galt, ca | home

CityWaFacImm Notic

PREPCity o495 Galt,

y of Gastewacilitiesmedia

ce of Pr

PARED FOof Galt PlaIndustria CA 9563

Galt ater Ts Masate Im

eparatio

OR: anning D

al Drive 32

Treatmster Pmprov

on and I

Departme

ment lan an

vemen

Initial St

ent

Plantnd Phnts Pr

tudy

t hase Iroject

May 22012

amber.giffin

Typewritten Text

May 2012

amber.giffin

Typewritten Text

110010101.01

City of Galt Wa

and P

astewat

Phase I I

Notice

C

S

gary

ter Treat

mmedia

e of Prepar

PREP

City of Galt P495 In

Galt

COSandra Kiriu

TelephoneFax: (2skiriu@

PREAscent En455 Capit

Sacrame

COGary Ja

TelephoneFax: (9

.jakobs@asc

May

tment P

ate Imp

ration and

PARED FOR

Planning Depndustrial Drit, CA 95632

ONTACT: u, Principal

e: (209) 36609) [email protected]

PARED BYnvironmentaol Mall, Suitento, CA 95

ONTACT:

akobs, Prince: (916) 93016) 444-39centenviron

y 16, 2012

Plant Fa

roveme

d Initial Stu

R:

partment ive

2

Planner 6-7230 642 us

Y: al, Inc. te 205

5814

ipal 0-3182 927 nmental.com

2

cilities M

ents Proj

udy

m

Master P

ject

Plan

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 1

NOTICE OF PREPARATION

Date: May 16, 2012

To: Agencies and Interested Parties

From: City of Galt

Subject: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project

The City of Galt (City) proposes to prepare and implement a Facilities Master Plan for the City’s Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), located at 10059 Twin Cities Road in Galt, California. In addition, the City proposes to construct the first phase of work identified in the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements. The City has prepared an Initial Study to analyze these actions and has identified potentially significant environmental effects. The City will therefore prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR) for the project to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code [PRC] § 21000 et seq.), and will serve as the state lead agency for CEQA compliance. Because construction of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan may be partially funded with a loan from the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) State Revolving Fund (SRF) Loan Program, which is funded by federal Clean Water Act funds administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), it is subject to certain federal environmental regulations, as specified through an agreement between the SWRCB and U.S. EPA. Therefore, the EIR will comply with the requirements of the Environmental Review Process Guidelines for State Revolving Fund Applicants, which requires consideration of certain federal laws intended to protect federally designated endangered species, cultural resources, air quality, and other resources.

PURPOSE OF THIS NOTICE OF PREPARATION

In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations [CCR] § 15082), the City has prepared this notice of preparation (NOP) to inform agencies and interested parties that an EIR will be prepared for the above‐referenced project. The purpose of an NOP is to provide sufficient information about the proposed project and its potential environmental impacts to allow agencies and interested parties the opportunity to provide a meaningful response related to the scope and content of the EIR (State CEQA Guidelines 14 CCR § 15082[b]).

The project location, description, and potential environmental effects are summarized below. A more detailed project description is included in the Initial Study.

PROJECT LOCATION

The proposed project would be located at the City’s existing WWTP, which is an incorporated island located on approximately 298‐acres surrounded by unincorporated Sacramento County, about 4 miles north of the City center. The WWTP encompasses approximately 17 acres at 10059 Twin Cities Road, and is located 0.5 mile north of Twin Cities Road, adjacent to the Union Pacific Railroad mainline tracks, and 2,200 feet west of State Route (SR) 99 (Exhibits 1 and 2). The remainder of the City’s 298‐acre property consists of irrigated agricultural land, a 5‐acre solar facility, and a private gun range that is used by the City’s police department and other approved law enforcement agencies in the property’s northwest corner. The Assessor’s Parcel Numbers are 148‐0010‐046, 148‐0010‐053, and 148‐0010‐054. The property is surrounded by predominantly agricultural land in unincorporated Sacramento County.

Notice of Preparation Ascent Environmental

City of Galt 2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS

Source: Adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 1 Regional Location

Ascent Environmental Notice of Preparation


Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 2 Project Location



PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Project Background The existing WWTP provides advanced wastewater treatment for the City of Galt. The WWTP was initially brought on‐line in 1983. It currently has a permitted treatment capacity of 3.0 million gallons per day (mgd) and treats an average of approximately 2.3 mgd. The WWTP has been improved from time to time, most recently in 2011. Effluent enters the plant and is treated to tertiary treatment levels via a combination of bar screens, grit removal, oxidation ditches, secondary clarifiers, filtration, and ultraviolet light disinfection. The treated effluent is discharged to Laguna Creek, via a remnant channel of Skunk Creek, which flows to the Cosumnes River and ultimately the Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta. At appropriate times of the year when irrigation is needed, treated effluent is discharged to surrounding agricultural lands.

The proposed project is the Facilities Master Plan, a plan to continue improving the quality of treated wastewater and to expand the WWTP’s capacity consistent with the City’s 2030 General Plan. The focused EIR will evaluate the potentially significant environmental effects of the Facilities Master Plan at a program level, and will evaluate the first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements, at a more detailed, project level. Subsequent phases of the Facilities Master Plan will be reviewed to determine if they are within the scope of the program EIR, or if additional environmental analysis is needed prior to approval.

Facilities Master Plan The purpose of the Facilities Master Plan is to lay out how the City’s WWTP would be upgraded and expanded in the coming years to meet the City’s anticipated wastewater treatment demands through 2030. The specific project objectives are to:

Meet the City’s anticipated wastewater treatment demands through 2030, consistent with the City’s adopted General Plan;

Improve the WWTP’s ability to meet current and anticipated regulatory requirements; and

Improve the WWTP’s treatment reliability and operating efficiency.

The Facilities Master Plan would attain these project objectives by adding structures and equipment to improve treatment and capacity, along with related piping and electrical systems. Some existing buildings would also be expanded. Many improvements would be located within the approximately 17‐acre disturbed footprint of the existing treatment processes and supporting infrastructure; however, construction activities could result in disturbance of up to 35 acres to the south and west of the existing treatment process area, as shown in Exhibit 3. This area represents the potential area of disturbance; actual disturbance would likely be much less. In addition, facilities at the effluent reservoir would likely be upgraded, including: the effluent flow meter, which is located immediately adjacent to the northern boundary of the effluent reservoir, would need to be replaced with a larger unit; the existing pumps would be replaced; and an existing pipe and step aerator would be retired and/or removed. No improvements outside of the City’s 298‐acre property are anticipated.

Based on the City’s 2010 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan, capacity of the WWTP would be increased to approximately 6.0 mgd to accommodate General Plan‐projected population growth. The flow projection will be reviewed and updated in the Facilities Master Plan. The General Plan projects that the City will grow from approximately 24,000 in 20101 to 51,291 in 20302.

The first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements, is described below.

1 U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County QuickFacts. <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0628112.html>. 2 City of Galt. 2009 (April). 2030 Galt General Plan Policy Document Final. Galt, CA. <http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=913>.



Source: Data provided by Sacramento County and West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout



Phase I Immediate Improvements The purpose of the Phase I Immediate Improvements is to meet the effluent limitations for ammonia, nitrate, and arsenic in the City’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) for operating the WWTP, referred to as the NPDES Permit for purposes of this document, which was renewed by the Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB) in September 2010 (NPDES No. CA0081434, WDRs Order No. R5‐2010‐0099). The NPDES permit and a related Time Schedule Order (Order No. R5‐2010‐0100‐01) require that the new effluent limits be met no later than September 2015. The Phase I Immediate Improvements include the following components:

Additional Ammonia and Nitrate Removal Capacity––The WWTP’s oxidation ditches are capable of removing adequate ammonia and nitrogen at the current flow rate because the treatment process was designed for higher flows and therefore currently has extra volume within which ammonia and nitrate treatment can occur, even though this was not the intent of the original design. However, as flow increases, it will become increasingly difficult to maintain adequate treatment of ammonia and nitrate. Eventually, the existing system will not have enough treatment volume and/or aeration capacity to maintain ammonia and nitrate treatment. The City is considering a variety of options to increase aeration capacity and provide additional volume for ammonia and nitrate removal. Options being considered include increasing the horsepower of the existing aerators; adding aerators; constructing baffle walls within the existing basins; constructing an attached basin to provide an additional volume; or constructing a stand‐alone basin near the oxidation ditches with piping to the existing structures. Additionally, the City is considering an option of using an entirely different treatment process such as conventional activated sludge treatment in newly constructed basins.

Increased Arsenic Removal––The WWTP currently employs secondary sedimentation and tertiary filtration, which are capable of removing some arsenic, primarily in particulate form, for disposal with the biosolids. However, depending on the influent concentration and form of arsenic, the existing system may or may not remove sufficient arsenic to meet permit limits. The City is considering a variety of options for removing additional arsenic from the WWTP effluent, including adding polymer before the secondary settling and tertiary filtration; precipitating the arsenic using chemicals; capturing the arsenic at existing groundwater wellhead treatment systems; or limiting the use of groundwater wells with higher arsenic concentrations to control the maximum arsenic loads at the WWTP.

Control Building Laboratory––The existing WWTP laboratory is outdated and aging. An up‐to‐date laboratory would be constructed as an expansion to the existing Control Building.

POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

The focused EIR will describe the direct and indirect potentially significant and significant environmental impacts of the proposed project. The EIR also will evaluate the cumulative impacts of the project when considered in conjunction with other related past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects.

CEQA allows lead agencies to use an initial study to focus the scope of the EIR on only those environmental issues for which a proposed project could result in a substantial adverse effect. Based on the results of the initial study prepared for the proposed project (and attached to this NOP or available on the City’s website listed below), the City has determined that the EIR will focus on the following environmental issue areas:

Agricultural Resources: Conversion of Important Farmland to non‐agricultural use.

Air Quality: Increases in air pollutant emissions associated with project construction and operation (including stationary and mobile‐source emissions); and exposure of sensitive receptors to objectionable odors.



Biological Resources: Potential disturbance of special‐status terrestrial species; potential water quality and sedimentation effects on downstream fish resources; potential disturbance or permanent loss of shaded riverine aquatic habitat; potential impacts to habitat/instream flow relationships due to project‐related changes in hydrology; potential changes to instream temperature conditions; exposure of aquatic resources to chemicals in wastewater effluent; and potential effects on fish migration.

Cultural Resources: Temporary and/or permanent disturbance of known and unknown archaeological resources.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions: Generation of greenhouse gas emissions (including stationary and mobile‐source emissions) during project construction and operation.

Hydrology and Water Quality: Changes in channel flow patterns and associated effects on flooding hazards; hydrologic effects associated with hydrological changes in project reaches and downstream water bodies (i.e., the lower Mokelumne River and Sacramento‐San Joaquin River Delta estuary); potential effects on increased effluent discharge rates and projected future effluent quality; and changes in recycled water activities on groundwater resources.

These issue areas will be discussed further in the EIR, and feasible and practicable mitigation measures will be recommended to reduce any identified potentially significant and significant impacts.

ALTERNATIVES TO BE EVALUATED IN THE EIR

In accordance with the State CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15126.6), the EIR will describe a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed project that are capable of meeting most of the projects’ objectives, but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. The EIR will also identify any alternatives that were considered but rejected by the lead agency as infeasible and briefly explain the reasons why. The EIR will also provide an analysis of the No‐Project Alternative.

DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE FOR PUBLIC REVIEW

The NOP and Initial Study are available for public review at the following locations:

City of Galt, City Clerk Marion O. Lawrence Public Library 380 Civic Drive 1000 Caroline Avenue Galt, CA 95632 Galt, CA 95632 Monday ‐ Thursday Tuesday ‐ Saturday

The NOP and Initial Study are also available for public review online at: http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/index.aspx?page=783.

PROVIDING COMMENTS

Interested individuals, groups, and agencies may provide the City with written comments on topics to be addressed in the EIR for the project. Because of time limits mandated by State law, comments should be provided no later than 5:00 PM on June 18, 2012. Please send all comments to:

Sandra Kiriu, Principal Planner City of Galt Planning Department

495 Industrial Drive Galt, CA 95632

Telephone: (209) 366‐7230 Fax: (209) 744‐1642 Email: [email protected]



Agencies that will need to use the EIR when considering permits or other approvals for the proposed project should provide the name of a contact person. Comments provided by email should include “WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP Scoping Comment” in the subject line, and the name and physical address of the commenter in the body of the email.

All comments on environmental issues received during the public comment period will be considered and addressed in the draft EIR, which is anticipated to be available for public review in summer 2012.

PUBLIC SCOPING MEETING

A public scoping meeting will be held by the City to inform interested parties about the proposed project, and to provide agencies and the public with an opportunity to provide comments on the scope and content of the EIR. The meeting time and location are as follows:

Monday June 4, 2012 4:00 PM – 7:00 PM

Anthony Pescetti Community Room Galt Police Department 455 industrial Drive Galt, CA 95632

The meeting space is accessible to persons with disabilities. Individuals needing special assistive devices will be accommodated to the City’s best ability. For more information, please contact Sandra Kiriu (at the contact information above) at least 48 hours before the meeting.

CW

S

A

11111

22222222

33333333333333333333

4

5

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Ma

Section

ACRONYMS A

1 INTRO 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

2 PROJE 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7

3 INITIA 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19

4 REFER

5 LIST O

aster Plan and Ph

AND ABBREV

ODUCTION ...RegulatroyPurpose ofSummary oDocument

ECT DESCRIPTProject LocProject PuExisting FaProject ChOperation Project CoPotential P

AL STUDY ENVAestheticsAgricultureAir QualityBiological Cultural ReGeology anGreenhousHazards anHydrologyStormwateLand Use aMineral ReNoise .......PopulationPublic ServRecreationTransportaUtilities anMandatory

RENCES ........

OF PREPARER

ase I Immediate Im

T

IATIONS .......

....................y Guidance ...f this Documeof Findings ...t Organization

TION ............cation ...........rpose and Obacilities ..........aracteristics .and Maintennstruction ....Permits and A

VIRONMENTs ....................e and Forest y ....................Resources ....esources .......nd Soils ........se Gas Emissind Hazardous and Water Qer Quality .....and Planning esources ............................n and Housingvices .............n ...................ation/Traffic .nd Service Sysy Findings of

....................

RS .................

mprovements NOP

TABLE O

....................

....................

.....................ent .....................................n ...................

....................

.....................bjectives .................................................nance .................................Approvals Req

AL CHECKLIST.....................Resources ........................................................................................ions ..............s Materials ....Quality ...............................................................................................g ..................................................................................stems ............Significance .

....................

....................

P/IS

OF CONT

....................

............................................................................................................

........................................................................................................................................................quired ...........

T ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

....................

....................

TENTS

....................

........................................................................................................

.......................................................................................................................................................................

...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

....................

....................

....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

.....................

....................

....................

....................

....................

......................

......................

......................

......................

....................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

....................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

......................

....................

....................

i

Page

........... III

......... 1‐1 .......... 1‐1 .......... 1‐1 .......... 1‐2 .......... 1‐3

......... 2‐1 .......... 2‐1 .......... 2‐1 .......... 2‐4 .......... 2‐4 .......... 2‐9 .......... 2‐9 ........ 2‐10

......... 3‐1 .......... 3‐4 .......... 3‐6 ........ 3‐10 ........ 3‐14 ........ 3‐18 ........ 3‐20 ........ 3‐24 ........ 3‐26 ........ 3‐30 ........ 3‐37 ........ 3‐39 ........ 3‐40 ........ 3‐41 ........ 3‐47 ........ 3‐49 ........ 3‐51 ........ 3‐52 ........ 3‐56 ........ 3‐59

......... 4‐1

......... 5‐1

Table of Contents Ascent Environmental

City of Galt ii WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS

Exhibits

Exhibit 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................. 2

Exhibit 2 Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 3

Exhibit 3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout .............................. 5

Exhibit 2‐1 Regional Location ......................................................................................................................... 2‐2

Exhibit 2‐2 Project Location ............................................................................................................................ 2‐3

Exhibit 2‐3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout .......................... 2‐5

Exhibit 2‐4 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Modification of Existing Pump Stations and Outfall ............ 2‐6

Exhibit 3‐1 Potential Disturbance of Farmland .............................................................................................. 3‐8

Exhibit 3‐2 Floodplain Map ........................................................................................................................... 3‐33

Tables

Table 2‐1 City of Galt WWTP Design Parameters......................................................................................... 2‐7

Table 3‐1 Non‐Transportation Noise Standards Median (L50)/Maximum (Lmax) ....................................... 3‐42

Table 3‐2 Typical Reference Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment .................................. 3‐44

Table 3‐3 Representative Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment .......... 3‐45

Table 3‐4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations ............................................................................... 3‐53

Table 3‐5 Average Daily Traffic Counts in the Project Vicinity ................................................................... 3‐53

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS iii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AB Assembly Bill

ADWF average dry weather flow

AQAP air quality plan

ARB California Air Resources Board

Basin Sacramento Valley Air Basin

BOD biochemical oxygen demand

CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards

Cal‐OSHA California Occupational Health and Safety Administration

Caltrans California Department of Transportation

cfs cubic feet per second

CBC California Building Code

CCR California Code of Regulations

CCSD Cosumnes Community Services District

CDC California Department of Conservation

Central Valley RWQCB Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board

CEQA California Environmental Quality Act

CHP California Highway Patrol

City City of Galt

CO carbon monoxide

CO2 carbon dioxide

CWA Clean Water Act

CWRS California Waste Recovery Systems

dB decibels

diesel PM diesel particulate matter exhaust

DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control

EFH Essential Fish Habitat

EIR environmental impact report

ESA Endangered Species Act

ESU Evolutionarily Significant Unit

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FHWA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration

FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program

Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent Environmental

City of Galt iv WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS

FTA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration

GHGs greenhouse gases

HCP habitat conservation plan

in/sec inches per second

Lmax maximum sound level

Lxx percentile‐exceeded sound level

mgd million gallons per day

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards

NO2 nitrogen dioxide

NOP notice of preparation

NOx oxides of nitrogen

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System

O3 ozone

Pb lead

PM10 inhalable particulate matter

PM2.5 fine particulate matter

PRC Public Resources Code

proposed project City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project

RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act

ROG reactive organic gases

SB Senate Bill

SMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District

SO2 sulfur dioxide

SR State Route

SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan

SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board

TAC toxic air contaminant

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load

TSS total suspended solids

Ascent Environmental Acronyms and Abbreviations

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS v

UBC Uniform Building Code

UPR Union Pacific Railroad

U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

VdB vibration decibels

WWTP Wastewater Treatment Plant

Acronyms and Abbreviations Ascent Environmental

City of Galt vi WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS

This page intentionally blank.

CW

1

TQCWp

AedSa

Ae

1

T

TIap

As


R1.1

This Initial StuQuality Act (CCode of ReguWastewater Tproject) locate

An Initial Studenvironment document (anState CEQA Ga lead agency

After completeffect on the

P1.2

The purposes

Provide thNegative

Assist in t

Focus

Identi

Expla

Facilitate 15063[c])

The notice of nterested indaddressed in tprovided no la

Agencies thatshould provid

aster Plan and Ph

REGULAT

udy has been CEQA) (Public lations [CCR] Treatment Plaed in Galt, Ca

dy is prepared(State CEQA Gn environmenuidelines (14 , that a proje

ting the Initiaenvironment

PURPOS

of this Initial

he lead agencDeclaration;

he preparatio

sing the EIR o

ifying the effe

ining the reas

environment

preparation (dividuals, grouthe EIR for thater than 5:00

will need to e the name o

ase I Immediate Im

1

TROY G

prepared by Resources Co§ 15000 et seant Facilities Malifornia.

d by a lead agGuidelines 14ntal impact reCCR § 15064ct may have

l Study, the C and, thus, w

SE OF TH

Study are to

cy with inform

on of an EIR, i

n the effects

ects determin

sons for dete

tal assessmen

(NOP) and Iniups, and agene project. Be0 PM on June

Telepho

use the EIR wof a contact p

mprovements NOP

1 INT

UIDANC

the City of Gaode [PRC] § 2eq.) to evaluaMaster Plan a

gency to dete4 CCR § 15063eport (EIR) or 4[a][1]), if thea significant e

City has deterill prepare an

HIS DOC

:

mation to use

if one is requ

determined t

ned not to be

rmining that

nt early in the

itial Study arencies may procause of timee 18, 2012. Pl

Sandra KiriCity of Galt P

495 InGal

one: (209) 36Email: sk

when consideperson. Comm

P/IS

TRODUC

CE

alt (City) in ac1000 et seq.)ate the potenand Phase I Im

rmine if a pro3[a]) and thusa negative dere is substanteffect on the

mined that thn EIR.

