section.

TABLE 4.12-2

SUMMARY OF SEWER REPLACEMENT FOR WASTEWATER DISCHARGE SCENARIOS

Flow Scenario Number of Pipes over

100% Capacity

Existing 1

Scenario 1 (0.05 mgd) 1



Notes: mgd = million gallons per day Source: CH2M Hill, 2015a.

As described in Section 3.5.8, domestic wastewater generated at the Plant would be conveyed through

the City’s sewer system under all wastewater treatment options, industrial process wastewater would be

conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2, and industrial rinse wastewater would be

conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Option 1. A summary of wastewater generation rates is

summarized in Table 3-1. The following discussion analyzes the potential impacts to wastewater

conveyance facilities from each of the wastewater treatment options based on the results of the sewer

system capacity analysis included as Attachment A to Appendix L.

Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2

Initial Phase (one bottling line)

Considering that industrial process and industrial rinse wastewater peak discharge rates would not occur

on the same day, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under Wastewater

Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be approximately 54,300 gpd (0.05 mgd) during the initial phase (one

bottling line). As shown in Table 4.12-2, the sewer system capacity analysis found that with the addition

of the 0.05 mgd flow under Scenario 1, there are no additional segments of the sewer system that would

need to be upsized as a result of the Proposed Project beyond the segment that was determined to by

undersized under existing conditions. A description of two options for implementing this improvement

(Options P1 and P2) is provided in Section 3.7. As described therein, the addition of an additional 12-

inch sewer pipe section under Option P1 or the addition of dual 18-inch sewer pipes under Option P2

would accommodate additional flows from the Proposed Project; therefore, potential environmental

effects that could occur as result of constructing this off-site improvement are addressed in this EIR,

including Section 4.2, Air Quality; Section 4.3, Biological Resources; Section 4.4, Cultural

Resources; and Section 5.0, CEQA Considerations. The addition of the proposed 12-inch sewer pipe

section (under Option P1) or dual 18-inch sewer pipe sections (under Option P2) would increase the

combined capacity of that section to 4.92 mgd and 15.96 mgd, respectively, which would allow for

conveyance of the current PWWF at that section (3.86 mgd) as well as the wastewater flows generated

under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 during the initial phase (0.05 mgd); therefore, the impact

from the operation of one bottling line is less than significant and no mitigation is required. Although not

required to mitigate the impact from the operation of the Proposed Project during the initial phase,

Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit the maximum daily discharge from the Proposed Project to

4.12 Utilities


approximately 24,000 gpd (0.02 mgd) thereby further reducing the Proposed Project’s impact on the

capacity of the City’s sewer conveyance system.

Full Production (two bottling lines)


on the same day, the most water that could be discharged to the City’s sewer system under Wastewater

Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be 100,600 gpd (0.10 mgd) during full production (two bottling lines).

As shown in Table 4.12-2, the sewer system capacity analysis found that with the addition of the 0.1 mgd

flow under Scenario 3, there are two additional pipeline segments that would need to be upsized as a

result of the Proposed Project beyond the segment that was determined to by undersized under existing

conditions. As described above, the Proposed Project includes the addition of an additional 12-inch

sewer pipe section under Option P1 and the addition of two 18-inch sewer pipe sections under Option P2

at the segment that was determined to be undersized under existing conditions to accommodate the flows

under the initial phase. The installation of the 12-inch sewer pipe section (under Option P1) or dual 18-

inch sewer pipe sections (under Option P2) would increase the combined capacity of that section to 4.92

mgd and 15.96 mgd, respectively, which would allow for conveyance of the current PWWF at that section

(3.86 mgd) as well as the wastewater flows generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2

during full production; therefore, the impact is less than significant.

The upsizing of the other two additional segments could cause significant environmental effects and are,

therefore, a potentially significant effect. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit industrial wastewater

flow discharges to 0.02 mgd through the installation of underground holding tanks within the disturbed

area of the project site south of the Plant thereby eliminating the need for the upsizing of the other two

segments and reducing the impact to less than significant. Potential impacts from the implementation

of this mitigation is discussed in Section 5.1.3.


As shown in Table 3-1, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under

Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4 would be 600 gpd during full production (two bottling lines). As

described above, the sewer system capacity analysis found that with the addition of the 50,000 gpd (0.05

mgd) flow under Scenario 1, there are no additional segments of the sewer system that would need to be

upsized as a result of the Proposed Project beyond the segment that was determined to be undersized

under existing conditions. Therefore, the comparatively minimal increase generated by Wastewater

Treatment Options 3 and 4 would also not require any additional expansions to the City’s sewer system

beyond what is currently needed under existing conditions. The additional wastewater flows under

Options 3 and 4 to this segment of 0.0006 mgd represent only 0.016 percent of the current PWWF at the

failing pipeline segment of 3.86 mgd, and thus would not measurably increase impacts over existing

conditions. Therefore, Options 3 and 4 for wastewater treatment would not require off-site improvements

to sewer conveyance facilities and this impact is less than significant and no mitigation is required.

4.12 Utilities


IMPACT 4.12-3

REQUIRE OR RESULT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF

WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITIES OR EXPANSION OF

EXISTING FACILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD

CAUSE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OR REQUIRE

SEWER SERVICE THAT MAY NOT BE AVAILABLE BY THE

AREA’S WASTEWATER TREATMENT PROVIDER

Significance Proposed Project Wastewater Options 1 and 2: Significant

Proposed Project Wastewater Options 3 and 4: Less than Significant

Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-1: Limitation of Industrial Wastewater Flows

Significance After


As described in Section 4.12.1.1, the ADWF design capacity of the City’s WWTP is 0.75 mgd and the

PWWF is 3.56 mgd (City of Mt. Shasta, 2015). The WWTP currently manages an ADWF of 0.7 mgd and

a PWWF of up to 3.5 mgd (PACE Engineering, 2016b), resulting in an available dry-weather capacity of

0.05 mgd (0.75 mgd – 0.7 mgd) and an available wet-weather capacity of 0.06 mgd (3.56 mgd – 3.5

mgd). On June 1, 2017, the WWTP’s interim effluent ammonia, copper, and zinc limits will expire. At that

time the WWTP’s wet weather capacity may be limited to the 1.0 mgd capacity due to capacity limitations

in the clarification and filtration processes as well as the 4.8 MG of buffer storage that would be used to

hold wastewater until it could be treated by the WWTP.

As described in Section 3.5.8, domestic wastewater generated at the Plant would be conveyed through

the City’s sewer system under all wastewater treatment options, industrial process wastewater would be

conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2, and industrial rinse wastewater would be

conveyed under Wastewater Treatment Option 1. A summary of wastewater generation rates is

summarized in Table 3-1. The following discussion analyzes the potential impacts to wastewater

treatment facilities from each of the wastewater treatment options.


Initial Phase (one bottling line)



Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be approximately 54,300 gpd (0.05 mgd) during the initial phase (one

bottling line). Given the available dry- and wet-weather capacities of the WWTP of 0.05 mgd and 0.06

mgd, respectively, the wastewater flows generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 during

the initial phase would require the remaining available capacity at the WWTP, this would be a significant

impact. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit industrial wastewater flow discharges to 0.02 mgd

through the installation of underground holding tanks within the disturbed area of the project site south of

the Plant thereby reducing the Proposed Project’s impact on the WWTP’s current capacity. Potential

impacts from the implementation of this mitigation is discussed in Section 5.1.3.

4.12 Utilities


Should new requirements be imposed on the City by CVRWQCB or other circumstances occur that would

inhibit the WWTP’s ability to comply with the WDR, the City may change the restrictions or conditions of a

Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge so that compliance can be maintained. Therefore, with the

implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 and compliance with the Permit for Industrial Wastewater

Discharge, once issued by the City, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts

related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB.

Full Production (two bottling lines)



Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be 100,600 gpd (0.10 mgd) during full production (two bottling lines).

Given the available dry- and wet-weather capacities of the WWTP of 0.05 mgd and 0.06 mgd,

respectively, there is not currently sufficient capacity at the WWTP to accommodate wastewater flows

generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 during full production (0.10 mgd), this would be

a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 would limit industrial wastewater flow discharges to 0.02

mgd through the installation of underground holding tanks within the disturbed area of the project site

south of the Plant thereby reducing the Proposed Project’s impact on the WWTP’s current capacity.

Potential impacts from the implementation of this mitigation is discussed in Section 5.1.3.

Should new requirements be imposed on the City by CVRWQCB or other circumstances occur that would

inhibit the WWTP’s ability to comply with the WDR, the City may change the restrictions or conditions of a

Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge so that compliance can be maintained. Therefore, with the

implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1 and compliance with the Permit for Industrial Wastewater

Discharge, once issued by the City, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts

related to the wastewater treatment requirements of the CVRWQCB.


As shown in Table 3-1, the most water that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system under

Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4 would be 600 gpd (0.0006 mgd) during full production (two

bottling lines). Given the available dry- and wet-weather capacities of the WWTP of 0.05 and 0.06 mgd,

respectively, there is currently sufficient capacity at the WWTP to accommodate wastewater flows

generated under Wastewater Treatment Options 3 and 4; therefore, the impact is less than significant

and no mitigation is required.

4.12 Utilities


Cumulative Impacts

IMPACT 4.12-4 CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO WASTEWATER SYSTEMS



Significance After


The cumulative setting includes the anticipated growth within the WWTP service area through 2039.

Implementation of the Proposed Project, in combination with other existing, planned, proposed, approved,

and reasonably foreseeable development within these service areas, would cumulatively increase

demand for wastewater services. Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 were conservatively selected

for this cumulative analysis because, as described above, all other scenarios would have a lesser impact

on the City’s sewer system and WWTP.

Wastewater Conveyance Facilities

As described in Impact 4.12-2, the Proposed Project includes increasing the capacity of a sewer pipe

section that is over 100 percent capacity under existing conditions4 and the existing plus 50,000 gpd (0.05

mgd) scenario (Scenario 1). This improvement would be installed by the 2039 cumulative year. With the

proposed sewer line improvement (Option P1 or P2), no additional sewer pipeline segments would need

to be upsized until conditions meet the existing plus 70,000 gpd (0.07 mgd) scenario (Scenario 2). With

the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, the maximum daily discharge from the Proposed

Project under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be limited to approximately 24,000 gpd (0.02

mgd); therefore, if cumulative development added 0.05 mgd (0.07 mgd – 0.02 mgd), at least one segment

of the City’s sewer system that conveys wastewater from the project site to the WWTP would need

upsizing. As noted in Section 5.0, there is minimal growth anticipated in the City and no reasonably

foreseeable projects that would add 0.05 mgd to the City’s sewer system during PWWF; therefore, even

under Wastewater Options 1 and 2, which would discharge the most wastewater to the City’s sewer

system, it is not anticipated that additional upsizing of the City’s sewer system would need to occur.

Should a project be proposed in the future that would add significant flows to the City’s sewer system,

that project would need to pay into the City’s fee program and additional environmental review would

need to occur if triggered by CEQA. The City’s sewer system has sufficient capacity to accommodate the

anticipated growth within the WWTP service area; therefore, the cumulative impact is less than

significant.