CUMENT

e as the basis

ired, by:

to be significa

significant, a

potentially si

e design of a p

e being madeovide the Citye limits mandease send all

u, Principal PPlanning Depndustrial Drivlt, CA 9563266‐7230 Fax:[email protected]

ring permits oments provide

CTION

ccordance wi) and the Stattial environmmmediate Im

oject may havs to determineclaration) totial evidence,environment

he proposed

for deciding w

ant,

and

gnificant effe

project. (State

e available fory with writtenated by State comments to

Planner artment ve

: (209) 744‐16ca.us

or other appred by email sh

th the Califorte CEQA Guidmental effectsprovements P

ve a significanne the appropo prepare. In a, in light of tht, the agency

project may

whether to p

ects would no

e CEQA Guide

r public reviewn comments oe law, commeo:

642

rovals for thehould include

rnia Environmdelines (14 Cas of the City oProject (prop

nt effect on thpriate environaccordance we whole recoshall prepare

have a signifi

repare an EIR

ot be significa

elines 14 CCR

w and commeon topics to bents should b

e proposed pre “WWTP Fac

1-1

mental lifornia of Galt posed

he nmental with the ord before e an EIR.

cant

R or

ant.

R §

ent. be e

roject ilities

In

1

Mn

Aa2D

T

Th

Aa

1

Bdt

P

Tri

ntroduction

1-2

Master Plan aname and phy

Additionally, tagencies and 2012 from 4:0Drive Galt, CA

The NOP and

The NOP and http://www.c

All commentsaddressed in t

S1.3

Based on the document, it wthan‐significa

Aesth

Geolo

Hazar

Land

Miner

Noise

Potentially sig

Agricu

Air Qu

Biolog

These issue arrecommendenclude analys

and Phase I Imysical address

the City is holto hear input00 PM – 7:00 A 95632.

Initial Study a

City of Gal380 Civic DGalt, CA 95Monday ‐ T

Initial Study aci.galt.ca.us/in

s on environmthe draft EIR,

SUMMAR

environmentwas determinnt impacts to

hetics

ogy and Soils

rds and Hazar

Use and Plan

ral Resources

e

gnificant impa

ultural Resou

uality

gical Resourc

reas will be dd to reduce asis of the pro

mmediate Imps of the comm

lding a scopint regarding thPM at the An

are available

t, City Clerk Drive 5632 Thursday

are also availandex.aspx?pa

mental issues which is anti

RY OF F

tal resources ned that implo the followin

rdous Materia

ning

s

acts were ide

rces

es

iscussed furthany identifiedposed project

provements Pmenter in the

ng meeting tohe scope of thnthony Pescet

for public rev

able for publiage=783.

received duriicipated to be

INDINGS

evaluated anementation og environmen

als

ntified for the

her in the EIR potentially st’s potential c

WWTP Facilities M

Project NOP S body of the e

o present projhe EIR. The sctti Communit

view at the fo

Marion O1000 CarGalt, CA Tuesday

ic review onli

ing the publice available fo

S

d the supporof the proposntal issue are

e following e

R, and feasibleignificant andcumulative an

Master Plan and P

Scoping Commemail.

ject informatoping meetinty Room, Galt

ollowing locat

O. Lawrence Proline Avenue95632 ‐ Saturday

ine at:

c comment per public revie

rting environmsed project weas:

Population a

Public Servic

Recreation

Transportati

Utilities and

nvironmenta

Cultural Res

Greenhouse

Hydrology a

e and practicad significant ind growth‐in

Phase I Immediate

ment” in the s

tion to the pung will be heldt Police Depa

tions:

Public Librarye

eriod will be ew in summer

mental analysould result in

and Housing

ces

ion/Traffic

Service Syste

l issue areas:

ources

e Gas Emissio

nd Water Qu

able mitigatiompacts. Addiducing effect

Ascent E

e Improvements Pr

subject line, a

ublic and appld on Mondayrtment, 455 i

y

considered ar 2012.

sis provided in no impacts o

ems

ns

uality

on measures itionally, the ts.

Environmental

City of Galt roject NOP/IS

and the

icable y June 4, industrial

nd

n this or less‐

will be EIR will

A

CW

1

T

Cc

Cdt

Cie

C

C

Ascent Environmen


D1.4

This documen

Chapter 1, “Incomment, des

Chapter 2, “Pdescription ofthe proposed

Chapter 3, “Inmpacts that menvironmenta

Chapter 4, “R

Chapter 5, “Li

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

DOCUME

nt is organized

ntroduction,”scribes the or

roject Descrif the proposeproject is als

nitial Study Emay result froal issue.

eferences,” l

ist of Prepare

ase I Immediate Im

ENT ORG

d as follows:

” describes thrganization of

ption,” descred project. A lso included.

nvironmentaom construct

ists the refer

ers,” identifie

mprovements Proj

GANIZAT

he purpose off this docume

ribes the projist of potenti

al Checklist,”ion and opera

ences used in

es the prepare

ject NOP/IS

TION

f this documeent, and summ

ect purpose aal permits an

provides an eation of the p

n preparation

ers of this doc

ent, provides dmarizes the d

and objectivend agency app

environmentaproposed proj

n of this docum

cument.

details regarddocument’s fi

es, and providprovals that m

al setting andject. This cha

ment.

ding public rendings.

des a detailedmay be requir

d evaluates a apter is organ

Introduction

1-3

eview and

d red for

range of ized by

Introduction Ascent Environmental

City of Galt 1-4 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS


CW

TtCpIra

2

TacmSaoala

TCMMp

2

Ttp

TaRwSSS


The proposedto continue imCity’s 2030 Geprogram levelmprovementreviewed to dapproval.

P2.1

The proposedapproximatelycenter. The Wmile north of State Route (Sagricultural laother approveare 148‐0010‐and in uninco

The WWTP diCosumnes RivMokelumne RMay through purposes, as n

P2.2

The purpose othe coming yeproject object

Meet the anticipate

Improve t

Improve t

The purpose oand arsenic inRequirementswhich was renSeptember 20Schedule OrdSeptember 20

aster Plan and Ph

d project is thmproving the eneral Plan. Tl, and will evats, at a more ddetermine if t

PROJECT

d project wouy 298‐acres s

WWTP encomTwin Cities RSR) 99 (Exhibind, a 5‐acre sed law enforc‐046, 148‐001orporated Sac

scharges to aver watershedRiver, and ultiOctober, WWneeded.

PROJECT

of the Facilitieears to meet ttives are to:

City’s anticiped in the City’

the WWTP’s a

the WWTP’s t

of the Phase In the City’s Nas (WDRs) for onewed by the010 (NPDES Ner (Order No.015.

ase I Immediate Im

2

e City of Galt quality of treThe EIR will evaluate the firsdetailed, projhey are withi

T LOCAT

ld be locatedurrounded bypasses approoad, adjacentits 2‐1 and 2‐solar facility, cement agenc10‐053, and 1cramento Cou

a remnant chad. Skunk Creemately the Sa

WTP also relea

T PURPO

es Master Plathe City’s ant

pated wastew’s adopted Ge

ability to mee

treatment rel

I Immediate Iational Pollutoperating thee Central ValleNo. CA008143. R5‐2010‐010

mprovements NOP

PROJEC

(City) Wasteeated wastewvaluate the enst phase of thject level. Subn the scope o

TION

at the City’s y unincorporaximately 17 at to the Union2). The remaiand a privatecies in the pro148‐0010‐054unty.

annel of Skunek is a tributaacramento‐Saases treated e

OSE AND

an is to defineticipated wast

water treatmeeneral Plan;

et current and

iability and o

mprovementant Dischargee WWTP, refeey Regional W34, WDRs Ord00‐01) requir

P/IS

CT DESC

water Treatmwater and to environmentahe Facilities Mbsequent phaof the program

existing WWated Sacrameacres at 1005n Pacific Railrinder of the Ce gun range thoperty’s north4. The proper

nk Creek, a wary to Laguna an Joaquin Rieffluent on Ci

D OBJEC

e how the Citytewater treat

ent demands t

d anticipated

operating effic

ts is to meet te Elimination erred to as thWater Qualityder No. R5‐20e that the ne

CRIPTIO

ment Plant (Wexpand the Wl effects of th

Master Plan, thases of the Fam EIR, or if ad

WTP, which is aento County,9 Twin Cities road mainlineCity’s 298‐acrhat is used byhwest cornerty is surround

ater of the UnCreek, whichiver Delta. Duity‐owned ag

CTIVES

y’s WWTP witment deman

through 2030

regulatory re

ciency.

the effluent lSystem (NPDe NPDES Permy Control Boar10‐0099). Thew effluent lim

ON

WWTP) FacilitiWWTP’s capache Facilities Mhe Phase I Imcilities Mastedditional ana

an incorporatabout 4 milesRoad, and is e tracks, and re property coy the City’s por. The Assessoded by predo

nited States w flows to the uring the irriggricultural lan

ll be upgradends through 2

0, consistent w

equirements;

imitations forDES) permit amit for purpord (Central Vae NPDES permmits be met n

ies Master Placity consistenMaster Plan atmmediate er Plan will belysis is neede

ted island locs north of thelocated abou2,200 feet weonsists of irrigolice departmor’s Parcel Nuominantly agr

within the LowCosumnes Riation season,d for irrigatio

ed and expand2030. The spe

with the grow

and

r ammonia, nnd Waste Disoses of this doalley RWQCBmit and a relano later than

2-1

an, a plan t with the t a

e ed prior to

ated on e City ut 0.5 est of gated ment and umbers icultural

wer iver, the , typically on

ded in ecific

wth

nitrate, scharge ocument, ) in ated Time

Project Description Ascent Environmental


Source: Prepared by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 2-1 Regional Location

Ascent Environmental Project Description

City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project NOP/IS 2-3


Exhibit 2-2 Project Location

P

2

2

Tacsst(plaaopayeT

2

2

Tma

2

Itie

IribEFaea

Nw

Project Description

2-4

E2.3

The existing Waverage dry wcompose the secondary clasystem; a filtetreatment andExhibit 2‐3). Aponds, land aaboratory buan average heoperation inclproduced as pagricultural fieyears, howeveeffluent, whicThe on‐site re

P2.4

2.4.1 D

Table 2‐1 presmaximum treand anticipate

2.4.2 F

n 2009, the Cthe year 2030mprovementexpansion of t

n general, earelated pipingnvolve increabe up to 35 acExhibit 2‐3. ThFurthermore, anticipated toeffluent reserand step aera

No increase inwould be repl

n

EXISTING

WWTP is a terweather flow existing WWTrifiers and a ser feed and utd storage lagoAppurtenant pplication areilding, and a eight of approludes the usepart of the Welds that are er, the City coch maximizedeservoir and p

PROJECT

DESIGN PA

sents the desatment capaced future effl

FACILITIES

City adopted a0. The Generats necessary tthe WWTP to

ch process arg and electricaasing the overcres to the sohis representsall proposed

o occur at thervoir, improvitor (Exhibit 2

n the acreagelaced with co

G FACIL

rtiary treatme(ADWF). The TP: headworksecondary slutility water puoons; biosolidfacilities incluea, a chemicasolar power goximately 10 fe of agriculturWTP operatiolocated immeontracted to h the reclamatponds are use

T CHARA

ARAMETER

ign parametecity based onuent limits.

MASTER P

an updated Gal Plan identifo obtain thato meet the Cit

rea of the WWal systems. Sorall footprint outh and wests the maximu expansion we effluent flowng pumping s2‐4).

e of irrigated anstructed fac

ITIES

ent facility wicurrent averaks with screenudge pump stump station;ds dewateringude a flow eqal building, a lgenerating arfeet and a maral fields (landon have histoediately adjachaul‐off biosotion area prioed to store tre

ACTERIS

RS

ers for the pro the permitte

PLAN

General Plan ties a need fot capacity. Thty’s anticipate

WTP would beome existing of the WWTPt (plus potentum area of diswould be withw meter, locatstations near

agricultural lacilities. There

WWTP Facilities M

th a permitteage day flow ning and grit tation; a tertiaan electrical, g facilities; twqualization baocal tertiary rray. The existaximum heighd application orically been dcent to the prolids to free uor to authorizeated effluen

STICS

oposed projeed ADWF, and

hat sets out ar increased We Facilities Med wastewate

e expanded bbuildings mayP; the maximutial modificatsturbance, anin the City’s 2ted immediatthe reservoir

ands is anticipis no plan to

Master Plan and P

ed capacity ofrate is 2.3 mgremoval facilary filtration control, and wo water wellasin, an efflueplant drainagting buildingsht of approxiarea) and a sdisposed of vroject site (Exup agriculturazation for yeant when neces

ect, which ared the current

a long‐term vWWTP capacitMaster Plan woer treatment

by adding struy also be expum area of ditions to existind actual dist298‐acre proptely adjacent r, and retiring

pated. In fact,purchase or

Phase I Immediate

f 3.0 million ggd. The followlities; two oxisystem; an uoperations bls; and additioent storage rege pump statis within the Wmately 20 feestorage reservia land applicxhibit 2‐2).Foal fields for irrr round dischssary.

e the current a2010 NPDES

vision for the ty, but does nould describedemands thr

uctures and epanded. This eisturbance fong storage pourbance wouperty, includito the northeg and/or remo

, some areas lease additio

Ascent E

e Improvements Pr

gallons per dawing facilitiesidation ditcheltraviolet disibuilding; sludgonal infrastrueservoir and tion, an officeWWTP footpret. The WWTvoir. Biosolidscation on Cityr the past sevrigation with harge to Lagu

and future (2permit efflue

City’s growthnot describe te the proposerough 2030.

equipment, alexpansion wor the expansionds), as showuld likely be mng improvemern boundaryoving an exist

currently farnal agricultur

Environmental


ay (mgd) s es; two nfection ge ucture three e and int have P’s s y‐owned veral WWTP na Creek.

030) ent limits

h through the ed

ong with ould ion would wn in much less. ments y of the ting pipe

med ral lands.


City of Galt WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS 2-5

Source: Data provided by Sacramento County and West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 2-3 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Maximum Area of Disturbance for Buildout




Exhibit 2-4 Proposed Facilities Master Plan – Modification of Existing Pump Stations and Outfall



Table 2-1 City of Galt WWTP Design Parameters

Parameter Current

(2010 NPDES Permit Effluent Limits) General Plan Buildout

(2030)

Average Dry Weather Flow (ADWF) 3.0 mgd To be determined (approximately 6.0 mgd)

Influent biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) (average)

To be determined To be determined

Influent total suspended solids (TSS) (average)

To be determined To be determined

Monthly Average Effluent Limits (Selected Parameters) a

BOD 10 mg/L 10 mg/L

TSS 10 mg/L 10 mg/L

Ammonia 1.7 mg/L(effective September 2015)

1.7 mg/L

Arsenic 10 mg/L(effective September 2015)

10 mg/L

Copper 3.1 µg/L(effective September 2015)

3.1 µg/L

Lead 0.6 µg/L 0.6 µg/L

Nitrate plus Nitrite (total) (as N) 10 mg/L 10 mg/L

Total coliform organisms 2.2 most probable number per 100 mL (as a 7‐day median)

2.2 most probable number per 100 mL (as a 7‐day median)

Annual Average Effluent Limits

Aluminum (total recoverable) 200 µg/L 200 µg/L

Iron (total recoverable) 300 µg/L 300 µg/L

Manganese (total recoverable) 50 µg/L 50 µg/L

Annual Mass Load

Mercury (total) 0.05 lbs/year(interim limitation) b

b

Notes: a Additional limitations are defined in Order No. R5-2010-0099, Waste Discharge Requirements for the City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plan and

Reclamation Facility, Sacramento County (NPDES No. CA0081434); Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Valley RWQCB). b The interim limitation for mercury is in effect until the Central Valley RWQCB establishes final effluent limitations after adoption of a

Methylmercury Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for the Cosumnes River. Source: Data provided by West Yost in 2012

The Facilities Master Plan is anticipated to include the following phasing:

Phase 1: Phase I Immediate Improvements

Phase 2: Expansion to 4.5 mgd ADWF capacity

Phase 3: Expansion to General Plan buildout capacity

The first phase of the Facilities Master Plan, the Phase I Immediate Improvements, is described in more detail below.



2.4.3 PHASE I IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS

The existing WWTP is capable of ammonia removal (nitrification) and nitrate removal (denitrification) while operating below its original design capacity of 3.0 mgd. However, as the City’s population increases, flows to the WWTP will increase and the WWTP will no longer be able to reliably meet the ammonia and nitrogen limits imposed by the 2010 NPDES permit because the original design did not incorporate such requirements. In addition, the 2010 NPDES permit introduces a limit on arsenic that the WWTP has historically not been able to meet consistently.

ADDITIONAL AMMONIA AND NITRATE REMOVAL CAPACITY

The existing WWTP oxidation ditches are capable of removing adequate ammonia (to meet the permitted effluent limit for ammonia [1.7 mg/L]) at the current flow rate of approximately 2.3 mgd because the treatment process was designed for higher flows and therefore currently has extra volume within which ammonia and nitrate treatment can occur, even though this was not the intent of the original design. However, as flow increases, additional aeration capacity will be needed to remove sufficient ammonia to meet the 1.7 mg/L limit. A variety of measures are being considered to increase aeration capacity, including increasing the horsepower of the existing aerators and/or adding aerators.

Nitrogen removal also routinely occurs at the current flow rate of approximately 2.3 mgd due to the presence of low oxygen zones within the oxidation ditches. As aeration capacity is increased to improve ammonia removal, the ability to maintain low oxygen zones in the existing ditches is reduced, effectively reducing the ability to remove nitrogen. Therefore, modifications to the oxidation ditches will be needed. Such modifications may include construction of baffle walls within the existing basins to create zones isolated from the aerators which would enhance nitrate removal; construction of an attached basin providing an additional low oxygen volume; or construction of a stand‐alone basin near the oxidation ditches with piping to the existing structures. The most substantial potential modification would be construction of a new (third) oxidation ditch adjacent to the existing ditches, which would also require construction of a new (third) secondary clarifier. Additionally, the City is considering an option of using an entirely different treatment process such as conventional activated sludge treatment in newly constructed basins.

INCREASED ARSENIC REMOVAL

Arsenic entering the wastewater collection system originates in groundwater that serves as the City of Galt’s water supply. Some arsenic is separated from the water delivered to the City at individual wells through wellhead treatment systems. Backwash water from the treatment systems containing the separated arsenic is discharged to the wastewater collection system. In addition, a portion of the treated potable water, which contains lower concentration of arsenic due to the wellhead treatment systems, reaches the wastewater collection system via domestic and industrial drains. Upon reaching the WWTP, some of the arsenic is dissolved and some is in particulate form.

The WWTP currently employs secondary sedimentation and tertiary filtration, which are capable of removing some arsenic (primarily in particulate form) for disposal with the biosolids. However, depending on the influent concentration and form of arsenic, the existing system may or may not remove sufficient arsenic to meet new permit limits.

A

CW

Tt

C

TfB

2

TWp

Oe

2

Cewwct

Ascent Environmen


The City is conthe following:

Settling aprior to thtreatmenttherefore

Chemical wellhead Precipitatand filtrat

Wellheadthe currendelivered required tmay be pohaul the aCity‐owneoccur whedewatere

Groundwmaximumflexibility produces groundwa

CONTROL

The existing Wfunctions. OthBuilding expa

O2.5

The upgradedWWTP. Routiperiodically o

Operation of texpanded com

P2.6

Construction expected to eworkers per mwith the possconstruction‐trips per day a

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

nsidering a va:

nd Filtration he secondary t. Polymer ad, no construc

Precipitationtreatment sitted arsenic cotion facilities.

d Capture––Innt practice), tto a land dispto haul the reossible to usearsenic sludgeed agriculturaen drying bedd sludge wou

water Managem arsenic loadover which wlower arsenicater with elev

BUILDING

WWTP Controher existing bnsion would n

OPERAT

d and expandene maintenanr annually de

the expandedmponents of t

PROJECT

activities for end by mid‐20month and woibility of workrelated trips iand an averag

ase I Immediate Im

ariety of optio

with Polymesettling and

ddition equipmction would b

n––Arsenic cates. A new chould be remov

nstead of discthe backwashposal facility.esiduals depee drying beds e to a suitableal lands in conds at the WWuld be hauled

ement––It mads at the WWTwells are operc concentrativated arsenic

G LABORAT

ol Building wouildings wounot substanti

ION AND

ed WWTP is ence would ocpending on t

d WWTP wouthe WWTP.

T CONST

the Phase I Im015. Construcould take plack between 7:0is expected toge of 5 trips p

mprovements NOP

ons for remov

er Addition––tertiary filtratment is alreade necessary t

an be precipitemical feed sved either at

charging the bh could be dew It is anticipatnding on the at the WWTPe landfill, or tnjunction with

WTP are used t from the we

ay be possibleTP. Some werated. Some Cons. It may alevels.

TORY

ould be expanld be convertally increase

D MAINT

expected havcur for all newhe specific fa

uld require up

TRUCTIO

mmediate Imction activitiesce primarily b00 AM and 8:o be approximper day.