Wastewater Treatment

As described in Section 4.12.1.1, the 2015 IS/MND, evaluated the improvements needed to increase the

treatment and disposal capacity of the WWTP to be able to serve anticipated growth through 2039 under

two scenarios: population growth within the service area and population growth plus anticipated treatment

and disposal demands from the Proposed Project. Based on the respective growth rates of properties

4 The sewer system capacity analysis used the City’s H20MAP Version 9.0 Hydraulic Model results for the 2010 PWWF of 3.5 mgd as the existing demand for the analysis (CH2M Hill, 2015b).

4.12 Utilities


served within and outside the city limits, the 2015 IS/MND estimated that a capacity of 0.9 mgd would be

required to serve anticipated growth through 2039. The 2015 IS/MND stated that the Proposed Project,

at full production (two bottling lines), could contribute up to 0.15 mgd to the City’s WWTP. Accordingly,

the 2015 IS/MND determined that if the City were to serve the Proposed Project, the planned treatment

and disposal capacity would need to be increased from 0.9 mgd to 1.05 mgd to serve the anticipated

2039 demand. The potential impacts of expanding the dry-weather capacity of the WWTP up to 1.05

mgd were previously addressed in the 2015 IS/MND, which is incorporated into this EIR by reference as

described within Section 1.4 of this EIR. A summary of the conclusions of the 2015 IS/MND is provided

below:

Aesthetics: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-

than-significant impact on aesthetics and that no mitigation was necessary.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement

Project would have a less-than-significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and that

no mitigation was necessary.

Air Quality: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-

than-significant impact on air quality and that no mitigation was necessary.

Biological Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would

have a potentially significant impact on certain biological resources. Mitigation was provided to

reduce impacts related to species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species;

riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities; and/or the movement of native, migratory,

or wildlife species through natural habitat, corridors, and nursery sites to less than significant.

The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-than-significant

impact on federally protected wetlands and that no mitigation was necessary

Cultural Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have

a potentially significant impact on cultural resources. Mitigation was provided to reduce impacts

related to the discovery of undocumented historical resources, archaeological resources, and/or

human remains to less than significant. The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement

Project would have a less-than-significant impact on paleontological resources and that no

mitigation was necessary

Geology and Soils: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a

less-than-significant impact on geology and soils and that no mitigation was necessary.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project

would have a less-than-significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions and that no mitigation

was necessary.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement

Project would have a less-than-significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials and that


Hydrology and Water Quality: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project

would have a less-than-significant impact on hydrology and water quality and that no mitigation

was necessary.

4.12 Utilities


Land Use and Planning: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would

have no impact on land use and planning and that no mitigation was necessary.

Mineral Resources: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have

no impact on mineral resources and that no mitigation was necessary.

Noise: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have a less-than-

significant impact on noise and that no mitigation was necessary.

Population and Housing: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would

have a less-than-significant impact on population and housing and that no mitigation was

necessary.

Public Services: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have no

impact on public services and that no mitigation was necessary.

Recreation: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have no impact

on recreation and that no mitigation was necessary.

Transportation and Circulation: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project

would have a less-than-significant impact on transportation and that no mitigation was necessary.

Utilities and Service Systems: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project

would require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental effects. Mitigation was provided to

reduce adverse impacts related to the environmental effects of constructing new wastewater

treatment facilities or the expansion of existing facilities to less than significant. The 2015

IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have less-than-significant or no impact

on other utilities and service systems and that no mitigation was necessary.

Mandatory Findings of Significance: The 2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement

Project would have a potentially significant impact related to possible effects on special-status

wildlife species, encroachment into the Sacramento River, temporary loss of riparian habitat,

disturbance of nesting migratory birds, disturbance of subsurface cultural resources, increased

soil erosion and water quality degradation, increased air emissions, and temporarily increased

noise levels. Mitigation was provided to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels. The

2015 IS/MND found that the WWTP Improvement Project would have less-than-significant

cumulatively considerable impacts and less-than-significant impact on human beings and that no

mitigation was necessary.

As described in Impact 4.12-3, the most wastewater that would be discharged to the City’s sewer system

under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 would be 100,600 gpd (0.10 mgd) during full production

(two bottling lines), which is approximately 67 percent of the amount of daily discharge anticipated from

the Proposed Project in the 2015 IS/MND. With the implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-1, the

maximum daily discharge from the Proposed Project under Wastewater Treatment Options 1 and 2 would

be limited to approximately 24,000 gpd (0.02 mgd), which is approximately 13 percent of the amount of

daily discharge anticipated from the Proposed Project in the 2015 IS/MND. Therefore, the planned 1.05-

mgd WWTP would have sufficient capacity to accommodate the anticipated growth within the WWTP

4.12 Utilities


service area through 2039 as well as wastewater flows generated under the Proposed Project. As

concluded within the 2015 IS/MND, the majority of impacts from construction and operation of expansion

of the WWTP would be less than significant, or could be reduced to less-than-significant levels with

mitigation identified in the 2015 IS/MND; therefore, cumulative impacts associated with expansion of the

City’s WWTP would be less than significant.

4.12.1.4 Mitigation Measures

MM 4.12-1 Limitation of Industrial Wastewater Flows

Crystal Geyser will meter all wastewater discharges to the City’s sewer system so that

maximum daily flows will not exceed 24,000 gpd at any time. Wastewater discharges will

be metered through the installation of an underground holding tank within the disturbed

area of the project site south of the Plant. Flow metering will be conducted continuously

using an industrial sewer discharge magnetic flow meter and recorded daily pursuant to

the Permit for Industrial Wastewater Discharge. Depending on the timing of flow

contributions from the Plant relative to the timing of the WWTP expansion and

infrastructure improvements, the City may elect to adjust or eliminate the permitted

maximum daily flow of the Plant in the future.

4.12.2 SOLID WASTE





Solid Waste Facilities

Siskiyou County General Services operates and funds five transfer stations throughout its borders. The

project site is located within the service area of the Black Butte Transfer Station which transfers solid

waste to the Dry Creek Landfill in southern Oregon. Additionally, recycling services have been provided

to the area by the Siskiyou Opportunity Center.

Rouge Disposal and Recycling and Dry Creek Landfill

Dry Creek Landfill is a regional facility, operated by Rouge Disposal and Recycling that accepts waste

from five counties in California and Oregon. On average the landfill accepts 900 tons of solid waste per

day (Rouge Disposal & Recycling, 2016). Under existing permits, the landfill may accept 972 tons of solid

waste per day until the year 2056 (County of Siskiyou, 2016e). The landfill’s total capacity is 76,500,000

tons, of which it currently has 5,850,000 tons of waste in place, and the landfill receives an annual inflow

of 460,000 tons. At this rate the landfill has more than 150 years of capacity (Fortier, 2016). Rouge

Disposal and Recycling does not offer trash or recycling pick-up in the County, but coordinates with

transfer stations operated Siskiyou County General Services and accepts direct hauling.

4.12 Utilities


Siskiyou County General Services Black Butte Transfer Station

On-site pick up is provided by the City within City limits; however, properties in the unincorporated area,

such as the Proposed Project, need to contract with a waste removal service. John Smith Sanitation

serves the surrounding rural areas and could provide waste services (County of Siskiyou, 2015). The

Black Butte Transfer Station is located at 3710 Springhill Road, Mt. Shasta, approximately 2.3 miles north

by road from the Proposed Project. The Black Butte Transfer Station accepts: garbage, tires,

construction debris, appliances, furniture, electronic waste, used oil, scrap metal, batteries, and light

bulbs (County of Siskiyou, 2015; Cal Recycle 2016a). The facility has a maximum permitted throughput

of 100 tons per day (Cal Recycle, 2016b). The transfer station’s daily throughput can vary significantly

and reaches capacity fewer than 10 times a year. When capacity is reached, additional waste is sent to

other transfer stations in the area, the closest of which is in Yreka (Akana, 2016).

Siskiyou Opportunity Center

The Siskiyou Opportunity Center provides support services that assist individuals with disabilities to

obtain an earned income, function independently, and maximize their highest level of vocational potential

(Siskiyou Opportunity Center, 2016). As part of their programs, the center has picked up and sorted

recyclables for the Weed, Dunsmuir, and Mt. Shasta Blue Bag programs. However, the Siskiyou

Opportunity center does not currently accept plastic because of the low reimbursement for plastics not

sufficient to compensate for the cost of picking up and sorting.


State

California Integrated Waste Management Act

To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the

State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), effective

January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid

waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s

AB 939 plan will be integrated with each city’s plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source

reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

To minimize the amount of solid waste that must be disposed of by transformation and land disposal, the

State Legislature passed the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939), enacted

January 1990. According to AB 939, all cities and counties are required to divert 50 percent of all solid

waste from landfill facilities by January 1, 2000. Solid waste plans are required to explain how each city’s

AB 939 plan will be integrated with each city’s plan. They must promote (in order of priority) source

reduction, recycling and composting, and environmentally safe transformation and land disposal.

Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act of 1991

The Solid Waste Reuse and Recycling Access Act (AB 1327), enacted in 1991, requires jurisdictions to

adopt ordinances that require development projects to provide adequate storage areas for collection and

removal of recyclable materials.

4.12 Utilities


Assembly Bill 341

AB 341, enacted in 2011, states that it is the policy goal of the state that not less than 75 percent of solid

waste generated be reduced, recycled, or composted by the year 2020. The bill also requires that a

business, defined to include a commercial or public entity that generates more than 4 cubic yards of

commercial solid waste per week or is a multifamily residential dwelling of five units or more arrange for

recycling services, on and after July 1, 2012. Jurisdictions, on and after July 1, 2012, are required to

implement a commercial solid waste recycling program to meet this requirement.

Local

Siskiyou County Solid Waste Local Enforcement Agency

Siskiyou County Community Development Department enforces State solid waste statutes and

regulations within the County through permitting, inspection, and enforcement at solid waste operations

and facilities such as landfills/disposal sites (active and closed), including sites for disposal of

construction/demolition debris and inert materials; transfer stations, including materials recovery facilities;

and composting facilities (CalRecycle, 2016a).

4.12.2.3 Impacts

Method of Analysis

This section identifies any impacts associated with solid waste that could occur from construction,

operation, and/or maintenance of the Proposed Project resulting from all modifications undertaken and

proposed by CGWC to operate the proposed bottling facilities. This includes all facilities installed by

CGWC as shown on Figure 3-4. The existing environmental setting (2016) forms the baseline from

which impacts associated with prior construction activities, proposed construction activities, and operation

are measured. This is a conservative analysis because the capacity of the Dry Creek Land Fill was

greater in 2013, when CGWC purchased the property, than June 2016. Evaluation of potential solid

waste impacts was based on comparisons between the anticipated amount of solid waste generated by

the Proposed Project, which is estimated based on similar facilities, and the available capacity of the solid

waste service providers. The baseline from which environmental impacts associated with solid waste is

measured consists of the environmental setting described above, which is based on conditions in 2016.