P/IS

ving additiona

–Anecdotal evtion can enhady installed ato implement

tated using fesystem and rethe existing t

backwash watwatered onsited that up tonumber of wP to dewater o blend it with biosolids reto dewater thells to the WW

e to manage tlls produce mCity wells drawlso be feasibl

nded (on its eted or upgradits current he

TENANC

e the same ow and expandcility.

p to 5 addition

ON

provements ws would requbetween the h:00 PM Saturdmately 2,000,

al arsenic fro

vidence suggeance arsenic rat the WWTP,t this option.

erric chloride,eaction vessetertiary filters

ter to the wate at the welo eight (8) truwells involvedthe wellheadth biosolids aeuse. Up to 20he wellhead tWTP in this se

the City’s gromore arsenic tw from a deele to deepen

east side) to aded within theeight.

CE

operating houded facilities.

nal employee

would likely cire the utilizahours of 7:00day and Sund, with a maxim

m the WWTP

ests that the removal and , but is not ro

, similar to thels would be rs, or through

astewater colllhead, collectuck trips per m (ECO:LOGIC d treatment bt the WWTP 0 truck trips preatment baccond case.

oundwater wethan others aeper aquifer texisting wells

ccommodateeir existing fo

urs and work s. Maintenanc

es to operate

commence ination of appro0 AM and 4:00day. The totalmum of appro

Notice o

P effluent, inc

addition of pmay be sufficoutinely used;

e process userequired at thnew, separat

lection systemted by truck, month would2008). Alternbackwash watand apply it tper month wockwash water

ells to controlnd the City hthan others, ws to avoid

e additional stootprint. The

shifts as the ee would occu

the new and

n late‐2013 anoximately 15–0 PM on weel number of oximately 20

of Preparation

2-9

cluding

olymer cient ;

ed at the he WWTP. te settling

m (as is and d be natively, it ter and to the ould r – un‐

l the as some which

taff and Control

existing ur

nd are –25 kdays,

truck

P

2

Cpawmsdpqa

2

SCp

F

S

Project Description

2-10

Construction primarily takeactivities occuwould be necmean sea levesoil generateddetermined bpavement as tquantified. Alagricultural ir

P2.7

Several agencCEQA, the Cityproject should

FEDERAL

National

U.S. Armyto Waters

U.S. Fish a U.S. Envir

connectio

STATE

CaliforniaFish and GFish and G

CaliforniaPreservatwould inv

Central VdisturbanSection 40

State Watas amendoffers lowby the U.Sadministrprojects benvironmConformit

n

activities for e place in prevurring in farmessary becauel. Excavationd during consy the projectthe WWTP is l site runoff frigation in th

POTENTI

cies will be invy of Galt is red be approve

Marine Fishe

y Corps of Ens of the U.S. o

and Wildlife Sronmental Pron with Specia

a DepartmentGame Code ifGame Code if

a State Officeion Act. This volve federal f

alley Regionace of more th01, water qua

ter Resourceed in 1987, e

w interest finaS. EPA, and ination of the Sbeing consideental protectty), and the N

the Phase I Imviously distur

med fields immse the site is n would be retruction activ’s contractormodified androm impervioe reuse area.

IAL PER

volved in the esponsible ford. Other pote

eries Service:

gineers: Comoccurs.

Service: Comrotection Ageal Appropriat

t of Fish and f take of listedf any streamb

of Historic Pis a delegatedfunding.

al Water Quahan 1 acre, diality certificat

s Control Boaestablished thancing agreemn certain instaSRF program red under thetion laws, notNational Histo

mmediate Imrbed soils witmediately adjaflat with elevquired for sevities would b. Impervious d expanded. Tous areas wou

RMITS AN

consideratior considering ential permits

Compliance w

mpliance with

mpliance with ency: Compliaion Grant fun

Game: Potend species is likbed alteration

Preservation: d authority of

ality Control Bscharge permtion.

ard: The Fedehe Clean Watements for watances the admhas been delee SRF programtably the fedeoric Preservat

WWTP Facilities M

provements, hin the WWTacent to the cvations ranginveral structurbe disposed oarea would bThe specific auld be contai

ND APP

n of proposedthe adequacys could includ

with Section 7

Section 404 o

Section 7 of tance with thending.

ntial permits ukely to occur,n would occur

Compliance wf the federal g

Board: NPDESmit for stormw

eral Water Poer State Revoter quality proministration hegated to them must comperal ESA (Secttion Act (NHP

Master Plan and P

including plaTP footprint, wcurrently fencng from approres constructof either onsitbe added in thamount of imned within th

PROVALS

d project elemy of the EIR, ade:

7 of the Fede

of the Clean W

the Federal Ee National Env

under the Cal as well as cor.

with Section government

S constructionwater, genera

ollution Controlving Fund (Sojects. The prhas been delee SWRCB. In tply with CEQAtion 7), the fePA) (Section 1

Phase I Immediate

acement of stwith the possced area. Reloximately 38 ted under thiste or at an aphe form of strpervious areahe WWTP and

S REQUI

ments. As theand determin

eral Endanger

Water Act (CW

SA. vironmental P

lifornia ESA Sompliance wit

106 of the Naand pertains

n stormwateral order for de

rol Act (Clean SRF) program.rogram is admegated to the turn, the SWRA and certain ederal Clean A106).

Ascent E

e Improvements Pr

taging areas, wsibility of somatively little gto 50 feet abs project. Anypropriate facructures and a has not yet d treated or u

IRED

e lead agencyning if the ove

red Species A

WA) if discha

Policy Act in

ection 2081 oth Section 16

ational Historto any projec

r permit for ewatering, an

Water Act or. The SRF proministered, nastates. In CalRCB requires tfederal Air Act (Gener

Environmental


would me grading bove y excess cility to be

been used for

y under erall

ct (ESA).

rge of fill

of the 00 of the

ric ct that

nd CWA

r CWA), gram ationally, ifornia, that all

ral



REGIONAL AND LOCAL

City of Galt: Building structure permit for construction of new buildings; grading and drainage permit; paving permit; Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) approval; electrical and plumbing permits

Cosumnes Community Services District Fire Department: Above‐ground storage permit for the storage of diesel on the project site.

Sacramento County: Construction authorizations and encroachment permits

Sacramento County Department of Transportation: Repair of any road damage

Sacramento County Emergency Management District: Modification to the existing unified program consolidated permit, which covers all hazardous materials programs.

Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District: Authority to construct (for devices that emit air pollutants), permit to operate, and Air Quality Management Plan consistency determination.


3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST

PROJECT INFORMATION

1. Project Title: City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Facilities Master Planand Phase I Immediate Improvements Project

2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Galt Community Development Department 495 Industrial Drive, Galt, CA 95632

3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Sandra Kiriu, Principal Planner, (209) 366‐7230

4. Project Location: City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant 10059 Twin Cities Road, Galt, CA 95632

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Same as above

6. General Plan Designation: Public/Quasi‐Public

7. Zoning: Public/Quasi‐Public

8. Description of Project:

See Introduction and Project Description

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: (Briefly describe the project’s surroundings)


10: Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement)


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:

The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.

Aesthetics Agriculture and Forest Resources Air Quality

Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology / Soils

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards & Hazardous Materials Hydrology / Water Quality

Land Use / Planning Mineral Resources Noise

Population / Housing Public Services Recreation

Transportation / Traffic Utilities / Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance

None With Mitigation

Initial Study Environmental Checklist Ascent Environmental

City of Galt 3-2 WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements NOP/IS

Ascent Environmental Initial Study Environmental Checklist


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project‐specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project‐specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including onsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well asproject‐level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from “Earlier Analyses,” as described in (5) below, may be cross‐referenced).

5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site‐specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion.

8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected.

9. The explanation of each issue should identify:a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.

In

3

3

3

Atpi

TbPCtr

Dddt

3

a

Lst

Tsai

nitial Study Enviro

3-4

A3.1

I. Aesthetic

a) Have a

b) Substanot limbuildin

c) Substaquality

d) Createwhichin the

3.1.1 E

Aesthetic resoto the public’spresence woumpacts may o

The City’s WWby agriculturaPacific RailroaCities Road is the Sacramenresidences loc

Due to its lowdrivers on Twdominated bytowers. UPR t

3.1.2 D

a) Have

Less‐than‐Sigscenery or a rthat would be

The project sisite is not distand other struncludes expa

onmental Checklis

AESTHET

ENVIRON

cs. Would the

a substantial a

antially damagmited to, trees,ngs within a st

antially degrady of the site an

e a new source would adversarea?

ENVIRONM

ources are ges experience uld negativelyoccur.

WTP is locatedal fields to thead (UPR) to thlocated appr

nto County Gecated on both

w profile and min Cities Roady flat agricultutrains are visib

DISCUSSIO

e a substan

nificant Imparesource that e considered a

te includes a tinctive from uctures dot thnding the foo

t

TICS

NMENTAL ISSUES

project:

dverse effect o

ge scenic resou, rock outcroppate scenic high

de the existing nd its surround

e of substantiaely affect day o

MENTAL SET

nerally defineand appreciay alter the per

d in a rural, age south and whe east. Stateoximately 0.5eneral Plan (Sh sides of Twi

minimal lightid or SR 99 or ural land and ble from the

ON

ntial advers

act. A scenic vis indigenousa scenic vista

developed Wother low‐prhe horizon, anotprint of the

S

on a scenic vist

rces, includingpings, and histhway?

visual charactedings?

l light or glare or nighttime vi

TTING

ed as both thtion of the enrceived visua

gricultural arewest, undevel Route (SR) 95 mile south oSacramento Cn Cities Road

ing (for securfrom residenscattered treWWTP.

se effect on

vista is generas to the area..

WWTP surrounofile developnd the WWTPexisting WW

WWTP Fac

PoteSign

Imp

ta?

g, but toric

er or

iews

e natural andnvironment. Dl character an

ea within unioped habitat 9 is located aof the WWTPCounty 2011a)d and motoris

rity purposes ces along Twees in the dist

n a scenic v

ally considereThe project s

nded by agricment in the vP blends in to

WTP, this chan

cilities Master Pla

entially ificant pact

LessSign

wMit

Incor

d built featureDepending onnd quality of t

ncorporated conservationabout 2,200 feP site and is pr). Sensitive vists along SR 9

only), the WWwin Cities Roadtance, as well

vista?

ed a view of asite does not

cultural land. viewshed. Nuo this landscange would not

an and Phase I Imm

ss-than-nificant with tigation rporated

LesSig

I

es of the landn the extent tthe environm

Sacramento n land to the eet east of throposed to beiewers near t99 and Twin C

WTP is not a d. Views froml as at least tw

an area that hcontain any

From Twin Cumerous farmpe. Although t be substant

Ascent E

mediate Improvem

ss-than-gnificant mpact

N

dscape that coto which a prment, aesthet

County. It is bnorth, and thhe WWTP sitee a scenic corhe WWTP incCities Road.

noticeable fem the project wo cellular/ra

has remarkabaesthetic reso

ities Road, thm facilities, buthe proposedtially different

Environmental

City of Galt ments NOP/IS

No Impact

ontribute oject’s ic

bounded he Union e. Twin rridor in clude

eature to site are adio

ble ources

he project ildings, d project t from



the existing view of the WWTP. The proposed project would include both new facilities and expansion of existing facilities. Proposed facilities would be visible to persons living in the residences located on both sides of Twin Cities Road (approximately 0.5 mile to the south) and motorists along Twin Cities and Road SR 99 (approximately 2,200 feet to the east). Although views of the site would be altered, the project would not substantially change the visual character of the site because the proposed project would be located at or immediately adjacent to the already developed WWTP site, which includes buildings ranging in height from 10 to 20 feet tall. The proposed facilities would be similar in height and visual appearance as the existing WWTP facilities. Minimal lighting would be used at the expanded WWTP for security purposes, consistent with current conditions.

Because the proposed project would not adversely affect a scenic vista, this impact would be less than significant.

b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?

No Impact. The proposed project would not be located near a designated or eligible state scenic highway (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2011). Furthermore, the proposed project would not damage scenic resources, including but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings. Therefore, no impact would occur.

c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. See item a), above. The proposed project would be located in a rural, agricultural area. While the project includes expansion of the WWTP site, it would represent a negligible change in the surrounding visual character, and the change would be visually consistent with the landscape. The proposed project would not substantially change the visual character or quality of the site because the project would be located at or immediately adjacent to the already developed WWTP site, and would include utility infrastructure consistent with current uses at the site. The proposed facilities would be similar in height and visual appearance as the existing WWTP facilities. The visual character of the site, even with the proposed new facilities, would remain essentially unchanged from its existing condition. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Glare is caused by light reflections from pavement, water, vehicles, and building materials such as reflective glass and polished surfaces. During daylight hours, the amount of glare depends on the intensity and direction of sunlight. At night, artificial light can cause glare. The proposed project would include the addition of new lighting fixtures, primarily for the security needs of the WWTP. New lighting would be installed within the WWTP site and would be directed downward, and fully screened to avoid nighttime lighting spillover effects on adjacent land uses and nighttime sky conditions. The limited amount of new lighting would represent a negligible addition relative to the existing facility lighting. In addition, proposed facilities would be constructed with non‐reflective materials, as are the existing facilities. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

In

3

3

nitial Study Enviro

3-6

A3.2

II. Agricultu

In determininsignificant envthe CaliforniaAssessment MCalifornia Depto use in assedetermining wtimberland, aagencies mayDepartment ostate’s inventRange Assessproject; and fprovided in FoResources Bo

Would the pro

a) ConveFarmlashownFarmlaCalifor

b) ConfliWilliam

c) ConfliforestsectioResouTimbeCode s

d) Resultforest

e) Involvwhichconveconve

onmental Checklis

AGRICUL

ENVIRON

ure and Forest

g whether impvironmental ef Agricultural LaModel (1997, apartment of Cossing impacts owhether impacre significant e refer to informof Forestry andory of forest lament Project aforest carbon morest Protocolsard.

oject:

ert Prime Farmand of Statewin on the maps and Mapping arnia Resources

ct with existingmson Act cont

ct with existing land (as definn 12220(g)), tiurces Code secterland Productsection 51104(

t in the loss of land to non‐fo

ve other change, due to their lrsion of Farmlarsion of forest

t

LTURE A

MENTAL ISSUES

Resources.

pacts to agricuffects, lead ageand Evaluations updated) preonservation as on agriculture cts to forest resenvironmental mation compiled Fire Protectioand, including tand the Forest measurement ms adopted by t

land, Unique Fde Importanceprepared pursand Monitorings Agency, to no

g zoning for agract?

g zoning for, oed in Public Remberland (as dtion 4526), or tion (as defined(g))?

forest land or orest use?

es in the existiocation or natand to non‐agr land to non‐fo

AND FOR

S

ltural resourceencies may refn and Site epared by the an optional mand farmland.sources, includeffects, lead ed by the Califon regarding ththe Forest andLegacy Assessmethodology he California A

Farmland, or e (Farmland), asuant to the g Program of ton‐agricultural

gricultural use o

r cause rezoninesources Code defined by Pubtimberland zond by Governme

conversion of

ng environmenure, could resuricultural use oorest use?

WWTP Fac

REST RE

PotenSigni

Imp

es are er to

odel . In ding

ornia he d ment

Air

as

he use?

or a

ng of,

blic ned ent

nt, ult in or

cilities Master Pla

ESOURC

ntially ificant pact

LessSign

wMiti

Incor

an and Phase I Imm

CES

s-than-nificant with igation rporated

LesSig

Im

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

Environmental


No Impact



3.2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The California Department of Conservation (CDC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) classifies agricultural land in eight categories based on soil quality and irrigation status. Based on the FMMP data, the 298‐acre project site includes land designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, Grazing Land, Urban and Built‐Up Land, and a small amount of Unique Farmland (Exhibit 3‐1). Some of the agricultural land is used by the City to dispose of biosolids and/or treated effluent.

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, commonly referred to as the Williamson Act, enables local governments to enter into contracts with private landowners for the purpose of preserving agriculture and restricting unnecessary conversion to urban uses. Under the contract, landowners receive reduced property tax assessments based on the property’s value for farming and open space uses as opposed to full market value.

No forests are located within or adjacent to the project site.

3.2.2 DISCUSSION

a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project includes expansion of the existing WWTP footprint to the immediate west and south. This expansion could result in the conversion of up to 35 acres of agricultural land that is designated as Farmland of Statewide Importance, which is considered Important Farmland under CEQA. The actual amount of land conversion would likely be less than 35 acres; however, for purposes of this analysis, the maximum area of disturbance was used. This impact would be considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract?

Potentially Significant Impact. The 298‐acre project site is designated for Public/Quasi‐Public land uses. Agricultural land surrounds the project site; however, it is unknown if any of this land is under a Williamson Act contract or whether the proposed project would conflict with this designation, especially the proposed expansion of the WWTP onto agricultural land. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?

No Impact. The project site is designated for Public/Quasi‐Public land uses. There is no existing zoning for forest land within the project area, nor is the site forested. The project area is already developed with similar WWTP facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

No Impact. The project site is not forested. Therefore, no forest lands would be lost or converted to non‐forest uses as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur.



Source: Data provided by FMMP in 2010 and West Yost in 2012; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 3-1 Potential Disturbance of Farmland



e) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?

Potentially Significant Impact. Indirect impacts on agricultural lands can occur in two ways: 1) by urban development increasing property values, or extending infrastructure, thereby placing pressure on adjacent agricultural lands to convert to non‐agricultural uses; or 2) through land use conflicts between the proposed use and the agricultural use leading eventually to the diminishment of the agricultural use (for example, reduction of viable cropland in response to crop‐dusting‐related complaints from a new adjacent subdivision).

The proposed project includes the expansion of the existing WWTP on up to 35 acres of Important Farmland within the City’s 298‐acre incorporated property, which is zoned Public/Quasi‐Public. It is not anticipated that expansion of the WWTP would conflict with the surrounding agricultural land uses because crops grown on the City property are (and would continue to be) selected based on WWTP reclamation activities. Nonetheless, this issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.

The purpose of the WWTP Facilities Master Plan is to accommodate the City’s anticipated growth identified in the 2030 General Plan. However, the potential growth‐inducing effects of WWTP expansion, and the potential for secondary effects related to conversion of farmland, will be analyzed in the EIR.

In

3

3

I

Wadd

W

nitial Study Enviro

3-10

A3.3

III. Air Quality

Where availabapplicable air qdistrict may bedetermination

Would the pro

a) Conflicapplicai. Shii. Lo

b) Violatesubstanviolatioi. Sh

Poii. Lo

Airiii. Mo

c) Result any critnon‐attambienemissioozone

i. ShCri

ii. LoCri

d) Exposeconceni. Sh

Poii. Lo

PoToxic Air C

i. ShCo

ii. LoCo

e) Create numbe

onmental Checklis

AIR QUA

ENVIRON

y.

le, the significaquality managee relied on to ms.

oject:

t with or obstrable air quality ort‐Term Consng‐Term Oper

e any air qualityntially to an exon? ort‐Term Consollutants and Prng‐Term Operr Pollutant andobile Source Ca

in a cumulativeteria pollutanttainment undent air quality stons which exceprecursors)?

ort‐Term Consiteria Pollutantng‐Term Operiteria Pollutant

e sensitive recentrations? ort‐Term Consollutants and Prng‐Term Operollutants and PrContaminants ort‐Term Consontaminants ng‐Term Operontaminants

objectionableer of people?

t

ALITY

MENTAL ISSUES

ance criteria esement or air pomake the follow

ruct implemenplan? struction ation

y standard or cxisting or proje

struction‐Relatrecursors ational‐Relatedd Precursor Emarbon Monoxid

ely considerab for which the er an applicabltandard (includeed quantitativ

struction‐Relatt ational‐Relatedt

eptors to subst

struction Relatrecursors ational Relatedrecursors

struction Relat

ational Related

odors affectin

S

stablished by tollution controwing

tation of the

contribute cted air quality

ted Criteria Air

d Regional Critmissions de Emissions

ble net increaseproject regione federal or stading releasing ve thresholds f

ted Increase of

d Increase of a

antial pollutan

ed Criteria Air

d Criteria Air

ed Toxic Air

d Toxic Air

ng a substantia

WWTP Fac

PotenSignif

Imp

the ol

y

teria

e of n is ate

for

f any

any

nt

l

cilities Master Pla


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

an and Phase I Imm

s-than-icant with igation rporated

LesSig

Im

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

Environmental


No Impact



3.3.1 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

The project site is located in Sacramento County and the Sacramento Valley Air Basin (Basin). Air quality within the Sacramento County portion of the Basin is regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the California Air Resources Board (ARB), and the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District (SMAQMD). Each agency develops rules, regulations, and/or policies to comply with applicable legislation.

EPA and ARB have set ambient air quality standards for certain air pollutants to protect the public health and welfare. U.S. EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), inhalable particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), and lead (Pb). ARB has set California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) that are the same or are more stringent than the corresponding federal standards. The CAAQS also include standards for sulfates, hydrogen sulfide, and visibility.

If an area has not achieved the NAAQS or CAAQS for any criteria pollutant, U.S. EPA and ARB classifies it as a nonattainment area for the respective criteria pollutant. A nonattainment area is required to have an air quality attainment plan (AQAP) to attain and maintain the required standards.

Sacramento County is designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone (reactive organic gases [ROG] and oxides of nitrogen [NOx]), PM10, and PM2.5, and as an attainment area for all other pollutants.

The project site currently operates as a WWTP and generates relatively low levels of emissions associated primarily with stationary sources (such as pumps) and employee trips. Five acres of solar panels on the City’s 298‐acre property provide power to the WWTP, reducing emissions related to energy generation/use. Nearby sensitive receptors include residences located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road, as well as residences located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the project site on the north side of Twin Cities Road.

3.3.2 DISCUSSION

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?

Short-Term Construction Potentially Significant Impact. During construction of the proposed project, criteria air pollutant emissions would be temporarily and intermittently generated from a variety of sources. Project‐related excavation and site grading activities would generate PM dust emissions. Fugitive PM dust emissions are primarily associated with ground disturbance and material transport and vary as a function of parameters such as soil silt content and moisture, wind speed, acreage of disturbance area, and the intensity of activity performed with construction equipment. Exhaust emissions from diesel equipment, material transport trips, and construction worker‐commute trips also contribute to short‐term increases in PM emissions, but to a lesser extent. Exhaust emissions from these construction‐related mobile sources would also include ROG and NOx. In addition, the application of architectural coatings (i.e., interior and exterior surface painting) would result in off‐gas emissions of ROG. Project construction of this scale could potentially conflict with SMAQMD’s AQAP. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and this issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.

Long-Term Operation Potentially Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would result in long‐term air pollutant emissions from minor project‐generated motor vehicle trips, and from stationary sources (including new treatment facilities and generator). Project operation could potentially conflict with SMAQMD’s AQAP. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.



b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation?

Short-Term Construction-Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Potentially Significant Impact. See item a), above. Construction‐related ground‐disturbance, in combination with construction worker trips and delivery truck trips, has the potential to result in criteria air pollutants that exceed applicable air quality standards. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

Long-Term Operational-Related Regional Criteria Air Pollutant and Precursor Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. See item a), above. Project operation would result in air pollutant emissions from project‐generated motor vehicle trips and stationary sources. Thus, project‐generated emissions from operation have the potential to violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, including the non‐attainment status of Sacramento County ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. As a result, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

Project Related Local Mobile-Source Carbon Monoxide Emissions Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Carbon monoxide (CO) concentration is a direct function of vehicle idling time and, thus, traffic flow conditions. Under specific meteorological conditions, CO concentrations near congested roadways and/or intersections may reach unhealthy levels with respect to local sensitive land‐uses such as residential areas, schools, and hospitals. Occurrences of localized CO concentrations (i.e., “hotspots”) are often associated with heavy traffic congestion, which most frequently occur at signalized intersections of high‐volume roadways. Both project construction and long‐term operation would result in minor amounts of additional traffic to the surrounding intersections that could potentially increase CO emission levels; however, this increase would not be significant and the project site is not located near a high‐volume intersection. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

Short-Term Construction-Related Increase of any Criteria Pollutant Potentially Significant Impact. Sacramento County is designated as a federal and state nonattainment area for ozone, PM10, and PM2.5. Construction‐related ground‐disturbance, in combination with construction worker trips and delivery truck trips, has the potential to generate criteria air pollutants that exceed applicable air quality standards and contribute to the nonattainment status of the region. As a result, project construction‐generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could be cumulatively considerable. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

Long-Term Operational-Related Increase of any Criteria Pollutant Potentially Significant Impact. As described in items a) and b), above, long‐term project operation would result in additional sources of criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project could contribute to the nonattainment status of the region, and the proposed project could contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. As a result, project operation‐generated emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors could be cumulatively considerable. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.



d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?

Short-Term Construction Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Potentially Significant Impact. The closest sensitive receptors include residences located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road, as well as residences located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the project site on the north side of Twin Cities Road. Other surrounding land uses consist of agriculture land. Construction‐related ground‐disturbance, in combination with construction worker trips and delivery truck trips, has the potential to generate criteria air pollutants that exceed applicable air quality standards and adversely affect sensitive receptors in the vicinity, therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

Long-Term Operational Related Criteria Air Pollutants and Precursors Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in b) above, project implementation could result in regional (e.g., NOx, PM10) or local (e.g., CO) emissions of criteria air pollutant or precursors from operational‐related activities that would exceed applicable SMAQMD thresholds of significance. Thus, project‐generated criteria air pollutant and precursor emissions could expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

Toxic Air Contaminants

Short-Term Construction-Related Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants Potentially Significant Impact. Project‐related construction activities would result in short‐term emissions of diesel particulate matter exhaust (diesel PM) from construction equipment and on‐road trucks delivering equipment and materials to/from the site. Particulate exhaust emissions from diesel‐fueled engines (diesel PM) were identified as a toxic air contaminant (TAC) by ARB in 1998. Diesel PM is the focus of this discussion because, according to ARB, the potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM outweighs the potential for all other (non‐cancer) health impacts (ARB 2003, 2009). Thus, nearby sensitive receptors could be exposed to increased levels of diesel PM, including the residences located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site on the south side of Twin Cities Road, as well as residences located approximately 2,700 feet southeast of the project site on the north side of Twin Cities Road. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

Long-Term Operational Related Emissions of Toxic Air Contaminants Potentially Significant Impact. Project operation would result in TAC emissions from project‐generated motor vehicle trips and stationary sources. As a result, this impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?

Potentially Significant Impact. The occurrence and severity of odor impacts depend on numerous factors, including the nature, frequency, and intensity of the source; wind speed and direction; and the presence of sensitive receptors. Although offensive odors rarely cause any physical harm, they still can be unpleasant, leading to considerable distress and often generating citizen complaints to local governments and regulatory agencies. No historical WWTP records or correspondence with Public Works staff indicate any odor complaints in the last eight years (pers. comm., Clarkson 2012).

Minor odors from the use of on‐site equipment during construction activities would be intermittent and temporary, and would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance. However, the modification and expansion of WWTP facilities pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan could create objectionable odors that could affect nearby sensitive receptors. As a result, this impact would be potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

In

3

3

I

3

TstccROir

Tp

nitial Study Enviro

3-14

B3.4

IV. Biological

a) Have athrougidentifispeciesregulatGame o

b) Have ahabitatin localthe CalFish an

c) Have aprotectClean Wvernal filling,

d) Interfenative with escorridosites?

e) Conflicbiologior ordi

f) ConflicConserPlan, oconserv

3.4.1 E

The project sisea level. Thethe project sitconservation channel of SkRiver. The WWOperations annclude drawireservoir, pon

The proposedproposed WW

onmental Checklis

BIOLOGI

ENVIRON

Resources. W

substantial adh habitat modied as a candids in local or regtions, or by theor the U.S. Fish

substantial adt or other sensl or regional plifornia Depart

nd Wildlife Serv

substantial adted wetlands aWater Act (inclpool, coastal, ehydrological in

re substantiallresident or mistablished nativors, or impede

t with any locacal resources, nance?

t with the provrvation Plan, Nr other approvvation plan?

ENVIRONM

te is located i project site ite is undeveloland as well aunk Creek, a tWTP also inclund maintenanng down the nds, and surro

d project wouWTP expansio

t

CAL RES

NMENTAL ISSUES

Would the proje

dverse effect, eifications, on adate, sensitive,gional plans, poe California Deh and Wildlife S

dverse effect oitive natural coans, policies, oment of Fish avice?

dverse effect oas defined by Suding, but notetc.) through dnterruption, or

y with the movgratory fish or ve resident or the use of nat

al policies or orsuch as a tree

visions of an adatural Commuved local, regio

MENTAL SET

in an agricults bordered boped. Land noas a conservatributary to Ludes an 18‐acnce activities reservoir andounding berm

ld be locatedn would inclu

SOURCE

S

ect:

either directly oany species or special‐statolicies, or partment of FiService?

n any riparian ommunity idenor regulations ond Game or th

n federally Section 404 of tt limited to, madirect removal,other means?

vement of anywildlife speciemigratory wildive wildlife nur

rdinances protpreservation p

dopted Habitanity Conservatonal, or state h

TTING

ural area of Sy agriculturalorth of the prtion bank helLaguna Creek,cre effluent stat the reservod ponds to rems.

within or imude approxim

WWTP Fac

ES

PotenSigni

Imp

or

tus

sh and

ntified or by he U.S.

the arsh, , ?

y es or dlife rsery

tecting policy

t tion abitat

Sacramento Cl fields on theroject site incld by Wildlan, which flows torage reservoir and pondsmove sedime

mediately admately 35 acre

cilities Master Pla


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

County at appe east, south, cludes Swainsds Inc. Nearb to the Mokevoir and smals are implement, and remo

djacent to thees of agricultu

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

proximately 3and southwe

son’s hawk foby waterbodieelumne River vler adjacent rented on an aoving vegetat

e existing WWural land to th

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

0 feet above est. Land nortraging habitaes include a rvia the Cosumrectangular pas‐needed bation from the

WTP footprint;he west and s

Environmental


No Impact

mean thwest of at emnant mnes ponds. asis and

; the south.



Current vegetation management activities on the City‐owned agricultural land include mowing for weed abatement and fire prevention.

SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES

A literature review and biological reconnaissance survey were conducted in 2009 to determine the presence of special‐status plant and wildlife species and their habitat at the WWTP site, including the adjacent agricultural areas (City of Galt 2009b).

Based on information obtained from the 2009 literature review and regulatory agencies, 16 special‐status plant species and 19 special‐status wildlife species were initially identified as potentially occurring in the proposed project vicinity (City of Galt 2009b). Additionally, in 2009, a biological reconnaissance survey was conducted, the results of which indicate that no vernal pools were present on the project site (City of Galt 2009b). Thus, special‐status species that are associated with vernal pools were excluded from further evaluation. However, the 2009 project footprint was limited to 9.5 acres, while the current project footprint is larger and includes areas that may not have been subject to survey in 2009. Therefore, there may be vernal pools present on the current project site and thus special‐status species that are associated with vernal pools may also be present. The same could be true for special‐status plants, which were not identified in the 2009 project footprint, but could be present in the current project footprint.

Based on the 2009 literature review and field survey, the WWTP site (including the adjacent agricultural areas) represents habitat for the following special‐status wildlife species: giant garter snake (Thamnophis giga), western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), white‐tailed kite (Elanus leucrus), and tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), as well as other bird species protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act (City of Galt 2009b).

No special‐status resident fish species occur in Skunk Creek or Laguna Creek and there are no documented occurrences of special‐status anadromous fishes occurring in either of these water bodies. However, the Cosumnes River and its terminal drainage, the Mokelumne River, support annual runs of Central Valley Evolutionarily Significant Unit (ESU) fall‐run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), a federal species of concern. In addition, the Lower Cosumnes‐Lower Mokelumne Hydrologic Unit, which contains the tributaries Laguna Creek and Skunk Creek, is identified as Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for Chinook salmon. Finally, the Mokelumne River supports an annual run of Central Valley ESU steelhead (O. mykiss) and some of these fish may stray into the Cosumnes River each year (City of Galt 2009b).

3.4.2 DISCUSSION

a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special-status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on a literature review and field survey conducted in 2009, the WWTP site (including the adjacent agricultural areas) represents habitat for the following special‐status wildlife species: giant garter snake, western burrowing owl, Swainson’s hawk, white‐tailed kite, and tricolored blackbird, as well as other bird species protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act. Additionally, special‐status plant species and special‐status wildlife species associated with vernal pools may be present at the current project site, which is larger than the 2009 project site. If the proposed project would result in disturbance to or loss of any special‐status species or their habitat, a significant impact would result. This impact is potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.



b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on a field survey conducted in 2009, no riparian or other sensitive natural communities occur at the WWTP site. However, the adjacent agricultural land was not included in the previous survey, and may contain riparian or other sensitive habitat that could be affected by the proposed project. This impact is potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?

Potentially Significant Impact. Based on a delineation of waters of the United States completed at the project site in 2008, no federally protected wetlands (as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act) are present within the WWTP site. However, the adjacent agricultural land was not included in that wetland delineation, and may contain wetlands that could be affected by the proposed project. If the project would remove, fill, or hydrologically interrupt any wetlands identified on the project site, a significant impact would result. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be further analyzed in the EIR.

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The project site is located within the Pacific flyway, which is a major north‐south route for migratory birds along western North America. Large numbers of waterfowl, shorebirds, and cranes may move through the area seasonally, and may congregate in wetlands, grasslands, and agricultural fields for winter or for use as resting grounds during longer migrations from the Arctic to Central or South America. However, the proposed project would not create a barrier to movement of migratory species. The proposed project would not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

No Impact. The proposed project would not include the removal of trees; therefore, it would not conflict with any tree retention policies as defined by the City of Galt General Plan (Policy COS‐3.2 Mature Tree and Woodland Preservation). Further, the proposed project would not conflict with other local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impact would occur.

f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?

No Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan (HCP), natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP because the project would not be located in an area covered by any such plans. The City has formally agreed to participate in the South Sacramento County Habitat Conservation Plan, which is currently being drafted by Sacramento County



and is in the initial stages of environmental review; however, the plan has not been adopted. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with adopted HCPs. No impact would occur.

In

3

3

V

3

TcMwm

AD

3

a

Nmpa

b

Prdp

nitial Study Enviro

3-18

C3.5

V. Cultural R

a) Cause aof a his

b) Cause aof an a15064.

c) Directlyresourc

d) Disturboutside

3.5.1 E

The project siconducted in Most recentlywhich indicatemile radius of

Additionally, iD. to identify

3.5.2 D

a) Causdefin

No Impact. Nomeet the defiproject site. Ta historical re

b) Causpurs

Potentially Sigrecords searcduring construpresent. This

onmental Checklis

CULTURA

ENVIRON

Resources. Wou

a substantial astorical resourc

a substantial archaeological r5?

y or indirectly ce or site or un

b any human ree of formal cem

ENVIRONM

te has been t1978 by Peaky, in 2009, a re that no prevf the project s

in 2009, a recpaleontologic

DISCUSSIO

se a substaned in Sect

o historical renition of “uniTherefore, thesource. No im

se a substauant to Sec

gnificant Imphes and field uction, whichimpact is con

t

AL RESO

MENTAL ISSUES

uld the project

dverse changece as defined i

dverse changeresource pursu

destroy a uniqnique geologic

emains, includmeteries?

MENTAL SET

the subject ofk & Associateecords searchviously knowsite (City of G

cords search acal resources

ON

antial advetion 15064

esources listeique archaeoe proposed prmpact would

antial advection 1506

pact. No archsurveys. Imp

h could result nsidered pote

OURCES

S

t:

e in the significn Section 1506

e in the significuant to Section

que paleontolofeature?

ing those inter

TTING

f multiple cults and an overh by the Nortn cultural resalt 2009b).

and field surv on the proje

rse change4.5?

ed on or eligiblogical resourroject would occur.

rse change64.5?

aeological reslementation in impacts tontially signific

WWTP Fac

S

PotenSigni

Imp

ance 64.5?

ance n

gical

rred

tural resourcerview in 1994h Central Infosources are lo

vey was conduct site; no fos

e in the sign

ble for the Carces” were idnot cause a s

e in the sign

sources wereof the proposo significant bcant and will

cilities Master Pla


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

es inventorie4 by Ric Windormation Cenocated on the

ucted by palessil material w

nificance o

lifornia Regisdentified withsubstantial ad

nificance o

e identified onsed project wburied archaebe evaluated

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

s, including amiller, Consunter was conde project site

eontologist Kewas observed

of a historic

ter of Historihin or immedidverse change

of an archa

n the project would result ineological resod further in th

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

an intensive stulting Archaeoducted, the reor within a qu

enneth L. Fingd (City of Galt

cal resource

cal Resourcesately adjacene in the signif

eological re

site during pn soil disturbaurces if they he EIR.

Environmental


No Impact

tudy ologist. esults of uarter‐

ger, Ph. t 2009b).

e as

s or that nt to the ficance of

esource

revious ance are



c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?

Potentially Significant Impact. No paleontological resources or unique geological features have been identified on the project site or in the project vicinity as a result of previous records searches and field surveys. Project‐related excavations are likely to encounter late Pleistocene alluvial sediments of the Riverbank Formation beneath the surface layers of artificial fill overlying agriculturally disturbed soil. The Riverbank Formation includes several vertebrate fossil localities in Sacramento County and is, therefore, considered to have a high paleontological sensitivity. Previously recovered fossils include those of horse, camel, Columbian mammoth, ground sloth, dire wolf, coyote, bison, pocket gopher, wood rat, broad‐footed mole, garter snake, and blackfish (City of Galt 2009b). However, the potential of adversely affecting these resources is low because vertebrate fossils in floodplain sediments like those of the Riverbank Formation are distributed as localized deposits and their occurrence is therefore unpredictable. Nonetheless, because the potential exists for the proposed project to adversely affect a unique paleontological resource, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?

Potentially Significant Impact. There are no known human remains located on the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would involve soil disturbance during construction, which could result in impacts to any interred on‐site human remains, although their presence is unlikely. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be evaluated further in the EIR.

In

3

3

V

3

TtCs

SL

Tat

nitial Study Enviro

3-20

G3.6

VI. Geology a

a) Exposeadversedeath i

i) RudeEaGesuCa42

ii) Str

iii) Seliq

iv) La

b) Result

c) Be locathat woand pospread

d) Be locaof the Ucreatin

e) Have soof septsystemof wast

3.6.1 E

The project artrough locateCosumnes grosedimentary d

Soil types undLoam (U.S. De

The topograpabove mean sthe land surfa

onmental Checklis

GEOLOG

ENVIRON

and Soils. Wou

e people or strue effects, inclunvolving:

upture of a knoelineated on thrthquake Faulteologist for thebstantial evidelifornia Geolog2.)

rong seismic gr

ismic‐related guefaction?

ndslides?

in substantial s

ated on a geoloould become uotentially resulting, subsidenc

ated on expansUniform Building substantial r

oils incapable otic tanks or altems where sewerte water?

ENVIRONM

rea is locatedd between thoundwater sudeposits (DW

derlying the pepartment of

hy of the prosea level. Groace (DWR 201

t

GY AND S

NMENTAL ISSUES

ld the project:

uctures to poteuding the risk o

own earthquake most recent t Zoning Map ie area or basedence of a knowgical Survey Sp

round shaking?

ground failure,

soil erosion or

ogic unit or soiunstable as a ret in on‐ or onsie, liquefaction

sive soil, as defng Code (1994risks to life or p

of adequately ernative wasters are not avai

MENTAL SET

in the Great he Coast Rangubbasin. Soils WR 2006).

project area coAgriculture,

ject vicinity isundwater lev11).

SOILS

S

:

ential substantof loss, injury, o

e fault, as Alquist‐Priolo ssued by the Sd on other wn fault? (Referpecial Publicati

?

, including

the loss of top

l that is unstabesult of the prote landslide, lan, or collapse?

fined in Table 14, as updated),property?

supporting the water disposalable for the d

TTING

Valley Geomges on the wein this groun

onsist of San Natural Reso

s relatively flavels near the

WWTP Fac

PotenSigni

Imp

tial or

State

r to on

psoil?

ble, or oject, ateral

18‐1‐B

e use al isposal

morphic Provinest and the Sidwater subba

Joaquin‐Galt urces Conserv

at with elevatproject area

cilities Master Pla


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

nce of Califorerra Nevada asin are unco

complex, Sanvation Servic

tions ranging range from a

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

nia, which is on the east, aonsolidated to

n Joaquin Silte [NRCS] 201

from approxpproximately

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

a broad strucand overlies to semi‐conso

t Loam, and M12).

ximately 38 toy 76 to 96 fee

Environmental


No Impact

ctural the lidated

Madera

o 50 feet et below



The project area is approximately 70 miles east of San Francisco within Seismic Risk Zone 3, which requires additional earthquake safety building requirements (City of Galt 2005). No active, identified Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones are located within the project area (CDC 2010), and the nearest active fault, Greenville, is located approximately 42 miles southwest of the City (City of Galt 2005).

The project area would be subject to ground shaking from the active and potentially active faults in the Bay Area. Ground shaking at the project area would depend on the magnitude and location of an earthquake and the project area’s soils. Peak ground accelerations in the Galt area, as estimated by the California Geological Society, range from 0.2 to 0.3 gravity (g), which corresponds to a Modified Mercalli Scale Intensity Value of VIII. A Modified Mercalli Scale Intensity Value of VIII would result in little damage to specially built structures, considerable damage to ordinary buildings, severe damage to poorly built structures, and some walls may collapse (City of Galt 2005).

3.6.2 DISCUSSION

a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:

i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? (Refer to California Geological Survey Special Publication 42.)

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The proposed site is not located in an Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone and the nearest faults are located at least 42 miles away. Because surface ground rupture along faults is generally limited to a linear zone a few feet wide, ground rupture because of a fault across the project site is unlikely. Therefore, hazards associated with a potential fault rupture are considered less than significant.

ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. If a seismic event occurs at a nearby fault, seismic induced settlement could affect the project site. The extent of damage would depend on a soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake. The proposed project would be subject to ground accelerations of approximately 0.3 g and would be located within Seismic Risk Zone 3 (City of Galt 2005). Potential ground shaking at the project site could expose people or structures to potentially substantial adverse impacts. Project design and construction would conform to the standards contained within California Building Code (CBC) Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage from strong seismic ground shaking. Because the proposed project would conform to applicable CBC regulations, potential hazards associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.

iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?