Under baseline conditions, the Plant facilities are non-operational and are considered to generate no solid

waste.

The potential for visual impacts resulting from off-site sewer improvements in South Old Stage Road is

addressed below. The potential for environmental impacts from the off-site improvements described in

Section 3.7 that would serve the Proposed Project, but would occur with or without the Proposed Project,

is analyzed in Section 4.12, Utilities. Environmental effects from the planned City of Mt. Shasta State-

Mandated Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Improvement Project are discussed in Section 4.12.1,

Impact 4.12-4. Environmental effects from the proposed Lassen Substation Project are discussed in

Section 4.12.3, Impact 4.12-7.

4.12 Utilities



Criteria for determining the significance of impacts associated with solid waste were developed based on

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact to solid

waste if it would:

Be served by a landfill without sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid

waste disposal needs in compliance with all applicable laws.

Project Impacts

IMPACT 4.12-5

BE SERVED BY A LANDFILL WITHOUT SUFFICIENT PERMITTED

CAPACITY TO ACCOMMODATE THE PROJECT’S SOLID WASTE

DISPOSAL NEEDS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE

LAWS


Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-2: Recycle Employee and Process Waste

Significance After


Proposed Project – Previous Construction Activities

Improvements to the project site by CGWC, which occurred from February 2015 to February 2016,

followed BMPs listed in Section 3.5.11. Past construction included landscaping, water storage tanks,

concrete pads, cooling towers, transformers, juice unloading station, CO2 and nitrogen tank, vaporizers,

propane tank, and equipment installed within the existing plant building, as shown in Figure 3-4. The

construction recycling rate achieved for the portion of construction that occurred between 2013 and June

2016 was 75 percent (Harris, 2016). Therefore, construction waste was relatively insignificant when

compared to the capacity of the Dry Creek Landfill that accepted the solid waste and a less-than-

significant impact occurred.

Proposed Project – Future Construction Activities (All Options for Wastewater Treatment)

Construction of the Proposed Project includes: the installation of additional equipment, construction of the

caretaker’s residence, expanded leachfield, on-site wastewater treatment facilities, recycled water lines,

and off-site sewer upgrades. Future construction is anticipated to meet the 75 percent diversion rate by

CGWC continuing to follow Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) protocols, including

those listed in Section 3.5.11. Construction waste is relatively insignificant when compared to the

capacity of the Dry Creek Landfill that would be accepting the solid waste; therefore, a less-than-

significant impact would occur.

Proposed Project Operation

The Proposed Project would generate 12 cubic yards of solid waste, including recyclables, weekly based

on the generation rate of the Plant under Dannon’s operations (CVRWQCB, 2001). This is a

conservative estimate due to the improvements of plastic bottles utilizing designs that require less plastic

4.12 Utilities


(i.e. thinner plastic bottles). Using a waste volume to weight conversion of 320 pounds per cubic yard

(including a mix of glass, metals, food, paper, and plastic) the Plant would generate approximately 100

tons of waste annually (approximately 0.27 tons per day) (Cal Recycle, 2015a). Additionally, under

Wastewater Treatment Option 4, the operation of the WWTS would produce up to an additional 15.6 tons

of dewatered solids annually (approximately 0.04 tons per day). The Plant would recycle plastics,

corrugated paper, and paper waste which would result in considerable waste reductions (CGWC, 2015;

Harris, 2016).

CGWC will secure recycling hauling contracts through either John Smith Sanitation or the Siskiyou

Opportunity Center. Solid waste from the project site would be transported to a local transfer station and

subsequently disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill in southern Oregon. The nearest transfer station is

Black Butte, however the County operates additional transfer stations in Yreka, Tulelake, and Happy

Camp.

As discussed above, the Black Butte Transfer Station is permitted for a throughput of 100 tons a day.

While the throughput does not regularly approach this level, the transfer station does reach capacity six to

eight times annually and cannot accept additional waste. In those cases trash or recycling can be

disposed of at another transfer station, such as the Yreka transfer station (Akana, 2016). The Proposed

Project would produce approximately 0.32 tons a day of solid waste and recyclables, which is less than

one percent of the daily throughput at the Black Butte Transfer Station. Additionally, as discussed above,

the Dry Creek Landfill has capacity to serve the current waste stream until 2166. Given the 50 percent

diversion rate required by State law, the Proposed Project would generate 65.6 tons annually of non-

recycled solid waste – less than 0.007 percent of the current annual waste flow to the Dry Creek Landfill.

Due to the ample capacity at the Dry Creek Landfill and the level of solid waste and recyclables

generated in relation to the typical throughput at the Black Butte Transfer Station, the impact will be less

than significant. Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 would further reduce the impact on solid waste disposal

facilities by decreasing the solid waste being disposed of at the Dry Creek Landfill from the Proposed

Project.

Off-Site Sewer Improvements

Construction waste generated by the construction of the off-site sewer improvements would be temporary

and relatively insignificant when compared to the capacity of the Dry Creek Landfill that would be

accepting the solid waste; therefore, a less-than-significant impact would occur.

4.12 Utilities


Cumulative Impacts

IMPACT 4.12-6 CUMULATIVE IMPACT TO SOLID WASTE

Significance Potentially Significant

Mitigation Measures MM 4.12-2: Recycle Employee and Process Waste

Significance After


The cumulative setting for solid waste service includes the service areas for the Black Butte Transfer

Station.

All solid waste, including recyclables, would most often be sent through the Black Butte Transfer Station.