No Impact. Liquefaction is the sudden temporary loss of strength in saturated, loose to medium dense, granular sediments subjected to ground shaking. Liquefaction can cause foundation failure of buildings and other facilities due to the reduction of foundation bearing strength. During a seismic event, the extent of damage from ground failure including liquefaction would depend on the soil characteristics, groundwater depth, and duration and intensity of the earthquake.

Areas with the greatest potential for liquefaction are those in which the water table is less than 20 feet below the ground surface (City of Galt 2005). Because the depth to groundwater under the project site is moderate



(approximately 76 feet below the ground surface) and sources of seismic activity are at least 42 miles away, the potential for liquefaction at the project site is considered low.

As mentioned in item ii) above, project design and construction would conform to CBC Title 24, which identifies specific design requirements to reduce damage from ground failure and liquefaction. Because proposed facilities would conform to applicable CBC and local regulations, potential hazards associated with strong ground failure or liquefaction would be minimized. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

iv) Landslides?

No Impact. The topography of the project vicinity is relatively flat with elevations ranging from approximately 38 to 50 feet above mean sea level. Therefore, the project site would not be subject to landslides. No impact would occur.

b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Soils underlying the project site have a high shrink‐swell capacity (NRCS 2012).Depending on wind and rain conditions, grading activities could result in the potential for erosion and sedimentation of site soils both on‐ and off‐site. During construction activities, graded, excavated, and stockpiled soil could be exposed to erosion via wind and surface water runoff. The City would be required to prepare project grading/improvement plans for a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as part of its National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for construction activities administered by the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB). The SWPPP would include a description of construction activities and would identify the BMPs that that would be employed to prevent soil erosion and discharge of other construction‐related pollutants (e.g., petroleum products, solvents, paints, cement) that could contaminate nearby water resources. A monitoring program is required to ensure that BMPs are implemented according to the SWPPP and are effective at controlling discharges of stormwater‐related pollutants. Because the City is required to develop a SWPPP, consistent with SWRCB standards, which would minimize the potential soil erosion or the loss of topsoil, this impact would be considered less than significant.

c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or onsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The specific soil types underlying the project area are San Joaquin‐Galt complex, San Joaquin Silt Loam, and Madera Loam. These soils are not considered unstable and would not be expected to result in on‐ or off‐site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse (City of Galt 2005). Moreover, the proposed project would be designed to meet all applicable Uniform Building Code (UBC) engineering requirements to ensure that new facilities would not be affected by the above geologic hazards. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994, as updated), creating substantial risks to life or property?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Expansive soils are soils that are high in expansive clays or silts and that swell and shrink with wetting and drying, respectively. This shrinking and swelling can result in differential ground movement, which can cause damage to foundations. However, proper fill selection, moisture control, and compaction during construction can prevent these types of soils from causing significant damage.

Soils underlying the project site have a high shrink‐swell capacity (NRCS 2012) and could be considered expansive soil as defined by the NRCS Soil Survey data; locating the project on expansive soils could create



property risks if the soils are not properly compacted. However, the proposed project would be designed in conformance with the applicable CBC, which has specific site development and construction standards by soil type to prevent expansive soil hazards. Because proposed facilities would include appropriate design measures to minimize potential expansive soil hazards consistent with State and local regulations, this impact would be considered less than significant.

e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?

No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems. Therefore, no impact would occur.

In

3

3

V

3

Cdaeh

HiayCSe(

Eogi

Lceta

nitial Study Enviro

3-24

G3.7

VII. Greenhou

a) Generaindirecenvironi.) Sh

Emii.) Lo

Em

b) Conflicadoptegreenhi.) Sh

Emii.) Lo

Em

3.7.1 E

Certain gases determining tatmosphere, aeffect are carbhexafluoride.

Human‐causentensifying thas global climyears can be eChange 2007)Senate Bill (SBenvironmentaHealth and S

Emissions of Gon a cumulatiglobal climatempact with re

Legislation ancontext and aenvironmentathe cumulativare occurring

onmental Checklis

GREENH

ENVIRON

use Gas Emissio

ate greenhousetly, that may hnment? ort‐Term Consmissions ng‐Term Opermissions

t with an applied for the purphouse gases? ort‐Term Consmissions ng‐Term Opermissions

ENVIRONM

in the earth’sthe earth’s sua phenomenobon dioxide (

ed emissions ohe greenhousate change oexplained wit). By adoptionB) 97, the statal impacts. ABafety Code Se

GHGs have thve basis, to ge change, GHGespect to glob

d executive o process for dal consequencve impacts of and are expe

t

HOUSE G

NMENTAL ISSUES

ons. Would th

e gas emissionhave a significa

struction Relat

ational Related

icable plan, popose of reducin

struction Relat

ational Related

MENTAL SET

s atmosphererface temperon known as tCO2), methan

of these GHGse effect and r global warmthout the conn of Assemblyte of CalifornB 32 mandateection 38530)

he potential toglobal climateG emissions fbal climate ch

orders on thedeveloping ances from GHGGHGs. Small ected to wors

GAS EMI

S

e project:

s, either directant impact on t

ed Greenhous

d Greenhouse

licy or regulating the emission

ed Greenhous

d Greenhouse

TTING

e, classified asrature. GHGs the greenhoune, nitrous ox

s in excess ofhave led to aming. It is extrtribution fromy Bill (AB) 32, ia has acknowes that emissi).

o adversely ae change. Althfrom multiplehange.

subject of clin enforceableGs and globalcontributionsen over time

WWTP Fac

SSIONS

PotenSigni

Imp

tly or the

e Gas

Gas

ion ns of

e Gas

Gas

s greenhouseare responsibuse effect. Proxide, hydroflu

f natural amb trend of unnremely unlikem human actthe Californiawledged that ons of GHGs

ffect the envhough the eme projects thro

imate changee statewide caclimate chans to this cumu) may be pote

cilities Master Pla

S


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

e gases (GHGsble for “trappominent GHGuorocarbons,

bient concentnatural warmiely that globaivities (Interga Global Warthe effects omust be capp

ironment becmissions of onoughout the w

e in Californiaap on GHG emnge, CEQA requlative impacentially consi

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

s), play a critiping” solar raGs contributinperfluorocarb

trations are reing of the earl climate changovernmentarming Solutioof GHG emissiped at 1990 l

cause such eme single projeworld could r

a have establimissions. Givequires that lect (from whichiderable and t

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

cal role in diation in theng to the greebons, and sul

esponsible forth’s climate, nge of the pal Panel on Clins Act of 200ions cause adevels by the y

missions contect will not caresult in a cum

shed a statewen the naturead agencies eh significant etherefore sig

Environmental


No Impact

e earth’s enhouse fur

r known

ast 50 mate 6, and dverse year 2020

tribute, ause mulative

wide e of evaluate effects nificant.



The project would be located in Sacramento County. According to the Legislature, in AB 32, global warming will “have detrimental effects on some of California’s largest industries, including agriculture, wine, tourism, skiing, recreational and commercial fishing, and forestry” (Health and Safety Code Section 38501[b]). Sacramento County’s economy relies on many of these industries, and could experience economic and public health damages related to changes in vegetation and crop patterns, lower summer reservoirs, and increased potential for flooding and air pollution that hotter temperatures can produce.

3.7.2 DISCUSSION

a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?

Short-Term Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. GHG emissions generated by the proposed project during construction would predominantly be in the form of CO2. Emissions would be associated with mobile‐source exhaust from construction worker commute trips, truck haul trips, and equipment used on the project site (e.g., excavators, graders). Depending on the size of the project footprint and duration of construction activities, project construction could generate GHG emissions that could have a significant impact on the environment. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

Long-Term Operational Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would add minor if any additional mobile sources of GHGs as increases in employment, if any, would be minor. The project would treat more wastewater, and wastewater has the potential to release substantial quantities of greenhouse gases, depending on the design of the WWTP. Therefore, the proposed project could have a cumulatively considerable and, therefore, potentially significant impact on climate change. This issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

Short-Term Construction Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. As described in item a) above, project construction has the potential to result in GHG emissions that could exceed applicable thresholds and, therefore, construction‐related activities from the proposed project could potentially conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

Long-Term Operational Related Greenhouse Gas Emissions Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in item a) above, the operational‐related GHG emissions associated with this project could be substantial. Because operation of the proposed project could generate substantial GHG emissions, the proposed project could potentially conflict with the goals of AB 32 and other applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, this impact is considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

In

3

3

V

3

HpS(Uwc

nitial Study Enviro

3-26

H3.8

VIII. Hazards a

a) Create environdisposa

b) Create environand/orhazard

c) Emit haacutelywithin school?

d) Be locahazardGovernwould the env

e) For a por, whetwo miwould residin

f) For a pwould residin

g) Impair an adoevacua

h) Exposeloss, inwhere where

3.8.1 E

Hazardous waproperties thaSpecifically, hRCRA) hazardU‐list (discardwaste (i.e., ignconsidered ha

onmental Checklis

HAZARD

ENVIRONM

nd Hazardous

a significant hnment throughal of hazardous

a significant hnment throughr accident condous materials

azardous emissy hazardous maone‐quarter m?

ated on a site wous materials snment Code Seit create a signvironment?

roject located ere such a planiles of a public the project resg or working in

roject within tthe project resg or working in

implementatiopted emergenation plan?

e people or strujury, or death wildlands are residences are

ENVIRONM

aste is definedat make it potazardous wasdous wastes lded commercnitability, corazardous was

t

DS AND

MENTAL ISSUES

Materials. Wo

azard to the ph the routine trs materials?

azard to the ph reasonably foditions involvininto the enviro

sions or handleaterials, substamile of an existi

which is includesites compiledection 65962.5 nificant hazard

within an airpn has not beenairport or pubsult in a safety n the project a

he vicinity of asult in a safety n the project a

on of or physiccy response pl

uctures to a siginvolving wildladjacent to urbe intermixed w

MENTAL SET

d by the Califtentially dangstes include wists—the F‐lisial waste prorosivity, reactes.

HAZARD

S

ould the proje

ublic or the ransport, use,

ublic or the oreseeable upsng the release oonment?

e hazardous orances, or wasteing or propose

ed on a list of pursuant to and, as a resuto the public o

ort land use pl adopted, withblic use airport,hazard for peorea?

a private airstrihazard for peorea?

cally interfere wlan or emergen

gnificant risk ofland fires, inclubanized areas

with wildlands?

TTING

fornia Departgerous or harwaste listed ost (non‐specifducts)—or thtivity, or toxic

WWTP Fac

DOUS M

PotenSignif

Imp

ct:

or

set of

r e d

lt, or

lan hin , ople

ip, ople

with ncy

f uding or

ment of Toxicrmful to humaon one of the fic source wahat exhibits oncity). Certain

cilities Master Pla

MATERIA

ntially ficant

pact

LessSignific

MitigIncorp

c Substances an health or tfour Resourcstes), K‐list (sne of the fouwastes know

an and Phase I Imm

ALS

s-than-cant with gation porated

LesSig

Im

Control (DTSthe environmce Conservatisource‐specifr characteristwn to contain

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

SC) as a wastement (DTSC 20on and Recovic wastes), P‐tics of a hazarmercury are

Environmental


o Impact

e with 007). very Act ‐list, and rdous also



Prior to the construction of the WWTP in 1983, the project area was used for agriculture. The project area is not located on a site with known hazardous materials (DTSC 2012). According to U.S. EPA’s Envirofacts website database, no superfund sites or RCRA‐listed generators of hazardous waste are located adjacent to or within the project area (EPA 2012).

Current hazardous materials use at the WWTP consists of small amounts of products containing hazards materials used for routine maintenance and repair.

3.8.2 DISCUSSION

a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Project construction activities would involve the use, storage, and transport of potentially hazardous products such as paints, solvents, glues, and cements. Petroleum hydrocarbon products such as gasoline, diesel, and lubricants would be used in heavy equipment and construction vehicles.

Consistent with current WWTP operations, hazardous materials would be used, stored, and transported to the project site in compliance with hazardous materials regulations to support long‐term operations. Such materials would include herbicides for vegetation control (i.e., Roundup, stored quantities not to exceed 55 gallons), 12% sodium‐hypochlorite (i.e., bleach, stored in quantities not to exceed 55 gallons), polymers for sludge processing (up to 2,000 gallons), diesel fuel (2,500 gallons), lubricating oils, and commercial and household‐type maintenance products such as cleaning agents and degreasers, paints, and pesticides. Transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and Caltrans. The City would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations, including the California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (Cal‐OSHA) and DTSC requirements and manufacturer’s instructions, during project construction and operation. Because the proposed project would implement and comply with all existing hazardous material regulations, impacts related to the creation of significant hazards to the public or environment through the routine transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials would be unlikely. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.

b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and/or accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Hazardous materials can present a risk to people or the environment through improper handling or use of hazardous materials or hazardous wastes, particularly by untrained personnel; environmental unsound disposal methods; transportation accidents; or fire, explosion, or other emergencies. In addition, the project site is located over a half‐mile from any residences, and any potential spills would be unlikely to pose a significant hazard to the public. Implementation of applicable local, state, and federal regulations and standards would help ensure that potential public health and environmental hazards would be minimized. Additionally, the City will prepare and implement a spill prevention control and countermeasures program during project construction to minimize the potential for, and effects from, spills of hazardous, toxic, or petroleum substances during construction activities. Because the proposed project would implement and comply with existing hazardous material regulations, this impact would be less than significant.



c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?

No Impact. Construction and operation of the proposed project would include the use of common hazardous materials, such as diesel fuel, lubricants, and detergents. These materials would be handled consistent with state and federal regulations. There are no existing or proposed schools located within 0.25 mile of the project. The nearest school to the project site is Lake Canyon Elementary School, which is located approximately 0.9 mile southeast of the project site (at 800 Lake Canyon Avenue). No handling of hazardous materials would occur within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?

No Impact. The project site is not identified as a hazardous materials site (DTSC 2012). Thus, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment as a result of existing hazardous material contamination. Therefore, no impact would occur.

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. The Mustang Airport is a private airport located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. The nearest public airport is Franklin Field Airport, which is located approximately 6 miles east of the project site. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, the proposed project would not create safety hazards for people living or working in the project area as a result of being in close proximity to an airport. Therefore, no impact would occur.

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area?

No Impact. There are no private airstrips located near the project site. The closest private airport, Mustang Airport, is located approximately 2.8 miles southeast of the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not create safety hazards for people living or working in the project area as a result of being in close proximity to a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact would occur.

g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?

No Impact. The project area is not currently used for evacuation purposes. To ensure that project construction does not interfere with any adopted City or County emergency operations plans, emergency access to the project area would be maintained at all times. Long‐term project operation would not noticeably increase the vehicle or truck trips associated with the existing WWTP operations. The proposed project would not interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.



h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Land uses in the project area consist primarily of agricultural uses. The project would not result in the placement of housing or other structures that would contain substantial numbers of people, and no wildlands are located on or near the project site. Therefore, the risk associated with wildland fires is considered less than significant.

In

3

3

I

3

Tp(

nitial Study Enviro

3-30

H3.9

IX. Hydrology

a) Violaterequire

b) Substasubstanthere wlowerinproducto a levplanne

c) Substasite or course result i

d) Substasite or course rate orwould

e) Create the capsystempollute

f) Otherw

g) Place hmappeInsuranmap?

h) Place wthat wo

i) Exposeinjury, a result

j) Result

3.9.1 E

The City is locprecipitation Western Reg

onmental Checklis

HYDROL

ENVIRON

y and Water Q

e any water quaements?

ntially depletentially with growould be a netng of the local ction rate of prvel that would d uses for whi

ntially alter thearea, includingof a stream orn substantial o

ntially alter thearea, includingof a stream or amount of surresult in on‐ or

or contribute pacity of existinms or provide sued runoff?

wise substantia

housing within ed on a federal nce Rate Map o

within a 100‐yeould impede o

e people or struor death involvt of the failure

in inundation b

ENVIRONM

cated in a Medin the City is agional Climate

t

LOGY AN

NMENTAL ISSUES

Quality. Would

ality standards

groundwater oundwater rec deficit in aquigroundwater tre‐existing neanot support exch permits hav

e existing draing through the ar river, in a maon‐ or onsite er

e existing draing through the ar river, or substrface runoff in r onsite floodin

runoff water wng or planned ubstantial addi

ally degrade wa

a 100‐year floFlood Hazard or other flood

ear flood hazarr redirect flood

uctures to a sigving flooding, of a levee or d

by seiche, tsun

MENTAL SET

diterranean capproximatele Center 2005

ND WAT

S

the project:

s or waste disc

supplies or intharge such thafer volume or table level (e.grby wells woulxisting land useve been grante

nage pattern oalteration of thnner which worosion or siltat

nage pattern oalteration of thtantially increaa manner whing?

which would exstormwater dritional sources

ater quality?

od hazard areaBoundary or Fhazard delinea

rd area structud flows?

gnificant risk ofincluding flooddam?

nami, or mudflo

TTING

climate with dly 17.7 inches5).

WWTP Fac

ER QUA

PoteSign

Im

harge

terfere at a g., the ld drop es or ed)?

of the he ould tion?

of the he ase the ch

xceed rainage s of

a as lood ation

res

f loss, ding as

ow?

dry, warm sums, with most o

cilities Master Pla

ALITY

entially nificant

mpact

LesSignif

MitInco

mmers and cooccurring from

an and Phase I Imm

ss-than-ficant with tigation rporated

LeSig

I

ool, wet wintm November

Ascent E

mediate Improvem

ess-than-gnificant mpact

N

ters. Annual through Mar

Environmental


No Impact

rch



SURFACE WATER RESOURCES

The project area is located in the Lower Cosumnes River watershed hydrologic area, which is a subunit of the San Joaquin hydrologic region. The WWTP discharges treated effluent into a remnant channel of Skunk Creek (year round). Effluent is conveyed approximately 0.6 mile in Skunk Creek at which point it flows into Laguna Creek, a tributary to the Lower Cosumnes River. The Lower Cosumnes River is tidally influenced approximately 1.5 to 2 miles downstream of its confluence with Laguna Creek. The Cosumnes River joins the Mokelumne River within the Delta, approximately 5 miles downstream of the WWTP.

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

The Central Valley RWQCB has established beneficial uses for the Cosumnes River as: agricultural supply, municipal and domestic supply, contact and non‐contact recreation, warm and cold freshwater habitat, warm and cold migration, warm and cold spawning habitat, and wildlife habitat (Central Valley RWQCB 2011). These beneficial uses would also apply to the river’s tributary streams. The water quality of the Cosumnes River is designated as impaired by the Central Valley RWQCB for exotic species on the 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of water quality limited stream segments (Central Valley RWQCB 2007). The SRWCB approved new revisions to the 303(d) list in October 2010, which are awaiting approval by U.S. EPA. If approved, the Cosumnes River will also be listed as impaired for Eschericia coli (E. coli) bacteria and sediment toxicity, both resulting from unknown sources. Laguna Creek is not identified as water quality limited on either the 2006 or 2010 Section 303(d) lists.

Effluent discharges to Skunk Creek from the WWTP are regulated by the Central Valley RWQCB under the City’s WDRs/NPDES permit (Order No. R5‐2010‐0099, NPDES No. CA0081434), which was renewed on September 23, 2010. The NPDES permit regulates the allowable concentrations and loadings of constituents that have the potential to affect beneficial uses of the receiving water so that the discharge complies with all applicable water quality standards. Since the issuance of the new NPDES Permit, the WWTP has been authorized to discharge treated effluent to Skunk Creek year‐round. However, during the irrigation season, there is generally little to no discharge into Skunk Creek due to the demand for irrigation water. For example, on May 10, 2012, off‐site discharge was stopped to fill the reservoir in anticipation of summer irrigation demand. Discharge is not expected until July 2012.

FLOODING

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100‐year floodplain is defined as the area that will be inundated by the flood event having a one‐percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The one‐percent annual chance flood is also referred to as the base flood or 100‐year flood. The majority of the 298‐



acre property, including the existing treatment process area, is not located within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain; however, much of the effluent reservoir, parts of the WWTP storage ponds, and small portions of the agricultural areas of the City’s property are within the 100‐year floodplain associated with Skunk Creek as shown in Exhibit 3‐2.

STORMWATER

Stormwater facilities at the existing WWTP site drain to the existing treated effluent storage reservoir, or to the WWTP headworks for treatment.

GROUNDWATER RESOURCES

The project area is located in the Cosumnes Subbasin of the San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin. The groundwater quality of the Cosumnes Subbasin is characterized by calcium‐magnesium or calcium‐sodium bicarbonate types. The subbasin’s water quality has been impaired in some locations for pesticides. Groundwater levels in the subbasin are generally at the mid‐1980s levels (DWR 2006). Historic groundwater levels near the project area ranged from approximately 76 to 96 feet below the land surface (DWR 2011).

3.9.2 DISCUSSION

a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?

Potentially Significant Impact. Project‐related construction activities would involve grading, earth moving, excavation, infrastructure development, and building construction. During construction, disturbed portions of the project site would be subject to wind erosion, rainfall, and winter stormwater runoff events. Construction activities could result in soil erosion, siltation, or flooding. Specifically, construction activities such as grading could result in disturbance of soils and sediments that could be carried into local water bodies (such as Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) during storm events. Further, accidental discharges of construction‐related fuels, oils, hydraulic fluid, and other hazardous substances could contaminate stormwater flows or increase siltation in nearby water bodies, resulting in a reduction in stormwater quality on the project site or downstream of the project area. Therefore, the project could result in potentially significant water quality impacts during construction. This impact will be analyzed further in the EIR.

The Facilities Master Plan, specifically the Immediate Phase I Improvements, would improve water quality of effluent discharged to surface receiving water (i.e., primarily Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) to meet the requirements of the 2010 NPDES Permit; therefore, the project is anticipated to result in a beneficial water quality effect. However, the quantity of effluent discharge to surface receiving waters will increase as the WWTP is expanded to serve the anticipated growth in the City of Galt, based on the 2030 General Plan. Furthermore, the potential changes in impervious surfaces due to the facilities constructed as part of the project could increase the volume of runoff coming from the project area, although such increases are anticipated to be minor. Because of the long‐term nature of the Facilities Master Plan, the increased quantity of effluent discharge, and uncertainty regarding future WWTP facilities construction to meet the City’s anticipated growth, implementation of the Facilities Master Plan could result in potentially significant water quality impacts and this issue will be analyzed further in the EIR.



Source: Data provided by FEMA 2008; adapted by Ascent Environmental in 2012

Exhibit 3-2 Floodplain Map



b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Portions of the existing WWTP site are not paved and would potentially allow for groundwater recharge. The Facilities Master Plan would result in the construction of additional impermeable surfaces in the area. However, given the majority of the WWTP property is agricultural fields with permeable surfaces, an increase in impermeable surfaces at the WWTP site would not be expected to significantly affect groundwater recharge. Operation of the project would not significantly alter the existing number of employees (up to five additional employees) and would not be expected to significantly affect potable water consumption. A non‐potable water well was constructed as part of the Tertiary Filtration, UV Disinfection, and Biosolids Dewatering Project to supplement the existing use of groundwater for non‐potable purposes. However, the combined quantity and rate of water drawn from that well and the older existing well is comparable to historical pumping at the older well, other than in the rare event of a fire when fire fighting demands occur. The treatment processes to treat wastewater from the increased City population would not require a substantial increase in water from these groundwater wells. In addition, as part of the Phase I Immediate Improvements, one of the options for removing additional arsenic involves managing the City’s groundwater wells to control the maximum arsenic loads at the WWTP. However, this does not involve drawing greater amounts of groundwater from the wells. Thus, the Facilities Master Plan would have a less‐than‐significant impact on groundwater recharge and groundwater levels.

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial on- or onsite erosion or siltation?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. No streams or rivers would be altered as part of the Facilities Master Plan. The existing effluent flow meter would be altered to handle the increased effluent discharges; however this facility would be replaced and improved at its current location (Exhibit 2‐4). The construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces and would potentially alter the drainage pattern of the existing WWTP site. Storm drain facilities would be implemented and would drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks. The pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered from the existing conditions such that it would increase the potential for erosion or siltation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in on- or onsite flooding?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The area of impermeable surfaces within the WWTP site would increase as a result of the proposed project. However, the stormwater in the area would be discharged into storm drain facilities constructed as part of the project. The Facilities Master Plan would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the project area such that it would result in on‐ or off‐site flooding. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.



e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As described above, the existing WWTP site has permeable surfaces. Implementation of the Facilities Master Plan would result in new impermeable surfaces and would potentially increase the quantity of runoff. However, WWTP improvements and expansion would include storm drain facilities to capture all runoff and divert it to the existing surface reservoir or to the WWTP headworks. The project would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?

Potentially Significant Impact. See item a), above. During construction of facilities pursuant to the Facilities Master Plan, there is a potential to degrade surface water quality due to grading activities or accidental spills. Additionally, while it is unlikely that the proposed project would encounter groundwater or degrade the groundwater quality during construction activities (due to the project areas’ historic groundwater elevations at least 76 feet below the ground surface), it is possible than an accidental spill could occur during construction, resulting in hazardous materials potentially affecting the groundwater quality. These potential construction‐related water quality impacts are considered potentially significant and will be analyzed further in the EIR.

g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?

No Impact. Although portions of the project site, primarily the effluent reservoir and the treatment storage ponds, are within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain (Exhibit 3‐2), the proposed WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Phase I Immediate Improvements Project would not involve the construction or placement of any housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows?

Potentially Significant Impact. As shown in Exhibit 3‐2, portions of the City’s 298‐acre property, including the effluent reservoir, treatment storage ponds, and marginal areas of the agricultural lands, are within the FEMA 100‐year floodplain associated with Skunk Creek. Also shown on Exhibit 3‐2, the majority of proposed facilities pursuant to the WWTP Facilities Master Plan would be outside of the 100‐year floodplain. However, the potential area of disturbance and potential facilities (labeled “Additional Metals Removal” located north of the existing treatment process area) could be located within the 100‐year floodplain. Structures located within the 100‐year floodplain could impede or redirect flood flows. This would be a potentially significant impact and will therefore be analyzed further in the EIR.

i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?

No Impact. The project area is not located adjacent to a levee. A treated effluent storage reservoir is located within the WWTP site. However, the Facilities Master Plan would not alter the reservoir. Therefore, there would be no risk of loss, injury, or death from either natural flooding, levee failure, or from dam inundation and there would be no impact.



j) Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. A seiche, though unlikely, could occur in the existing storage reservoir at the WWTP site. However, the proposed project’s facilities would be constructed at least 5 feet above the water surface and would not be affected by inundation as a result of a seiche. Because of the distance from the nearest large body of water—the Pacific Ocean, approximately 70 miles to the west—it is unlikely that the proposed project would be affected by inundation as a result of a tsunami. Finally, the project site is surrounded by agricultural land in a relatively flat area. As such, the site is not susceptible to large‐scale mudflows. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

A

CW

3

X

3

S

SW

3

a

Pwcscict

Ascent Environmen


S3.10

X. Stormwat

a) Result proces

b) Result stormwactiviti

c) Result from mfuelingwashinor storoutdoo

d) Cause treceivibenefitintegritdischar

e) Cause sof stormthe potproject

3.10.1 E

STORMWATE

Stormwater faWWTP headw

3.10.2 D

a) Resu

Potentially Sigwould involveconstruction, stormwater ruconstruction anto local watcould result inthe EIR.

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

STORMW

ENVIRON

ter Quality. Wo

in increase of es?

in an increase water runoff froes?

in an increase material storage, vehicle or eqng), waste handage, delivery aor work areas?

the impairmenng waters or at or cause signity of the waterrge of stormwa

significant chamwater runofftential for signt site and surro

ENVIRONM

ER

acilities at theworks for trea

DISCUSSIO

ult in increa

gnificant Impe grading, eardisturbed pounoff events.activities sucher bodies (sun potentially s

ase I Immediate Im

WATER Q

NMENTAL ISSUES

ould the proje

erosion during

of the level of om the post‐co

of the discharge areas, vehicleuipment maintdling, hazardouareas or loading

nt of the benefreas that provificant harm onrways and watater?

nges in the flof to cause enviificant increasounding areas?

MENTAL SET

e existing WWtment.

ON

ase of eros

pact.As discusrth moving, exortions of the Constructionh as grading cch as Skunk Csignificant ero

mprovements NOP

QUALITY

S

ect:

g the construct

pollutants in onstruction

ge of stormwae or equipmentenance (incluus materials hag docks, or oth

ficial uses of ide water qualn the biologicaer bodies by th

w velocity or vronmental hares in erosion o?

TTING

WTP site drain

ion during

ssed in Sectioxcavation, infproject site wn activities cocould result inCreek and Lagosion impacts

P/IS

Y

PoteSign

Im

ion

ter nt ding andling her

ity al he

volume rm and of the

n to the existi

the constr

on 3.9.2 a), abfrastructure dwould be subjould result in sn disturbanceguna Creek) ds during cons

entially nificant

mpact

LesSignif

MitInco

ing treated ef

uction proc

bove, project‐development,ject to wind esoil erosion, se of soils and during storm estruction. This

Initial

ss-than-ficant with tigation rporated

LeSig

I

ffluent storag

cess?

‐related cons, and buildingerosion, rainfsiltation, or flsediments thevents. Theres impact will

Study Environmen

ess-than-gnificant mpact

N

ge reservoir, o

truction activg constructionfall, and wintelooding. Spechat could be cefore, the probe analyzed f

ntal Checklist

3-37

No Impact

or to the

vities n. During er cifically, carried oject further in



b) Result in an increase of the level of pollutants in stormwater runoff from the post-construction activities?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2 c), d) and e), above, the construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces, which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff coming from the project area, although any increase in stormwater runoff volume is anticipated to be minor and storm drain facilities that drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks would be implemented. The volume and pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered from the existing conditions such that it would increase the potential for erosion or siltation. Furthermore, the proposed WWTP facility upgrades and expansion would not provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

c) Result in an increase of the discharge of stormwater from material storage areas, vehicle or equipment fueling, vehicle or equipment maintenance (including washing), waste handling, hazardous materials handling or storage, delivery areas or loading docks, or other outdoor work areas?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. See discussion under b), above. The construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces, which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff coming from the project area, although any increase in stormwater runoff volume is anticipated to be minor and storm drain facilities that drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks would be implemented. The volume and pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

d) Cause the impairment of the beneficial uses of receiving waters or areas that provide water quality benefit or cause significant harm on the biological integrity of the waterways and water bodies by the discharge of storm water?

Potentially Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2 a), above, project‐related construction activities would involve grading, earth moving, excavation, infrastructure development, and building construction, which could result in soil erosion, siltation, or flooding. Specifically, construction activities such as grading could result in disturbance of soils and sediments that could be carried into local water bodies (such as Skunk Creek and Laguna Creek) during storm events. Such construction‐related stormwater discharge could result in potentially significant impacts to the biological integrity of the waterways during construction. This impact will be analyzed further in the EIR.

e) Cause significant changes in the flow velocity or volume of stormwater runoff to cause environmental harm and the potential for significant increases in erosion of the project site and surrounding areas?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As discussed in Section 3.9.2 c), d) and e), above, the construction of new WWTP facilities would result in an increase of impermeable surfaces, which could increase the volume of stormwater runoff coming from the project area, although any increase in stormwater runoff volume is anticipated to be minor and storm drain facilities that drain to the treated effluent storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks would be implemented. The volume and pattern of existing stormwater runoff from the WWTP site would not be significantly altered from the existing conditions such that it would increase the potential for erosion or siltation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

A

CW

3

X

3

TPlf2

3

a

Nttb

b

Ntd

c

Nbn

Ascent Environmen


L3.11

XI. Land Use

a) Physica

b) Conflicregulatprojectspecificordinanmitigat

c) Conflicor natu

3.11.1 E

The City of GaPublic land usibraries, musfacilities, and 2009a).

3.11.2 D

a) Phys

No Impact. Ththe City’s WWthe north, andby the propos

b) Confjurisdplanor m

No Impact. Thto all applicabdesignations.

c) Confcons

No Impact. Asboundaries ofnot conflict w

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

LAND US

ENVIRONM

and Planning.

ally divide an e

t with any apption of an agent (including, buc plan, local conce) adopted fting an environ

t with any appural community

ENVIRONM

alt’s General Pse designationeums, governsimilar and c

DISCUSSIO

sically divid

he proposed pWTP. The WWd undevelopesed project. T

flict with andiction ove, local coasitigating an

he project siteble zoning reqTherefore, n

flict with anservation p

s described inf an adopted with such plan

ase I Immediate Im

SE AND

MENTAL ISSUES

Would the pro

established com

plicable land usncy with jurisdiut not limited toastal programfor the purposenmental effect?

plicable habitaty conservation

MENTAL SET

Plan designatn applies to pnment officesompatible us

ON

e an estab

project wouldWTP site is surred land on theTherefore, no

ny applicaber the projestal programn environm

e is designatequirements. To impact wou

ny applicablan?

n Section 3.4, HCP or naturs. No impact

mprovements NOP

PLANNI

S

oject:

mmunity?

se plan, policy, iction over theo, a general pl, or zoning e of avoiding o?

t conservation n plan?

TTING

tes the 298‐acpublic facilities and courts, cses; this use is

blished com

d involve the rounded by ae other threeimpact woul

ble land usect (includinm, or zonin

mental effec

ed Public/QuaThe proposeduld occur.

ble habitat c

“Biological Rral communitywould occur.

P/IS

ING

PotenSignif

Imp

or an,

or

plan

cre project sits such as schochurches, mes typically loc

mmunity?

construction agricultural la sides. No exid occur.

e plan, poling, but not ng ordinancct?

asi‐Public und project facili

conservatio

Resources,” thy conservatio.

ntially ficant

pact

LessSignific

MitigIncorp

te as Public/Qools, fire stateeting halls, ccated through

of new and end uses, an eisting commu

cy, or regu limited to, ce) adopted

der the City oities are cons

on plan or

he project siteon plan. There

Initial


LesSig

Im

Quasi‐Public. tions, hospitacemeteries anhout the com

expansion of environmentaunities would

lation of an a general d for the pu

of Galt’s Geneistent with th

natural com

e does not lieefore, the pro

Study Environmen


N

The Public/Qls, sanitariumnd mausoleummunity (City o

existing facilial mitigation b be physically

n agency wplan, specurpose of a

eral Plan and che zoning and

mmunity

e within the oposed projec

ntal Checklist

3-39

No Impact

Quasi‐ms, ms, public of Galt

ities at bank to y divided

with ific

avoiding

conforms d land use

ct would

In

3

3

X

3

TCt

3

a

Npt

b

Ns

nitial Study Enviro

3-40

M3.12

XII. Mineral R

a) Result resourcresiden

b) Result mineragenera

3.12.1 E

The project arCity’s 2030 Getherefore wer

3.12.2 D

a) Resuthe r

No Impact. Beproposed projto the region

b) Resudelin

No Impact. Thspecific plan,

onmental Checklis

MINERA

ENVIRONM

Resources. Wou

in the loss of ace that would nts of the state

in the loss of aal resource recol plan, specific

ENVIRONM

rea does not eneral Plan EIre scoped out

DISCUSSIO

ult in the loregion and

ecause the prject would noand the resid

ult in the loneated on a

here are no loor other land

t

L RESO

MENTAL ISSUES

uld the project

availability of abe of value to e?

availability of aovery site delinc plan, or other

MENTAL SET

contain any sIR, impacts ret of the Gene

ON

oss of availa the residen

roject site doeot result in thdents of the st

oss of availaa local gene

ocally importad use plan tha

URCES

S

t:

known minerathe region and

locally importneated on a locr land use plan

TTING

state or locallelated to mineral Plan EIR [C

ability of a nts of the s

es not contaie loss of avaitate. Therefo

ability of a eral plan, s

ant mineral reat include the

WWTP Fac

PotenSignif

Imp

al d the

tant cal ?

y designated eral resourceCity of Galt 20

known minstate?

n any state olability of a k

ore, no impact

locally impspecific pla

esource recovproject site.

cilities Master Pla

ntially ficant

pact

LessSignific

MitigIncorp

mineral resoes were found012]).

neral resou

r locally‐desigknown minerat would occu

portant minan, or other

very sites delTherefore, no

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

ources. (Durind be less than

urce that wo

gnated mineral resource thr.

neral resour land use p

ineated on a o impact wou

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

ng scoping forn significant a

ould be of v

ral resources,hat would be

rce recoveplan?

local generaluld occur.

Environmental


No Impact

r the nd

value to

, the of value

ry site

l plan,

A

CW

3

X

3

NTarst

Tscpdart

Ascent Environmen


N3.13

XIII. Noise. Wo

a) Exposuexcess plan orstate, o

i. Sh

ii. Lo

b) Exposuground

c) A substlevels iwithou

d) A substambienexisting

e) For a pwhere miles othe proproject

f) For a pwould the pro

3.13.1 E

Noise levels inThis scale giveare a unit of mregulated by asound level extime).

The intensity sensitive receconsidered a pattern. The rdistance, depeappears to berather than spthe distance,

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

NOISE

ENVIRON

ould the projec

ure of persons tof standards er noise ordinanor federal stan

ort‐Term Cons

ng‐Term Oper

ure of persons tdborne vibratio

tantial permann the project vut the project?

tantial tempornt noise levels g without the p

roject located such a plan haof a public airpooject expose pet area to exces

roject within tthe project expoject area to ex

ENVIRONM

n California ares greater wemeasurementa maximum sxceeded “x” p

of a sound aneptor’s distanc“point sourcerate at which ending on thee from a line rpherically. Thdepending on

ase I Immediate Im

MENTAL ISSUES

ct result in:

to or generatioestablished in tnce, or in otherdards?

struction Sourc

ational Source

to or generatioon or groundbo

nent increase invicinity above l

rary or periodicin the project project?

within an airpas not been adoort or public useople residing sive noise leve

he vicinity of apose people rexcessive noise

MENTAL SET

re typically meight to the frt indicating thound level (Lpercent of a s

nd the subjecce to that soue” of noise. Sonoise typicale ground absorather than a e rate at whicn other shield

mprovements NOP

S

on of noise levthe local generr applicable loc

ce Noise

Stationary No

on of excessiveorne noise leve

n ambient noisevels existing

c increase in vicinity above

ort land use plopted, within tse airport, wouor working in tels?

a private airstriesiding or worklevels?

TTING

measured in dequencies of he relative am

max) and/or a specific time p

tive noisinessund. Noise froound from thly dissipates forption, atmopoint as the vch traffic noisding factors.

P/IS

PotenSigni

Imp

els in ral cal,

oise

e els?

se

levels

lan or, two uld the

ip, king in

BA, which is tsound to wh

mplitude or inpercentile‐experiod (e.g., L

s or loudness om constructis type of soufrom a point ospheric condvehicles are mse generally d


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

the A‐weighteich the humantensity of a sxceeded sounL50 is the sou

is related as ion activities urce radiates source is 6 toditions, and omoving and thdissipates is 3

Initial


LesSig

Im

ed sound levean ear is mostsound. Soundnd level (Lxx).und level exce

is the intensiand stationauniformly ouo 7.5 dBA for other shieldinhe noise spre3 to 4.5 dBA fo

Study Environmen


N

el of decibelst sensitive. De levels are ty. Lxx represeneeded 50% of

ity of a soundry sources is utward in a speach doubling factors. Traeads cylindricaor each doub

ntal Checklist

3-41

No Impact

(dB). ecibels pically nts the f the

d and a

pherical ng of the affic noise ally bling of



EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT

The closest noise‐ and vibration‐sensitive land uses include residences located south of Twin Cities Road, approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site. These noise sensitive receptors are located outside the Galt City limits, in unincorporated Sacramento County. Therefore, for purposes of this analysis, predicted project‐generated noise exposure levels at sensitive receptors will be characterized using the Sacramento County noise criteria.

The project site is located in a rural, agricultural area. The project site is bordered by agricultural land uses, an environmental mitigation bank on the north, and undeveloped land on the other three sides. Twin Cities Road and SR 99 are located south and east of the project site, respectively, and would be used for project construction traffic. Additionally, the Union Pacific Railroad tracks run adjacent to the site and multiple trains pass the project site daily.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY GENERAL PLAN

The Sacramento County General Plan (2011b) establishes exterior and interior noise standards for various land uses, and regulates non‐transportation related noise sources for existing sensitive receptors. These standards are shown below in Table 3‐1.

Table 3-1 Non-Transportation Noise Standards Median (L50)/Maximum (Lmax)1

New Land Use Outdoor Area2 Interior3

Receiving Land Use Daytime Nighttime Day & Night

All Residential 55/75 50/70 35/55

Transient Lodging4 55/75 ‐ 35/55

Hospitals & Nursing Homes5,6 55/75 ‐ 35/55

Theatres & Auditoriums6 ‐ ‐ 60/50

Churches, Meeting Halls, Schools, Libraries, etc.6

55/75 ‐ 35/60

Office Buildings6 60/75 ‐ 45/65

Commercial Buildings6 ‐ ‐ 45/65

Playgrounds, Parks6 65/75 ‐ ‐

Industry6 60/80 ‐ 50/70

Notes: 1 The Table 2 (Table 3-1 in this document) standards shall be reduced by 5 dB for sounds consisting primarily of speech or music, and for

recurring impulsive sounds. If the existing ambient noise level exceeds the standards of Table 2 (Table 3-1 in this document), then the noise level standards shall be increased at 5 dB increments to encompass the ambient.

2 The primary outdoor activity area associated with any given land use at which noise-sensitivity exists and the location at which the County’s exterior noise level standards are applied.