As described in Section 4.12.2.1 the transfer station has a permitted throughput of 100 tons per day, and

once this throughput is reached, the transfer station must cease operations for the day. Although the

Proposed Project’s waste is less than one percent of permitted throughput, the transfer station currently

does meet its permitted capacity on occasion. Buildout of communities in the Black Butte Transfer

Station’s service area including the City of Weed, City of Mt. Shasta, and unincorporated County land, in

addition to the Proposed Project, may necessitate additional personnel or equipment at the transfer

station. The Proposed Project, and additional residential development would fund such improvements

through property related fees.

At current operation, the Dry Creek Landfill will have adequate capacity until 2166. The County is not

currently meeting the 50 percent diversion reduction as required by AB 939, resulting in a higher

proportion of solid waste being sent to the Dry Creek Landfill (County of Siskiyou, 2013). Given the

County’s low recycling rate, limited recycling centers and landfills in the County this impact is potentially

significant. Implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-2 will decrease the solid waste being disposed

of at the Dry Creek Landfill from the Proposed Project by 75 percent; therefore, the Proposed Project’s

contribution to the County’s diversion rate and the cumulative impact would be reduced to less than

cumulatively considerable by implementation of Mitigation Measure 4.12-2.


MM 4.12-2 Recycle Employee and Process Waste

CGWC shall recycle at least 75 percent of solid waste generated on site and not being

utilized in commercial products (approximately 9 cubic yards per week). This recycling

rate will be encouraged with recycling measures that may include, but would not limited

to:

a) place recycling bins in areas of high employee traffic (e.g. lunch room) alongside

instructional signs describing the type of waste that should be recycled;

b) place appropriately sized recycling receptacles near unloading and unpacking

areas where high volumes of process recyclables are generated;

4.12 Utilities


c) regularly empty the all recycling bins so that recyclables are not diverted into the

solid waste stream; and

d) provide information on both employee and process recycling as part of employee

training and orientation.

4.12.3 ELECTRICAL UTILITIES





The project site is located within the service area of PacifiCorp for electricity. A general description of

PacifiCorp is provided in Section 4.13.2. The project site and vicinity is served by PacifiCorp’s Mt.

Shasta Substation, located at 404 South Old Stage Road in an unincorporated part of Siskiyou County,

California, approximately 1.5 miles south of the project site. The existing Mt. Shasta Substation contains

two transformers: a 12.5 megavolt ampere (MVA) and a 3.75 MVA. The 12.5 MVA, 69 kV to 12.5 kV

transformer (T-3521) delivers electricity to approximately 4,156 customers while the 3.75 MVA, 69kV to

4.16 kV transformer bank serves approximately 703. The Mt. Shasta Substation is in a deteriorated

condition, consisting of wood pole construction that has been susceptible to wood rot and damage by

birds boring holes into the poles and cross members. It is anticipated that over the next few years the

substation could reach the end of its useful life (PacifiCorp, 2015).

PacifiCorp has projected that the additional load from the general growth in the Mt. Shasta region would

exceed the summer guideline rating for the Mt. Shasta Substation and accelerate the T-3521 transformer

loss of life beyond acceptable industry standards. This projected exceedance would put those customers

served by this transformer at risk of an extended outage during equipment failure. The 3.75 MVA

transformer bank is not at risk of overloading at this time. Given the deteriorated condition of the Mt.

Shasta substation and the fact that the existing Mt. Shasta Substation property is not large enough to

accommodate the necessary equipment required to meet the additional electrical capacity demand,

PacifiCorp has initiated proceedings with the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) for a new

substation and associated transmission upgrades, including a service addition and transmission upgrade

that would result in additional power to meet current and future projected demand. The proposed

substation would be called Lassen Substation and is proposed to be located 504 South Old Stage Road,

approximately 275 feet east of the current Mt. Shasta Substation site (PacifiCorp, 2015).

The CPUC completed a Draft IS/MND in November 2016 (PacifiCorp, 2016b). In compliance with CPUC

guidelines, the 2016 IS/MND evaluates potential environmental impacts that could result from the

construction and operation of the Lassen Substation Project, which includes measures adopted by the

applicant as project features to reduce project-related environmental impacts referred to applicant

proposed measures (APM), as well as provides mitigation to reduce any potential impacts to a less-than-

significant level (PacifiCorp, 2016b). The IS/MND is incorporated into this EIR by reference as described

within Section 1.4 of this EIR. Once CPUC proceedings are completed, the actual construction of the

4.12 Utilities


substation and transmission upgrades will depend on the internal priorities of PacifiCorp in its system-

wide improvements.


State

California Public Utilities Commission

The CPUC regulates privately owned electric, natural gas, telecommunications, water, railroad, rail

transit, and passenger transportation companies, in addition to authorizing video franchises. The CPUC

grants operating authority, regulates service standards, sets rates, and monitors utility operations for

safety, environmental stewardship, and public interest.

CPUC Rates and Funding

Customer rates will be based on the CPUC’s determination of how much revenue the utility reasonably

requires to operate. Funding for the installation of natural gas and electric facilities comes from charges

to ratepayers in accordance with the Electric & Gas Tariff currently on file with the CPUC. New

development is required to ensure a clear and acceptable route is provided for the installation of these

facilities (i.e., rights-of-way, adequate tree clearances, clear of any environmental issues).

Title 24 (California Energy Code and California Green Building Standards Code)

The California Energy Code (Title 24, Part 6, of the California Code of Regulations [CCR], California’s

Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings), provides energy conservation

standards for all new and renovated commercial and residential buildings constructed in California. The

provisions of the California Energy Code apply to the building envelope, space-conditioning systems, and

water-heating and lighting systems of buildings and appliances; they also give guidance on construction

techniques to maximize energy conservation. Minimum efficiency standards are given for a variety of

building elements, including appliances; water and space heating and cooling equipment; and insulation

for doors, pipes, walls, and ceilings.

The California Green Building Standards Code (Title 24, Part 11 of the CCR; CalGreen) is intended to

improve public health, safety and general welfare by enhancing the design and construction of buildings

through the use of building concepts having a reduced negative impact or positive environmental impact

and encouraging sustainable construction practices in the following categories: planning and design,

energy efficiency, water efficiency and conservation, material conservation and resource efficiency, and

environmental quality. In addition, CalGreen encourages local governments to adopt more stringent

voluntary provisions, known as Tier 1 and Tier 2 provisions, to further reduce air pollutant emissions,

improve energy efficiency, and conserve natural resources. If a local government adopts one of the tiers,

the provisions become mandates for all new construction within that jurisdiction.

The 2016 Title 24 standards will go into effect on January 1, 2017. The 2016 update of the Title 24

standards improve upon the current 2013 standards, which had an effective date beginning July 1, 2014.

The most significant efficiency improvements to the residential Standards include improvements for attics,

walls, water heating, and lighting. The 2016 Standards also include changes made throughout all of its

4.12 Utilities


sections to improve the clarity, consistency, and readability of the regulatory language (CEC, 2015b).

Compliance with Title 24 standards is verified and enforced through the local building permit process.

Local

Siskiyou County General Plan (SCGP)

The County of Siskiyou General Plan Energy Element (1993) includes goals and policies regarding

electrical utilities as detailed below:

Goal Thorough and expeditious evaluation of energy facility proposals; siting of such facilities

in a timely, orderly, and environmentally-sound manner; and assurance of the compatible

and environmentally-sound operation, maintenance, and eventual abandonment of such

facilities.

Policy 30 Proponent applications for energy facility projects shall contain comprehensive

information in sufficient detail to enable the County to conduct a thorough analysis of the

project. At a minimum, information shall include descriptions of all project phases

(resource or fuel supply confirmation, construction, operations, maintenance,

abandonment); the facility's physical and performance characteristics; environmental

effects of all project phases; and a project cost/benefit analysis that includes a County

fiscal component.

Policy 31 Energy facilities shall only be approved if in compliance with all applicable provisions of

the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and construction shall start only after all

applicable federal, state, and local permits have been obtained and permit conditions

satisfied.

Policy 32 In the absence of compelling or contravening considerations, energy facilities should not

be sited in sensitive natural resource areas, including: unstable geologic or soil areas;

floodplains; wetlands; habitat of fish or wildlife species of rare, threatened, endangered,

or special concern status; known paleontological, archeological, ethnographic, or

historical sites; or designated scenic areas. If siting in such areas is unavoidable, it shall

be limited to the smallest possible portion of the energy facility in question, and shall be

mitigated in accordance with CEQA.

Policy 33 Wherever possible, increased demand for energy transmission shall be accommodated

with existing transmission facilities. Where new capacity is necessary, priority shall be

given to upgrading or reconstruction of existing facilities, followed by new construction

along existing transmission or other utility corridors. Any new transmission facilities shall

be sited so as to minimize interference with surrounding land-uses, and in ways that

minimize their visual impacts.

Policy 34 The operation of energy facilities shall not violate, or threaten to violate, applicable

environmental standards, including noise, wastes, pollutant discharges, or electronic

discharges or interference.

4.12 Utilities


Policy 35 The siting and operation of energy facilities shall be accomplished so as not to exceed

the carrying capacity of affected public infrastructure, including but not limited to roads

and highways, water and wastewater systems, public safety services, and schools.

Where applicable, the actual cost of public improvements directly necessitated by a

specific energy facility shall be paid by the facility developer.

Policy 36 Energy facilities shall minimize the generation of wastes and allow for their recycling

whenever practical. Wastes shall only be transported and disposed in accordance with

applicable laws and regulations.

Policy 37 Energy facilities shall prepare and periodically update emergency plans for reasonably

foreseeable accidents and emergency incidents, and such plans shall be coordinated

with local public safety agencies.

Policy 38 If and when abandoned, energy facility sites shall be reclaimed according to a plan that

restores and preserves land values for subsequent and surrounding uses.

4.12.3.3 Impacts

Method of Analysis

Evaluation of potential impacts on electrical utilities resulting from the Proposed Project was based on

capacity of infrastructure that could provide services to the Proposed Project, review of California Energy

Commission policies, State standards, and review of goals and policies identified in the Siskiyou General

Plan. Because the development of the Lassen Substation Project is needed to serve growth in the

service area for PacifiCorp as well as the Proposed Project, the analysis provided below is considered a

cumulative discussion. The analysis focuses on the environmental effects associated with the provision

of electrical services to the project site.

Off-site sewer improvements inherently would not require substantial energy from local electrical utilities.

Therefore, the off-site sewer improvements are not discussed in the impact analysis below. The

environmental effects from the installation of the off-site sewer improvements are discussed as

appropriate in the other impact areas of this EIR.

The potential for environmental impacts from the off-site improvements described in Section 3.7 that

would serve the Proposed Project, but would occur with or without the Proposed Project, is analyzed in

Section 4.12, Utilities. Environmental effects from the planned City of Mt. Shasta State-Mandated

Wastewater Treatment and Outfall Improvement Project are discussed in Section 4.12.1, Impact 4.12-4.

Environmental effects from the proposed Lassen Substation Project are discussed in Section 4.12.3,

Impact 4.12-7.


Criteria for determining the significance of impacts associated with electrical utilities were developed

based on Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. The Proposed Project would result in a significant impact

if it would:

4.12 Utilities


Result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or altered electrical

utilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to

maintain performance objectives.