3 Interior noise level standards are applied within noise-sensitive areas of the various land uses, with windows and doors in the closed positions. 4 Outdoor activity areas of transient lodging facilities are not commonly used during nighttime hours. 5 Hospitals are often noise-generating uses. The exterior noise level standards for hospitals are applicable only at clearly identified areas

designated for outdoor relaxation by either hospital staff or patients. 6 The outdoor activity areas of these uses (if any), are not typically utilized during nighttime hours. 7 Where median (L50) noise level data is not available for a particular noise source, average (Leq) values may be substituted for the standards of

this table provided the noise source in question operates for at least 30 minutes of an hour. If the source in question operates less than 30 minutes per hour, then the maximum noise level standards shown would apply.

Source: Sacramento County 2011

The transportation‐related standards contained in the County’s General Plan only apply to new uses that could be exposed to transportation‐related noise. Because the proposed project does not represent a new use, but rather proposes the continuation of an existing use (operation of a WWTP on City‐owned land relatively distant



from sensitive receptors), this analysis uses the non‐transportation noise standards presented in Table 3‐1. Furthermore, increases in traffic resulting from the proposed project would not result in a substantial increase in noise (i.e., above 3 dB).

SACRAMENTO COUNTY MUNICIPAL CODE

Noise regulations are also provided in Chapter 6.68 of the Sacramento County Municipal Code (Sacramento County 2012). The daytime and nighttime noise standards for residential and agricultural areas are 55 and 50 dB, respectively. Offsets are applied to the performance standards depending on the cumulative duration of the noise levels, not exceeding 75 dB Lmax during daytime hours and 70 dB Lmax during nighttime hours. Exemptions to these noise standards, as described in Section 6.68.090(e), apply to construction activities as follows:

Noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of eight p.m. and six a.m. on weekdays and Friday commencing at eight p.m. through and including seven a.m. on Saturday; Saturdays commencing at eight p.m. through and including seven a.m. on the next following Sunday and on each Sunday after the hour of eight p.m. Provided, however, when an unforeseen or unavoidable condition occurs during a construction project and the nature of the project necessitates that work in process be continued until a specific phase is completed, the contractor or owner shall be allowed to continue work after eight p.m. and to operate machinery and equipment necessary until completion of the specific work in progress can be brought to conclusion under conditions which will not jeopardize inspection acceptance or create undue financial hardships for the contractor or owner.

CITY OF GALT MUNICIPAL CODE

The City of Galt Noise Control Standards (Galt Municipal Code Title 8, Health and Safety, Section 8.40) establishes exterior noise standards as 55 dBA for daytime (7:00 AM to 10:00 PM) and 50 dBA for nighttime (10:00 PM to 7:00 AM) (Section 8.40.040). Offsets are applied to the performance standards depending on the cumulative duration of the noise levels, not exceeding +20 dB Lmax for any time per hour. Exemptions to the City’s noise standards are described in Code Section 8.40.060, and include exemption for noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading of any real property, provided the activities take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Noise associated with agricultural operations is also exempt, provided such operations take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM. Furthermore, Code Section 8.40.060K exempts public works projects, including the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, maintenance or repair of public infrastructure or facilities, from the City’s established noise standards.

3.13.2 DISCUSSION

a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or in other applicable local, state, or federal standards?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

The following discussion addresses items a), c), and d):



Short-Term Construction Source Noise Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Construction noise typically occurs intermittently and changes during construction phases (e.g., demolition/land clearing, grading and excavation, building construction). Typical noise levels for individual pieces of construction equipment are summarized in Table 3‐2. As depicted, the noise levels typically range from approximately 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet.

Project construction would generate noise and temporarily increase noise levels on the project site. Noise levels at the property line of the nearest sensitive receptors, located approximately 1,800 feet south of the project site, would depend on the noise generated by various pieces of construction equipment and the levels of noise attenuation that would result from distance, topography, and intervening structures. Construction activities would involve the use of typical construction equipment, such as cranes, a backhoe, compactors, a generator, dump and boom trucks, a sandblast pot, excavator, concrete mixer, forklifts, and a welding machine. Potential increased noise from construction would be temporary and would cease once the project is complete.

Table 3-2 Typical Reference Noise Emission Levels from Construction Equipment

Equipment Type Reference Level (Lmax dBA) @ 50 feet

Crane 85

Loader 80

Telehandler 85

Backhoe 80

Excavator 85

Grader 85

Asphalt Paver 85

Roller 85

Manlift 85

Notes: Assumes all equipment is fitted with a properly maintained and operational noise control device, per manufacturer specifications. Noise levels listed are manufacture-specified noise levels for each piece of heavy construction equipment. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 2006

Depending on the activities performed and equipment usage requirements, combined average‐hourly noise levels at construction sites typically range from approximately 65 to 89 dBA Leq at 50 feet (EPA 1971). Assuming a maximum construction noise level of 89 dBA Leq and an average attenuation rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from the source, noise levels at approximately 1,800 feet from the construction site could exceed approximately 55 dBA Leq for brief periods of time.

City of Galt Municipal Code Section 8.40.060(E) and Section 6.68.090(e) of the Sacramento County Code exempt noise associated with construction, repair, remodeling, demolition, paving or grading provided the activities take place only between the hours of 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM on weekdays and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM on Saturdays and Sundays. Furthermore, City of Galt Municipal Code Section 8.40.060(K) exempts the construction, alteration, demolition, installation, maintenance or repair of public infrastructure or facilities from the noise standards. Although the WWTP Facilities Master Plan and Immediate Phase I Improvements Project is therefore exempt from the noise standards, the City will make every effort to comply. As proposed by the City, construction activities would be limited to the daytime hours between 6:00 AM and 8:00 PM Monday through Friday and 7:00 AM and 8:00 PM Saturday and Sunday, and, thus would be consistent with the limitations of the City and County Codes. Short‐term construction noise would not result in the exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of applicable standards. This impact would be less than significant.



Long-Term Operational Source Stationary Noise Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The proposed project would include installation of additional noise‐generating sources similar and adjacent to existing sources. Existing noise associated with current operation of the WWTP includes worker vehicle travel inside the plant, oxidation aeration equipment, equipment use in the biosolids drying beds/storage areas, biosolids hauling, and potentially the use of additional back‐up emergency generators in case of power outage. Operation of the proposed project would result in up to five additional employees and associated daily vehicle trips. Expansion of the WWTP would result in the WWTP’s southern property line extending approximately 300 feet southward and, thus, closer to the noise sensitive land uses that are currently 1,800 feet away. However, even at this closer distance (i.e., 1,500 feet), predicted hourly‐average operational noise levels at the property lines of the WWTP would be less than 45 dBA Leq, which is well below the City’s and the County’s minimum noise standard for the residential land use category. Therefore, the project’s long‐term operations would not result in the exposure of people to additional long‐term operational noise levels, and additional noise would not exceed the applicable City and County noise standards. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project may result in varying degrees of temporary groundborne vibration and noise, depending on the specific construction equipment used and activities involved. Groundborne vibration and noise levels associated with various types of construction equipment and activities are summarized in Table 3‐3. It is expected that maximum groundborne vibration and noise levels would be associated with the use of trucks to haul materials to and from the project site.

Table 3-3 Representative Groundborne Vibration and Noise Levels for Construction Equipment

Equipment PPV at 25 feet (in/sec)1 Approximate Lv (VdB) at 25 feet2

Blasting 1.13 109

Large Dozer 0.089 87

Caisson Drilling 0.089 87

Trucks 0.076 86

Rock Breaker 0.059 83

Jackhammer 0.035 79

Small Dozer 0.003 58

1 Where PPV is the peak particle velocity 2 Where Lv is the root mean square velocity expressed in vibration decibels (VdB), assuming a crest factor of 4. Source: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration 2006

According to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration (FTA), levels associated with the use of trucks are 0.076 inches per second (in/sec) and 86 vibration decibels (VdB) at 25 feet. Based on FTA’s recommended procedure for applying a propagation adjustment to these reference levels, construction‐related project activities would not result in levels at the nearest sensitive receptor (i.e., residences located 1,800 feet south of the project site) that exceed Caltrans’s recommended level of 0.2 in/sec PPV with respect to the prevention of structural damage for normal buildings or FTA’s maximum acceptable level of 80 VdB with respect to human response for residential uses (i.e., annoyance).

Long‐term operation of the proposed project would not result in any major sources of vibration. Thus, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to excessive groundborne vibration levels. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.



e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

The following discussion addresses items e) and f) above:

No Impact. The project site is not located within an airport land use plan, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, or in the immediate vicinity of any private airstrip. Therefore, the project would have no noise‐related effect associated with the use of such facilities. No impact would occur.

A

CW

3

X

3

Tcsf

3

a

Puc1a

TatitpGGi

Ascent Environmen


P3.14

XIV. Populatio

a) Inducedirectlybusinesextensi

b) Displacnecesselsewh

c) Displacthe con

3.14.1 E

The City of Gacity in Sacramsurrounded bfeet south of t

3.14.2 D

a) Indupropof ro

Potentially Sigupgraded andconstruction o13.2% (U.S. Buand would no

The proposeda significant bthe upgradedmprovementthe proposed population ofGeneral Plan tGeneral Plan. mpacts that a

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

POPULA

ENVIRON

n and Housing

substantial poy (for example,sses) or indirecion of roads or

ce substantial nitating the conhere?

ce substantial nnstruction of re

ENVIRONM

alt’s estimatemento County y agriculturalthe project si

DISCUSSIO

ce substanposing new oads or othe

gnificant Impd expanded Wover approximureau of Laboot induce grow

d project woubarrier to the and expande

ts would be suproject was f 51,291 residto accommodNeverthelessare potentiall

ase I Immediate Im

TION AN

MENTAL ISSUES

g. Would the p

opulation grow, by proposing ctly (for exampr other infrastr

numbers of exinstruction of re

numbers of peeplacement ho

MENTAL SET

d population (U.S. Census l land. The neite.

ON

ntial popula homes ander infrastru

pact. The proWWTP. A maxmately 18 moor Statistics 2wth in the pro

ld increase thgrowth and eed WWTP to subject to addprojected andents at full budate this news, the potentiy significant.

mprovements NOP

ND HOUS

S

project:

wth in an area, new homes anple, through ructure)?

isting homes, eplacement ho

ople, necessitaousing elsewhe

TTING

in 2010 was Bureau 2012

earest residen

ation growtd business

ucture)?

posed projectimum of 25 eonths. As of Ju010). It is assoject area, eit

he capacity ofexpansion of tserve new groitional CEQA d planned foruild‐out (2030w growth, andial growth facThis will be a

P/IS

SING

PotenSignif

Imp

either nd

ousing

ating ere?

approximate2). No housesnces are locat

th in an areses) or indir

t would requemployees wouly 2010, Sacrumed that cother directly o

f the existing the City. Newowth, and coreview. Howr in the City of0) (City of Ga its impacts wcilitated by thaddressed in t


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

ly 24,000, wh are located wted on Twin C

ea, either drectly (for e

ire up to five ould be tempramento Couonstruction wor indirectly.

WWTP. By sow collection synstruction ofever, any newf Galt 2030 Glt 2009a). Gowere addressehe proposed pthe growth‐in

Initial


LesSig

Im

hich makes it within the proCities Road, ap

irectly (for example, th

new employporarily emplonty had an un

workers would

o doing, the pystems wouldf such collectiw growth thaGeneral Plan, oals and policied in the Cityproject could nducing impa

Study Environmen


N

the second soject site, whpproximately

example, bhrough exte

yees to operatoyed during pnemploymend be local res

project wouldd likely be reqion system t could be sewhich anticipies are outliny’s EIR on the result in indi

acts analysis o

ntal Checklist

3-47

No Impact

mallest hich is y 1,800

by ension

te the project nt rate of idents

d remove quired for

rved by pates a ed in the 2030 rect of the EIR.



b) Displace substantial numbers of existing homes, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. The proposed project would be constructed within or immediately adjacent to the existing WWTP site. No existing homes would be removed or displaced by the project’s construction or operational activities, nor would replacement housing be constructed elsewhere. Therefore, no impact would occur.

c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?

No Impact. As described in item b) above, the proposed project would be constructed within or immediately adjacent to the existing WWTP site. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace people or require the construction of replacement housing. No impact would occur.

A

CW

3

X

3

Fp11

TT2

Tmm

3

a

FLr

Ascent Environmen


P3.15

XV. Public Ser

a) Result associaalteredphysicaconstruenvironacceptaperform

Fire pro

Police p

Schools

Parks?

Other p

3.15.1 E

Fire protectioprovided by th186 employee1050 Walnut

The City of GaThe City’s pol24 police offic

The closest scmiles southeamile southeas

3.15.2 D

a) Resuor phgoveenvirtime

Fire protectLess‐than‐Sigrequire up to

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

PUBLIC S

ENVIRONM

rvices. Would t

in substantial aated with the pd governmentaally altered govuction of whichnmental impacable service ramance objectiv

otection?

protection?

s?

public facilities

ENVIRONM

n for the Cityhe Cosumneses (City of GaAvenue, appr

alt’s Police Deice force provcers (City of G

chool to the past of the projst of the WWT

DISCUSSIO

ult in substhysically alternmental fronmental s, or other

tion, policenificant Impafive new emp

ase I Immediate Im

SERVICE

MENTAL ISSUES

the project:

adverse physicprovision of neal facilities, or tvernmental fach could cause scts, in order to tios, response ves for any of t

s?

MENTAL SET

y of Galt, the Cs Community lt 2005). The roximately 1.

epartment is lvides an officGalt 2005).

project site is ject area. LakTP site.

ON

antial advetered govefacilities, thimpacts, in performan

e protectionact. As statedployees. It is a

mprovements NOP

ES

S

cal impacts w or physicallythe need for necilities, the significant maintain times, or othethe public serv

TTING

City of Elk GroServices Distnearest fire s6 miles from

located at 45er to citizen r

the Lake Canke Canyon Par

erse physicrnmental fa

he construcn order to mnce objectiv

n, schools, in Section 3.assumed that

P/IS

PotenSignif

Imp

y ew or

er ices:

ove, and somrict (CCSD) Fistation to thethe project s

5 Industrial Dratio of appro

yon Elementark is the near

cal impactsacilities, orction of whmaintain acves for any

parks, and13, “Populatit construction

ntially ficant

pact

LessSignific

MitigIncorp

me outlying arre Departmee project site iite.

Drive, approxioximately 1 to

ary School, wrest recreatio

s associatedr the need fich could ccceptable s of the pub

d other pubion and Housn workers wo

Initial


LesSig

Im

reas of Sacrament. The CCSDis Station #46

imately 2 mileo 1,000 and in

which is locatenal facility an

d with the for new or

cause signifservice ratiblic services

blic facilitiesing,” the proould be local r

Study Environmen


N

mento CountyD has 8 station6, which is loc

es from the Wncludes appro

ed approximand is approxim

provision ophysically aficant os, respons:

es? posed projecresidents who

ntal Checklist

3-49

No Impact

y is ns and cated at

WWTP. oximately

ately 0.9 mately 1

of new altered

se

ct would o would



not increase the demand for public services nor generate the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities.

The proposed project would increase the capacity of the existing WWTP, which could indirectly contribute to increased growth in the WWTP service area and a consequent increase in the need for fire or police protection, or construction of new schools, parks, or other public facilities No direct effects are expected; however, the growth‐inducing impacts of the project will be discussed in the EIR.

A

CW

3

X

3

NCar

3

a

Lpc

TiN

b

Nr

Ascent Environmen


R3.16

XVI. Recreatio

a) Increasparks osubstanoccur o

b) Includeconstrumight henviron

3.16.1 E

No recreationCity’s police dacre site, subsrecreational f

3.16.2 D

a) Increfaciliacce

Less‐than‐Sigproposed projconstruction o

The proposedncreased groNo direct effe

b) Inclufacili

No Impact. Asresidential lan

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

RECREA

ENVIRON

n. Would the p

se the use of exor other recreantial physical dor be accelerat

e recreational fuction or expanhave an adversnment?

ENVIRONM

nal facilities odepartment astantially remacility and is

DISCUSSIO

ease the usities such t

elerated?

nificant Impaject would reor of any resi

d project wouwth in the Wects are expec

ude recreatities that m

s described innd uses that w

ase I Immediate Im

TION

MENTAL ISSUES

project:

xisting neighboational facilitiesdeterioration oted?

facilities or reqnsion of recrease physical effe

MENTAL SET

r activities arnd other law

moved from thapproximate

ON

se of existinthat substa

act. As statedequire up to fidential land u

ld increase thWWTP service cted; howeve

tional facilitmight have a

n item a) abovwould increas

mprovements NOP

S

orhood and regs such that of the facility w

quire the ational facilitieect on the

TTING

e located witenforcementhe proposed cly 1 mile sout

ng neighboantial physi

in Section 3.ive new empluses that wou

he capacity ofarea and a coer, the growth

ties or requan adverse

ve, there wouse demand fo

P/IS

PoteSigni

Imp

gional

would

s that

hin the existit officers, is loconstruction theast of the

orhood andcal deterio

13, “Populatiloyees. Furthuld increase d

f the existing onsequent inch‐inducing im

uire the cone physical e

uld be minimaor recreationa

entially ificant pact

LessSignifi

MitIncor

ng WWTP sitocated withinarea. Lake CaWWTP site.

regional poration of th

ion and Housermore, the pdemand for re

WWTP, whiccrease in the pacts of the p

nstruction effect on th

al new emploal facilities. Th

Initial

s-than-icant with tigation rporated

LesSig

Im

te. A private gn the northweanyon Park is

parks or othhe facility w

sing,” of this dproject does ecreational fa

ch could indiruse of parks project will be

or expansihe environm

oyment oppoherefore, no i

Study Environmen


N

gun range, usest corner of the nearest

her recreatwould occu

document, thnot involve thacilities.

rectly contribuin the projece discussed in

on of recrement?

rtunities and impact would

ntal Checklist

3-51

No Impact

ed by the the 298‐

ional r or be

e he

ute to t vicinity. n the EIR.

eational

no new d occur.

In

3

3

X

3

ACTiB

E3rrTc24

nitial Study Enviro

3-52

T3.17

XVII. Trans

a) Conflicestablisperformaccountransit componot limfreewatransit?

b) Conflicprograstandastandamanaghighwa

c) Result either alocatio

d) Substa(e.g., shincomp

e) Result

f) Conflicregardior othesuch fa

3.17.1 E

Access to the Cities Road (aTwin Cities Roncluding HeraBoulevard are

Existing inters3‐5. Twin Citieresulting fromrestricted. AnTwin Cities Rocounts on Tw2009; Sacram4 PM to 6 PM

onmental Checklis

TRANSP

ENVIRON

sportation/Tra

t with an applishing measuremance of the cnt all modes of and non‐moto

onents of the cimited to interseays, pedestrian?

t with an applim, including, brds and travel rds establishedement agencyays?

in a change in an increase in n that results i

ntially increaseharp curves orpatible uses (e.

in inadequate

t with adopteding public tranerwise decreasacilities?

ENVIRONM

project site islso known asoad is a two‐laald, Ione, ande frontage roa

section condites Road has am fair progres LOS of D is coad immediatin Cities Roadento County .

t

ORTATI

MENTAL ISSUES

ffic. Would th

icable plan, ordes of effectivencirculation systtransportationorized travel anirculation systeections, streets and bicycle pa

icable congestibut not limited demand measd by the count for designated

air traffic patttraffic levels oin substantial s

e hazards due tdangerous int.g., farm equip

emergency ac

d policies, plansit, bicycle, or se the perform

MENTAL SET

s provided bys SR 104 east ane road thatd Jackson, to tads that para

tions and trafan LOS of C orsion and/or loonsidered actely west of thd west of SR 92008). Peak t

ON/TRA

S

e project:

dinance or polness for the em, taking inton including mand relevant em, including bs, highways andaths, and mass

ion managemeto level of ser

sures, or other y congestion d roads or

erns, includingr a change in safety risks?

to a design featersections) or pment)?

cess?

ns, or programspedestrian facance or safety

TTING

y Twin Cities Rof SR 99) runt connects Gathe east (Cityllel SR 99 on t

ffic counts for D at the inteonger cycle leceptable at thhe West Stoc99 ranged frotraffic on the

WWTP Fac

AFFIC

PotenSigni

Imp

icy

o ss

but d s

ent vice

g

ature

s cilities, of

Road and SR 9s east‐west aalt to Interstay of Galt 2005the west and

r Twin Cities ersections neaengths and inhe Twin Citieskton Boulevam 5,700 to 6,highway and

cilities Master Pla


LessSignifi

MitiIncor

99—a four‐laand is the majate 5 to the w5). West Stock east sides.