Cumulative Impacts

IMPACT 4.12-7

RESULT IN SUBSTANTIAL ADVERSE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED

WITH THE PROVISION OF NEW OR ALTERED ELECTRICAL

UTILITIES, THE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD CAUSE

SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, IN ORDER TO

MAINTAIN PERFORMANCE OBJECTIVES FOR ANY OF THE

PUBLIC SERVICES



Significance After


As described in Section 3.5.10, the energy demand generated by the Proposed Project under each of the

wastewater treatment options would be approximately 4.2 megawatts (MW) during the initial phase (one

bottling line) and approximately 5.7 MW during full production (two bottling lines)5.

The Plant is currently provided electricity though an existing connection with utilities operated by

PacifiCorp. As described in Section 4.12.3.1, the existing PacifiCorp Mt. Shasta Substation is in a

deteriorated condition and may reach the end of its useful life within a few years. However,

approximately 3.2 MW of capacity is currently available to serve the Proposed Project (Mendenhall,

2016). Since the current capacity of the existing PacifiCorp Mt. Shasta Substation is not sufficient to

serve the energy demands of the initial phase of the Proposed Project, the Proposed Project has been

designed to include the installation of three propane fuel generators with a total capacity of approximately

1.1 MW that would be used to supplement the electrical power needed for plant operations. With the

existing capacity of PacifiCorp (3.2 MW) and the inclusion of the generators as part of the Proposed

Project (1.1 MW), no off-site electrical utilities improvements are required to meet the initial demands of

the Plant during the initial phase (4.2 MW) and no environmental impacts from the construction or

operation of new or altered electrical utilities would occur as a result.

In order to meet the demands of full production, the Proposed Project would require approximately 1.5

MW of additional power supplies. As described in Section 4.12.3.1, PacifiCorp has projected that the

additional load from the general growth in the Mt. Shasta region would exceed the summer guideline

rating for the Mt. Shasta Substation and accelerate the T-3521 transformer loss of life beyond acceptable

industry standards. Given the deteriorated condition of the Mt. Shasta substation and the fact that the

existing Mt. Shasta Substation property is not large enough to accommodate the necessary equipment

required to meet the additional electrical capacity demand, PacifiCorp has initiated proceedings with the

5 Under Wastewater Treatment Option 4, the WWTS would add 0.0375 MW to the total project demands; due to rounding, this amount does not increase the approximate overall power demands of the facility of 5.6 MW.

4.12 Utilities


CPUC for the Lassen Substation Project that consists of a new substation and associated transmission

upgrades, including a service addition and transmission upgrade that would result in additional power to

meet current and future projected demand, including the Proposed Project. The Lassen Substation

Project is currently the subject of environmental review under CEQA by the CPUC. However, the

potential impacts of the Lassen Substation Project were addressed 2016 IS/MND which is incorporated

into this EIR by reference as described within Section 1.4 of this EIR and summarized below:

Aesthetics: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-than-

significant impact on aesthetics and that no mitigation was necessary.

Agricultural and Forestry Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation

Project would have a less-than-significant impact on agricultural and forestry resources and that


Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen

Substation Project would have a less-than-significant impact on air quality and greenhouse gas

emissions and that no mitigation was necessary.

Biological Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a

potentially significant impact on biological resources. Mitigation was provided to prevent adverse

impacts related to special status species.

Cultural Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have no

impact on cultural resources and that no mitigation was necessary.

Geology and Soils: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a

less-than-significant impact on geology and soils and that no mitigation was necessary.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project

would have a potentially significant impact on hazards and hazardous materials. Mitigation was

provided to prevent adverse impacts related to the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous

materials.

Hydrology and Water Quality: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project

would have a potentially significant impact on hydrology and water quality. Mitigation was

provided to prevent adverse impacts to water quality.

Land Use and Planning: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would

have a less-than-significant impact on land use and planning and that no mitigation was

necessary.

Mineral Resources: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have no

impact on mineral resources and that no mitigation was necessary.

Noise: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-than-

significant impact on noise and that no mitigation was necessary.

Population and Housing: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would

have a less-than-significant impact on population and housing and that no mitigation was

necessary.

4.12 Utilities


Public Services: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-

than-significant impact on public services and that no mitigation was necessary.

Recreation: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have no impact

on recreation and that no mitigation was necessary.

Transportation: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project would have a less-

than-significant impact on transportation and that no mitigation was necessary.

Utilities and Service Systems: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation Project

would have a less-than-significant impact on utilities and service systems and that no mitigation

was necessary.

Mandatory Findings of Significance: The 2016 IS/MND found that the Lassen Substation

Project would have a less-than-significant impact under the mandatory findings of significance.

Although the proposed substation and associated transmission and distribution line upgrades would be

constructed with or without the Proposed Project to serve the entire area load (PacifiCorp, 2016b), the

Proposed Project would contribute to the demand at the Lassen Substation, and the second phase of the

Proposed Project could not move forward without the proposed improvements. With the implementation

of PacifiCorp’s proposed APMs and mitigation measures identified in the IS/MND and associated with

biological resources, hazards and hazardous materials, and hydrology and water quality identified in the

2016 IS/MND, impacts from the Lassen Substation Project would be less than significant. Therefore, the

Proposed Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts associated with the provision of new or

altered electrical utilities in order to maintain performance objectives. This impact is less than

significant and no mitigation is required.


As described above, the Proposed Project would result in less-than-significant impacts to electrical

utilities; therefore, no mitigation measures are required.

crystal geyser bottling plant project draft eir · 4.12 utilities aes 4.12-3 crystal geyser...

Documents