Road and SR ar SR 99. An Lndicates mosts/West Stockard intersectio,700 (City of Gd roads gener

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

ane north‐soujor arterial in

west and into Akton Boulevar

99 are providLOS of C indict drivers woulkton Blvd inteon is A (City oGalt 2005; Khally occurs fro

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

uth freeway. Tthe project vAmador Counrd and East St

ded in Tables cates higher dld feel somewersection. Theof Galt 2005).hashabi, pers.om 7 AM to 9

Environmental


No Impact

Twin vicinity. nty, tockton

3‐4 and delays what e LOS on Traffic . comm., 9 AM and



Table 3-4 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Operations

Intersection Control Peak Hour Delay (seconds) LOS

Twin Cities Road/W. Stockton Boulevard Signal AMPM

22.6 41.7

CD

Twin Cities Road/E. Stockton Boulevard Signal AMPM

21.3 28.6

CC

Notes: Signal = Signalized intersection; SSSC = Side street stop-controlled intersection Delay and LOS for the intersection and (worst movement) are reported for side street stops. Source: City of Galt 2005

Table 3-5 Average Daily Traffic Counts in the Project Vicinity

Roadway Segment 24-hr Traffic Volume

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) Volume

Level of Service Date of Collection

Twin Cities Road1 Just west of West Stockton Blvd

N/A 5,700 A 2003

Twin Cities Road2 West of Highway 99 6,700 N/A N/A 2005

Twin Cities Road3 West of Highway 99 6,181 N/A N/A 2008

N/A = not available Sources: 1 City of Galt 2005. 2 Khashabi, pers. comm., 2009. This data was collected during a 24-hour period. 3 Sacramento County 2008. This data was collected during a 24-hour period.

It should be noted that the City of Galt, in conjunction with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), plans to modify the Twin Cities Interchange on SR99 in 2012 to increase capacity on Twin Cities Road to solve current deficiencies and accommodate planned growth within both the city of Galt and within the south Sacramento County region consistent with the respective adopted General Plans and the Transportation Concept Report (TCR) for SR‐99. The project would improve traffic congestion (LOS) at the interchange, provide modern roundabouts at each of the frontage road intersections, provide a new freeway onramp in the southbound direction onto SR‐99, provide pedestrian access at the two intersections and a sidewalk on the north side of Twin Cities Road connecting the intersections, and includes American Disabilities Act (ADA) upgrades.

3.17.2 DISCUSSION

a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Project construction would result in short‐term increases in traffic on local roadways. Construction activities would include equipment and materials hauling to and from the project site, construction employee commute trips to and from the project site, and on‐site hauling of equipment and materials. The total number of construction‐related trips is expected to be approximately 2,000, with a



maximum of approximately 20 truck trips per day and an average of 5 trips per day during the 18‐month construction period. Truck trips to the project site would occur on Twin Cities Road and SR 99 generally during the hours of 7 AM to 4 PM. Although there would be some vehicle traffic associated with hauling heavy equipment and construction materials to the site, this would occur for only a few weeks at most, and would not occur throughout the duration of project construction. Workers commuting to and from the site would be associated with the largest increase in traffic volumes during construction, but this would be limited mainly to morning arrival and afternoon departures, would occur only during established daylight working hours, and would not produce a large enough traffic volume to significantly alter existing LOS designations or exceed the capacity of the existing local roadways or highway.

During project operation, truck trips would be nearly the same as existing conditions. Employee‐related trips during project operation would only slightly increase from existing conditions because of the up to five new employees who would be added.

As part of the Phase I Immediate Improvements, one of the options for removing additional arsenic involves dewatering the backwash at various wellhead locations in the City, collecting the backwash by truck, and delivering it to a land disposal facility. It is anticipated that up to 20 truck trips per month would be required to haul the residuals depending on the number of wells involved (ECO:LOGIC 2008).

As described above, the local roadways have existing LOS designations of C or better, with the exception of the peak evening hour time period for the Twin Cities Road/W. Stockton Boulevard intersection, which has an LOS of D and is still acceptable by City standards. Given the relatively low number of vehicle trips generated by the proposed project, the project is not expected to cause an exceedance of an established LOS standard on these local roadways. Cumulatively, the construction‐related traffic associated with the proposed project would be temporary and also unlikely to measurably contribute to an exceedance of the existing capacity or LOS standards on the roadways used by the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including exceeding either individually or cumulatively an LOS standard or an existing capacity established by Sacramento County for designated roads or highways. Because the proposed project would result in a relatively small number of additional construction‐related trips, and is anticipated to not appreciably change operations‐related trips over the long‐term compared with existing conditions, existing traffic load and capacity of the street system would not be significantly altered.

No mass transit facilities or pedestrian and bicycle paths are located at the project site. As discussed above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not significantly affect the capacity of SR 99 or Twin Cities Road. In addition, no bicycle or pedestrian paths are located on the access roads or highways. Thus, the proposed project would not have a significant effect on pedestrian and bicycle paths, or mass transit. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. As described in a) above, the long‐term traffic associated with project operation would not substantially affect local transportation facilities. Project construction, however, would generate substantially more trips than are currently generated; however, this would be temporary. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.



c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks?

No Impact. The closest airport to the project site is located approximately 2.8 miles to the southeast, and the proposed project does not propose any uses that could have an effect on air traffic patterns. Therefore, no impact would occur.

d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The level of traffic generated by project operations would be similar to existing levels of traffic generated by the WWTP. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased potential for conflicts with agricultural‐related traffic, including farm equipment. This impact is considered less than significant.

e) Result in inadequate emergency access?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Emergency access would be provided via Twin Cities Road. During construction activities, emergency access along Twin Cities Road would be available at all times. All construction‐related equipment and vehicles would park at the project site and would not block roadways or result in inadequate emergency access. Access to the project site would be maintained during the project operation. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?

No Impact. Project construction and operation would not result in the removal of, or need for, alternative transportation facilities such as bus turnouts or bicycle racks. The proposed project would be located in an agricultural area and it is expected that all employees would travel to the project site in personal vehicles. Therefore, the project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. No impact would occur.

In

3

3

X

3

W

T

W

Td(1

S

SS

nitial Study Enviro

3-56

U3.18

XVIII. Utiliti

a) Exceedapplica

b) Requirewastewexistingcause s

c) Requirewater dfacilitiesignific

d) Have suprojectare new

e) Result treatmprojectprojectprovide

f) Be servcapacitdisposa

g) Complyregulat

3.18.1 E

WASTEWA

The existing W

WATER SU

The City’s Pubdemands are including res1.847 million

STORMWA

Stormwater oStormwater is

onmental Checklis

UTILITIES

ENVIRONM

ies and Service

d wastewater table Regional W

e or result in thwater treatmeng facilities, thesignificant envi

e or result in thdrainage facilites, the construcant environme

ufficient watert from existing w or expanded

in a determinaent provider tht that it has adt’s projected der’s existing co

ved by a landfity to accommoal needs?

y with federal, tions related to

ENVIRONM

ATER

WWTP is desc

UPPLY

blic Works Demet through idential, comgallons with a

ATER DRA

on the projects discharged i

t

S AND S

MENTAL ISSUES

e Systems. Wo

reatment requWater Quality C

he constructiont facilities or e construction oironmental eff

he constructioties or expansioction of whichental effects?

r supplies availentitlements a

d entitlements

ation by the wahat serves or mequate capacitemand, in addommitments?

ll with sufficienodate the proje

state, and locao solid waste?

MENTAL SET

cribed in Chap

epartment opgroundwatermercial, and an average an

AINAGE

t site is captuinto the exist

SERVICE

S

ould the projec

uirements of thControl Board?

n of new wateexpansion of of which couldfects?

n of new stormon of existing could cause

able to serve tand resources,needed?

astewater may serve the ty to serve theition to the

nt permitted ect’s solid wast

al statutes and

TTING

pter 2, “Proje

erates the por supplies. Windustrial accnnual daily co

red and colleing surface re

WWTP Fac

E SYSTE

PotenSignif

Imp

ct:

he ?

er or

d

m

the , or

te

d

ct Description

otable water sater is suppliecounts). In 20onsumption o

cted by an exeservoir or to

cilities Master Pla

MS

ntially ficant

pact

LessSignific

MitigIncorp

n.” Please ref

supply and died to approxi006, total watof 4.6 mgd (C

xisting stormwo the WWTP h

an and Phase I Imm


LesSig

Im

fer to the disc

istribution syimately 7,300ter consumptCity of Galt 20

water drainagheadworks.

Ascent E

mediate Improvem


N

cussion there

stem in Galt. 0 accounts in tion in the Cit005).

ge system.

Environmental


No Impact

ein.

All water the City ty was



SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL

Solid waste generated by the City is transported and disposed of by California Waste Recovery Systems (CWRS) at one of six landfills. The landfills that receive solid waste from the City include: Arvin Sanitary Landfill, Foothill Sanitary Landfill, Forward, Inc., L‐D Landfill Co., North County Landfill, and Sacramento County Landfill. In 2003, the City produced approximately 20,000 tons of solid waste and recycled approximately 30% of that waste (City of Galt 2005).

3.18.2 DISCUSSION

a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Consistent with the stated project need and objectives, the proposed WWTP upgrades would be designed to achieve compliance with effluent requirements in the Central Valley RWQCB 2010 NPDES permit. In addition, the proposed WWTP expansion would be designed to meet the City’s wastewater treatment demands as identified in the City’s 2030 General Plan. Because proposed upgrades would improve effluent water quality relative to existing effluent water quality and would be designed to meet permit requirements, this impact would be less than significant.

b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Potentially Significant Impact. The proposed project would consist of upgrades to the existing WWTP and expansion of treatment capacity, which could result in significant impacts to agriculture, air quality, biological resources, greenhouse gas emissions, and water quality, as discussed in the relevant areas of this Initial Study. All potentially significant impacts identified herein will be addressed in the EIR.

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The existing WWTP site includes pervious surfaces and impervious surfaces and drains to the existing storage reservoir or to the WWTP headworks. The proposed project would involve the construction of impervious surfaces (i.e., paved areas and the covered facilities), and would require modification of the existing stormwater drainage system. The proposed project includes storm drain facilities to capture runoff and divert it to the existing surface reservoir or to the WWTP headworks, consistent with current WWTP operations. The environmental impacts of constructing new and/or expanding existing stormwater drainage facilities are evaluated throughout this document. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. The proposed project would not require any increase in water supplies. None of the proposed facilities would substantially increase water use at the site. No new water supply entitlements, expanded entitlements, or facilities would be required. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.



e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand, in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?

No Impact. The proposed project would increase wastewater treatment capacity to accommodate existing and projected flows in the City of Galt 2030 General Plan. Because the proposed expansion would be designed to accommodate existing and planned growth, projected demand for wastewater treatment services would be adequately served. No impact would occur.

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

Less‐than‐Significant Impact. Solid waste could be generated during project construction activities. Operations would be expected to increase the existing quantity of solid waste generated at the WWTP proportional to flow. With the exception of wastewater treatment biosolids, all solid waste generated by the project’s construction and operation activities would be disposed of at one of the landfills that serve the City (listed above). Because of the minimal quantity of solid waste expected, the project would be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste?

No Impact. The proposed project would generate minimal quantities of solid waste that would be disposed of at an appropriate landfill. Hazardous waste would not be generated and the project would comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Therefore, there would be no impact.

A

CW

3

X

ARPPv

3

a

Pca

Ascent Environmen


M3.19

XIX. Mandator

a) Does thdegradreducefish or sustainanimal range oor elimof Calif

b) Does thlimitedconsideprojectwith thcurrentproject

c) Does thcause seither d

Authority: Public Reference: Public Resources Protect the Historv. City and County

3.19.1 D

a) Doesenvirfish oplantendamajo

Potentially Sigcultural resouanalyzed furth

ntal

aster Plan and Ph

MANDAT

ENVIRONM

ry Findings of S

he project havede the quality oe the habitat ofwildlife populaning levels, threcommunity, reof an endangerminate importanfornia history o

he project haved, but cumulatierable” meanst are considerahe effects of pat projects, andts.)

he project havesubstantial advdirectly or indi

Resources Code SGovernment

Code Sections 2ric Amador Watery of San Francisco

DISCUSSIO

s the projecronment, sor wildlife pt or animalangered, raor periods o

gnificant Impurces in the prher in the EIR

ase I Immediate Im

TORY FI

MENTAL ISSUES

Significance.

e the potentiaof the environmf a fish or wildlation to drop beaten to elimineduce the numred, rare, or thnt examples ofor prehistory?

e impacts thatvely consideras that the increable when viewast projects, th the effects of

e environmentverse effects orectly?

Sections 21083, Code Sections 651080, 21083.5, 2

rways v. Amador Wo (2002) 102 Cal

ON

ct have theubstantiallpopulation l communitare, or threaof California

pact. The proroject area. TR.

mprovements NOP

NDINGS

S

l to substantiament, substantife species, caubelow self‐nate a plant or mber or restricthreatened specf the major per

are individualble? (“Cumulaemental effectswed in connecte effects of otprobable futu

tal effects thatn human being

21083.5. 5088.4. 21095; Eureka CWater Agency (20.App.4th 656.

e potential ty reduce th to drop bety, reduce tatened spea history or

posed projectTherefore, thi

P/IS

S OF SIG

PotenSignif

Imp

lly tially use a

t the cies, riods

ly atively s of a tion her re

t will gs,

itizens for Respon04) 116 Cal.App.

to substanhe habitat o

elow self-suthe numbeecies, or elir prehistory

t has the potes is a potentia

GNIFICAN

ntially ficant

pact

LessSignific

MitigIncorp

nsible Govt. v. City.4th at 1109; San

ntially degraof a fish or

ustaining leer or restrictiminate imy?

ential to subsally significan

Initial

NCE


LesSig

Im

ty of Eureka (200n Franciscans Uph

ade the quar wildlife spevels, threat the rangeportant exa

stantially affent impact and

Study Environmen


N

7) 147 Cal.App.4tholding the Down

ality of the pecies, causaten to elime of an amples of t

ect biological d these issues

ntal Checklist

3-59

No Impact

th 357; ntown Plan

se a

minate a

the

and will be



b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.)

Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will evaluate potential cumulative impacts related to agricultural resources, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, GHG emissions (global climate change), and hydrology and water quality. Aside from these issue areas, the proposed project would not result in cumulatively considerable impacts. However, the project could result in potentially cumulatively considerable significant impacts within the above issue areas, which will be evaluated further in the EIR.

c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?

Potentially Significant Impact. The EIR will evaluate environmental effects that could cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, including exposure to air pollutants and objectionable odors. Aside from these issue areas, the proposed project would not result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. However, the project could result in potentially significant impacts within the issue areas described above. These issue areas will be evaluated further in the EIR.


4 REFERENCES

ARB. See California Air Resources Board.

California Air Resources Board. 2003. HARP User Guide. Sacramento, CA.

California Air Resources Board. 2009. The California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality. Available: http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/chap109.htm. Accessed August 24, 2011.

California Department of Conservation. 2010 (January). California Geological Survey ‐ Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones, Table 4. Cities and Counties Affected by Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones as of January 2010. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/rghm/ap/Pages/affected.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2012.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2007. Defining Hazardous Waste. Available: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/HazardousWaste/upload/HWMP_DefiningHW11.pdf. Last updated February 9, 2007. Accessed April 17, 2012.

California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2012. Envirostor. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed April 17, 2012.

California Department of Transportation. 2011. California Scenic Highway Mapping System. Sacramento County. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/scenic_highways/index.htm. Last updated September 7, 2011. Accessed March 27, 2012.

California Department of Water Resources. 2006 (February 3). California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118, San Joaquin Valley Groundwater Basin, Cosumnes Subbasin. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/basindescriptions/5‐22.16.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2012.

California Department of Water Resources. 2011. Groundwater Level Data‐ Well 05N06E10P001M. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/waterdatalibrary/groundwater/index.cfm. Last updated September 13, 2011. Accessed April 17, 2012.

Caltrans. See California Department of Transportation.

CDC. See California Department of Conservation.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2007 (June 28). 2006 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List of Water Quality Limited Segments Requiring TMDLS. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/docs/303dlists2006/epa/r5_06_303d_reqtmdls.pdf. Accessed April 17, 2012.

Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board. 2011 (October). Fourth Edition of the Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins. Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/basin_plans/. Accessed April 17, 2012.

Central Valley RWQCB. See Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board.

City of Galt. 2005 (November). 2030 Galt General Plan Final Existing Conditions Report. Galt, CA. Prepared by Mintier & Associates, RACESTUDIO, Environmental Science Associates, Applied Development Economics,

List of Preparers Ascent Environmental


and Omni‐Means, Inc. Available: http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=509. Accessed March 28, 2012.

City of Galt. 2009a (April). 2030 Galt General Plan Policy Document Final. Galt, CA. Prepared by Mintier & Associates, Environmental Science Associates, Applied Development Economics, and Omni‐Means. Available: http://www.ci.galt.ca.us/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=913. Accessed April 2012.

City of Galt. 2009b (June). Initial Study/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the City of Galt Wastewater Treatment Plant Tertiary Filtration, Ultraviolet Disinfection, and Biosolids Dewatering Project. State Clearinghouse No. 2009062042. Galt, CA. Prepared by Robertson‐Bryan, Inc., Elk Grove, CA.

Clarkson, Mark A. 2012. Personal communication from Mark A. Clarkson, P.E, City of Galt Utilities Superintendent, Public Works Department, to Suzanne Enslow of Ascent Environmental regarding the lack of WWTP odor complaints. May 14, 2012.

DTSC. See California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

DWR. See California Department of Water Resources.

ECO:LOGIC Consulting Engineers. 2008 (April 20). Technical Memorandum #1, Arsenic Treatment Residuals Disposal Assessment. Prepared for the City of Galt.

EPA. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

FHWA. See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.

FTA. See U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007 (February). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Geneva, Switzerland.

IPCC. See Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Khashabi, Khosrow. Traffic Engineer. Sacramento County Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA. May 6, 2009––telephone conversation with Megan Giglini of Robertson‐Bryan, Inc. regarding traffic counts at Twin Cities Road west of Highway 99.

Mount, J., G.E. Fogg, L. Kavaas, J. Fleckenstein, M. Anderson, Z.Q. Chen, and E. Suzuki. 2001 (September). Linked Surface Water‐Groundwater Model for the Cosumnes River Watershed: Hydrologic Evaluation of Management Options to Restore Fall Flows. Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Anadromous Fish Restoration Program Cooperative Agreement No. 11332‐8‐J264. Available: http://watershed.ucdavis.edu/pdf/Mount‐et‐al‐USFWS‐2007.pdf. Accessed April 2012.

Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2012. United States Department of Agriculture Web Soil Survey. Available: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Last updated February 17, 2012. Accessed April 16, 2012.

NRCS. See Natural Resources Conservation Service.

Sacramento County. 2008 (April 15). Sacramento County Traffic Counts. Municipal Services Agency, Department of Transportation. Sacramento, CA. Available:

Ascent Environmental References


http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/transportation/Lists/Traffic%20Counts/AllItems.aspx. Accessed April 17, 2012.

Sacramento County. 2011a (November 9). Sacramento County General Plan. Adopted 1965; reflects amendments through November 9, 2011. Sacramento, CA. Available: http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/planning/Pages/GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed April 4, 2012.

Sacramento County. 2011b. Sacramento County General Plan Noise Element. Available: http://www.msa2.saccounty.net/planning/Pages/GeneralPlan.aspx. Accessed April 4, 2012.

Sacramento County. 2012. Sacramento County Code. Available: http://qcode.us/codes/sacramentocounty/view.php?topic=6‐6_68‐6_68_090&frames=on. Accessed April 4, 2012.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2010 (July). Sacramento County, CA Unemployment for July 2010. Available: http://unemployment‐rates‐county.findthedata.org/l/54928/Sacramento‐County‐CA. Accessed April 12, 2012.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2012. State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing, County Business Patterns, Economic Census, Survey of Business Owners, Building Permits, Consolidated Federal Funds Report, Census of Governments. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0628112.html. Accessed March 29, 2012.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. 2006a (January). Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Cambridge, MA.

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration. 2006b (May). Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Harris Miller Miller & Hanson, Inc. Burlington, MA.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1971 (December 31). Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and Home Appliances. Washington, D.C. Prepared by Bolt, Beranek, and Newman.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2012. EnviroMapper. Available: http://www.epa.gov/emefdata/em4ef.home. Accessed April 17, 2012.

Western Regional Climate Center. 2005 (December 31). Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary Lodi, California (045032). Period of Record 7/1/1948 to 12/31/2005. Available: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/climsmnca.html. Accessed April 17, 2012.


5 LIST OF PREPARERS

CITY OF GALT (LEAD AGENCY)

Sandra Kiriu, AICP ............................................................................................................................. Principal Planner

Mark A. Clarkson, P.E. ............................................................... Utilities Superintendent, Public Works Department

ASCENT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC. (INITIAL STUDY PREPARATION)

Gary Jakobs .................................................................................................................................... Principal‐in‐Charge

Suzanne Enslow ................................................................................................................................. Project Manager

Sarah Henningsen .................................................................................................................... Environmental Planner

Dimitri Antoniou ........................................................................................................................Noise and Air Quality

Lisa Kashiwase ........................................................................................................................................ GIS Specialist

Christy Probst ........................................................................................................................................ Graphic Artist

Amber Giffin ....................................................................................................................................... Word Processor

WEST YOST ASSOCIATES (PROJECT ENGINEER FOR FACILITIES MASTER PLAN)

Jeff Pelz, P.E. .................................................................................................................................. Principal‐in‐Charge

galt, ca | home

Documents